hmm...I would myself get a good filter for the macro lens for the best sharpness, otherwise shoot without one. I am always shooting outdoor so I like have a good UV for all my lenses.
I am suggesting Hoya SHMC (i think), a B&W or Heliopan. I know they are expensive.
Lucky I have 3 lenses that takes 77mm filter, 2 that takes 72mm. They share the same Polariser...
timwild wrote:
The filters i've decided to get are Canon ones, and only cost about $13 or so each, so they're not an issue. Also I know my tripod's not the best, but for now it'll do. I'll upgrade later if I feel my current one isn't working. Thanks for your suggestions Chris
Unless you are planning on only using the Canon UV filters for protection in your bag, you'll be better off no buying them. My experience with the Canon brand ones is that they are some of the lowest quality ones out there (Canon must be using recycled Coke bottles to make them). Especially on a lens as nice as the 100 f/2.8, you won't want to put them back on after you use that lens without them. Currently the frame of my Canon UV filter is being used as a makeshift lenshood adapter, I think I threw the glass part out...
Ok, I get the point about the Canon UV filters, thanks everyone.
What's the best filter to use with the macro lens? I think i'll get one to protect it, and i'll get a cheap Hoya for the 50mm in case I use it somewhere dirty.
Sounds like you are dead set on using a filter ...but IMO with the 100 2.8 you need the hood for glare, and because it is very deep and narrow, it really offers all the glass protection you need - with the possible exception of wind driven sand. Whatever you do, don't put crap on the lens - it is one of the cleanest lenses you will own.
I'm not dead set on it. I don't always use hoods, and a little protection from my own clumsyness is always a good thing! I might ponder it for a little bit... but the extra cost of about $50 for a decent one does put me off. I definitely won't get a great sharp lens then put crap glass in front of it.
I'm also going to buy a flash, and i've a thread going about 420EX vs 550EX, but i'll ask in here too. The 420EX looks good, nice and light, and small. The thing is I don't want to buy it then in 3 months think "damn I should've gotten the 550EX", because it'd end up costing more that way. I'm not a pro and I shoot for fun. Is the extra $150 (or whatever it is) worthwhile for a hobby photographer? I mean to be in this hobby for a while.
420 is great flash. Will function as slave later when you can afford the 550. I own both and IMHO, the 550 has no advantages for macro. I've got large hands and can hold the 420 flat on the lens so that the diffuser is right next to the hood.
Canon flashes have high speed sync, not sure if non Canon brands offer this option.
How do you guys compare the photo quality of the Canon 100 mac to the Sigma 180 mac. I personally like being a littler further away from my subject and not scaring them off, yet still getting the shot.
However, which has better optics. (photo quality).
I've used 550EX with 100mm Macro and it works fine on-camera with flash head at tilt down position. If the subject is so close, you may need to increase flash compensation (e.g. +2), but experiment with it. It works perfectly fine off-camera though. I also use MR-14EX, and the combination of this and 550EX (with wireless trigger) is just excellent.
The macro lights look really cool. Has it made your shots significantly better since u got it? Im tempted by one.
Chris
Yes, exposure is more accurate with MR-14EX. I like the even distribution of the light although some shots may look a bit flat. This is why I like using 550EX as a slave to give more 3D effect.
Thanks for your help everyone, i've ordered the 100mm macro with the 550EX flash. I'm just waiting for B*H to pack and ship it to me... it should be here next week
If you shoot insects, especially ones that fly, you may find the 100 to be the wrong lens. I started with the 100 and found that I could not get close enough to butterflies and dragonflies. It was great for flowers though. I ended up getting the Canon 180mm for insects and other than a bit slow focus, it works great for bugs....John W
pahooj wrote:
If you shoot insects, especially ones that fly, you may find the 100 to be the wrong lens. I started with the 100 and found that I could not get close enough to butterflies and dragonflies. It was great for flowers though. I ended up getting the Canon 180mm for insects and other than a bit slow focus, it works great for bugs....John W
agreed...
Timwild: you'll want the 180mm focal length for dragonflies and butterflies. You can get limited macro capabilities, however, if you use the 500D closeup lens with a 70-200 or 100-400, but it's a clumsy solution at best. I originally had both the 50 macro and the 100 macro, but I don't take macros very regularly, so I sold them in favor of a zoom+500D combination, which is more versatile (but still clumsy) .
Another interesting solution is to use the 90TS/E and teleconverter+extension tube combination. Ravi Nori has very interesting and beautiful pictures using this combination - do a search on him and see his galleries. They're very nice!
Regarding the question of whether to use flash or not - In some cases, you can't set up a tripod, or if the subject moves too rapidly, so you do handheld macros, and going with flash is the only way that you can stop-down and yet get a reasonable shutter speed (usually x-sync). You also want to use flash to provide additional sources of lighting besides existing light, to give a more 3D look - that's why I prefer the flexibility of off-camera flashes rather than a ring-light.
Closeups/Macros are fun! Happy shooting, whatever lens you get
...but IMO with the 100 2.8 you need the hood for glare, and because it is very deep and narrow, it really offers all the glass protection you need - with the possible exception of wind driven sand. Whatever you do, don't put crap on the lens - it is one of the cleanest lenses you will own.
.