Upload & Sell: Off
I've never shot macro before, but currently have a project where I need some closeups of very small mushrooms in situ out in the woods.
My zoom lenses just don't seem to be able to do it. I broke out my old Tamron 28-300 'macro' to see if that would do it, but it also doesn't seem up to the task.
So, I'm looking to get a setup that will allow me to do what I need.
Currently I'm looking at the Canon 100L Macro, the Canon 50 2.5 Macro, and the Canon MP-E 65 2.5 1-5x.
I won't say price is no object - I'd always rather have more to spend on glass I'll use more often - but I do want to get good shots, and if that means an extra $700, so be it.
So, my questions are:
Is the MP-E 65mm useful in the situation I'm looking at? Small (but not extremely tiny) mushrooms? Or would that be overkill? I've seen some great spider closeups with this lens, and while that looks fun, it isn't something I'm tasking this with.
How big a quality difference will I see between the 50 2.5 and the 100L?
More importantly, will I likely run into self-inflicted shadow issues if I use the 50? As I say, I've never shot macro, so don't quite know how much of a different length makes.
Finally, would it be an option for me to do this whole reversing-a-lens thing I keep reading about? Or extension tubes? I don't have any hugely long lenses, but I do have a 70-200L I use for portraiture – with an extension tube would that allow me to get pretty close-up?
Sorry for the complete ignorance in this field – I know comparing some of these is apples and oranges, I just have no real basis for comparison right now, I just know what I want to do, and that I'd like to get the best value for money.