[Arthur Macmillan]

Thanks for all responses!  Yes, Mad Dutchman, you have been just about everywhere with macro from the sound of it!  I've tried most macro tricks over the years, but the fact of having to watch dogs or children at the same time I am taking photos limits my options a bit.  In short, give my a macro lens and a ring flash any day!

 

(I've only had the $100 Yongnou ring flash for a year or so)  I want to do more with off axis lighting and do to money consideration Canon will be Y-o-n-g-n-o-u.  (Well I think it is spelled that way).

 

I am surprised by your dislike of the Canon 100 L.  I got to try one once and, honestly, I didn't think of it much either, but the camera had the buttons customized and you could not prefocus with the shutter button, which, was odd.   You had to use your thumb on a different button, and of course move the camera slightly.  On the one hand I thought the photo just had an average look to it.  On the other hand, I saw it sitting in the number one position on a certain best lens list.  Yet on the remaining two hands Sigma and Tamron lenses in that same range seem to have very strong representatives. 

 

I haven't thought about tilt shift for macros, but I've always wanted one.  I've never used one, but seen photos where the photographer "made the world look different" which is cool.  He made it seem as though you were a tiny human in the land of the giants.  I love stuff like that!

 

I should say I have Canon Close-up lenses in three sizes:  52, 55, and 72.  I have extension tubes for EOS, and and actual set of metal M42 tubes.  I have reversing rings too.  But I really prefer just using a macro lens the best, and if I get a new one it will be for weather sealing and anti-shake, VC, perhaps.  I'm jealous of built in anti shake systems in, for example, Olympus.  I guess you could include Pentax.  I recently saw a FF Pentax and it was rather large looking.  The photographer did not seem to want to talk about it. 

 

But I've committed to Canon.  They've got the right stuff for me.


That's funny about the laughing.  Hey!  It's a lot better than crying for an hour.  The fire you for stuff like that!

[wim]

Hi Arthur,

 



I still have my old Pentax analog equipment as well, barring one I got in 1995 or thereabouts, and two zoom lenses, which I sold on as Pentax was not as good anymore by then as it used to be .

 

I had a lot of macro equipment for that system too, including an auto-bellows and the 100 F/4 macro, lots of tubes, etc. etc. I also have a few tubes for my Canon EOS system, two sets actually . In addition, I used to do a lot of micro-photography and extreme macro-photography, using mostly Leitz equipment, and my trusted Pentaxes back then .

 

The Canon 100 non-L I never liked because I did not like the way it rendered, and I also didn't like the extreme shortening of FL at close focusing distances - It goes from 100 mm to approximately 72 mm when going from infinity to 1:1. The 100L shortens even slightly more, and although it does render slightly better than the non-IS, at close focusing distances in not-so-bright light it does not render too well, and does not auto-focus too well either, IME anyway. The 100-400L did better IMO, both focusing at MFD and beyond, and has a much nicer rendering. This is what helped deciding for me to get my second 100-400L <ROFL>.

I also found at the time that the 135L rendered much more nicely for macro purposes, to me anyway . And having a 100 macro and never using it because I did not like it meant I eventually sold it . The 180L is a lot better in this regard, although it also shortens considerably at 1:1. This is really a problem with IF macro lenses. It is nice they do not get (much) longer, but that is at the cost of distance to the subject.

 

As to the TS-E's - they are one of the reasons why I went with Canon at the time, I always wanted to shoot with those, and I am lucky enough to own all 4 current ones. One of the images I use to show people what you can do with a TS-E is the following shot:

 

[ATTACHMENT NOT FOUND]

 

That was shot with the TS-E F/3.5L (Mk I), F/3.5, on a 400D. As you can see, the bokeh, even with this wideangle lens, although used as a short standard lens equivalent, is just stunning. It is just as stunning at F/8, BTW. It will also fit the shortest extension tube, although you get really close to the front lens, especially when tilted .

The Mk II is even better, BTW, even though I haven't tried it with an extension tube yet. As are the 45 and 90 variants .

 

Kind regards, Wim

 

[Susan_Peterson]

I would take the 6D without doubt.  

[Arthur Macmillan]

Wim, I'm so sorry not to have seen your interesting reply until now.  The fact that I actually understand your post pretty well, even if I don't have as much actual expertise makes me think I might know more than I realized...on some level...I simply have been very slow to commit to new things.  As to liking how a macro lens renders...It is really hard to quantify sometimes.  My first 1:1 macro lens was the Tamron SP 90 f/2.8 Di AF Macro 1:1.  I thought it was the best lens in the world!  And now it is long since gone so I have no way to check.  If you ever saw this lens (which extended quite a bit at macro distances) you'll never forget how deeply recessed the front element was.  The very rear element was stationary.  It was a nice design because the lens was well protected an never needed the hood.  The downside was being so deeply recessed meant the pseudo-hood got almost as close to the subject as my EF-S 60mm f/2.8 USM 1:1 macro.  So without a doubt it was harder to use.  But the photos seemed beautiful.  Not having the benefit of a direct comparison on a modern camera who can say.  But I loved it.


But...from the sound of it, you may also like the extremely shallow depth of field that has been my nemesis for capturing insect macros.  You did get my attention with that bit about getting the 100-400L the Mark ii, you mean?  I want that one very much.  with a close up attachment it should do very decent macros.  The mark original 100-400L did pretty well.  Judging, as usual, from pictures taken by other people, since I never had the lens.


@ Susan:  Two things seem clear to me.  1) I'll never be able to give up my 70D.  (2) Most people don't seem to want to come out and say it, but I really think most people would want a FF, and the 6D seems to be a good choice.  I think it will be fascinating to compare the results I get from the two.  Especially since  I have a large number of lenses the two cameras can share!