Is the MP E worth over the raynox?

[seta666]

To be clear, I chose that particular combination because it was the closest I have for answering the question that anvancy

I just tried to explain that there may be better combinations that may give better results; I do not to what extent using a close up lens in combination with a lens that has not been designed for close up focusing may affect quality, also some lenses may have quite heavy CAs on their own, so the close up lens will make they worse.

According to photozone.de this 55-200 has pretty heavy CAs (if it is the one)
http://www.photozone.de/canon-eos/193-c ... ew?start=1

My first serious introduction to macro was with EOS 40D plus CANON 100/2.8 Macro USM and raynox, but the truth is that I never got to do stacks with them. I tried once the DCR-250 plus 100/2.8 macro combo on a 5D and the results were very bad outside the center of the image, with heavy aberrations

If avancy has no macro lens and budget is limited I would suggest to buy a canon 100/2.8 USM second hand, which can be pretty cheap, or an old manual focus macro lens like the nikkor 105/4, tokina 90/2.5 etc... The things I like about the canon is that it does not change the length of the lens as you focus and a tripod collar can be used (10$ on ebay) which allows vertical framing. This would give from infinity to 4:1

Getting the MP-E straight away without owning a proper macro lens first miught not be the best choice; for a full frame camera I would recomend the MP-E for sure but for APS-C cheaper alternatives might do the job

regards
Javier

[anvancy]

For all these years, I was on the lines that the 100mm+raynox will be an alternative but did not pay any seriousness to it. What I believed was, since the raynox acts on your zoom function, 100mm or 160mm for APSC will not be that sufficient under some circumstances.

Javier, you have opened up a new point for discussion.I hope you and rik and others can now throw some more light on this new angle. This is the exact reason I thought of interacting here, so that I will be confident that whether I take the MPE or now this, it will be a viable choice.

Can you throw light on why the 100mm will work better on the APSC rather than the MPE? As of now my budget is of the MPE. Doing macro for many years, I have a fair idea on the working distance and movement. according to me the MPE and the raynox works on the same criteria of our body movement. Even if I buy the MPE I can have an entirely new learning curve.

I am thinking more of an investment perspective. If I bring in the MPE now and upgrade to FF after some years, the MPE will be ready to work on the new one too.

For Macro Rails any ideas on those cheap alternatives available on amazon. the 4 way ones.

Thanks guys for the support.

Anvancy

[seta666]

For all these years, I was on the lines that the 100mm+raynox will be an alternative but did not pay any seriousness to it. What I believed was, since the raynox acts on your zoom function, 100mm or 160mm for APSC will not be that sufficient under some circumstances.

Javier, you have opened up a new point for discussion.I hope you and rik and others can now throw some more light on this new angle. This is the exact reason I thought of interacting here, so that I will be confident that whether I take the MPE or now this, it will be a viable choice.

Can you throw light on why the 100mm will work better on the APSC rather than the MPE? As of now my budget is of the MPE. Doing macro for many years, I have a fair idea on the working distance and movement. according to me the MPE and the raynox works on the same criteria of our body movement. Even if I buy the MPE I can have an entirely new learning curve.

I am thinking more of an investment perspective. If I bring in the MPE now and upgrade to FF after some years, the MPE will be ready to work on the new one too.

For Macro Rails any ideas on those cheap alternatives available on amazon. the 4 way ones.

Thanks guys for the support.

Anvancy

Is not that the Canon 100 + raynox is going to work better than the MP-E, is a budget alternative to the MP-E route with the plus that you can also achive lower magnification than 1:1. You already own the raynox set so the expense would be much lower

To see if the quality is enough or not for your needs you should check what John Hallmen was doing 2 years ago with its FUJI S5 + macro lens + raynox like:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/johnhallme ... noxdcr250/
http://www.flickr.com/photos/johnhallme ... noxmsn202/

Working distance of the canon 100 + MSN-202 at 4X is around 20mm (I can not tell for sure) but the lens is very narrow so it is more than enough

I can tell for sure tht the velbon is way better than those 4 way macro rails; the only use I recomend for those 4 way rails is in the studio with a mini ball head as a cheap alternative to a 6 axis micrometer rail for framing, only needing a proper micrometer rail for stacking

Regards
Javier

[anvancy]

So the suggestion is, for the APS-C the 100mm and raynox combo will be more practical for field use over the the MPE? Lets suppose 4x and 5x will not be used in the field. Now with a range of 3x what to check?

After looking at the raynox box, the graph shows that the 250 achieves 2.5x at 200mm. the 100mm being 160 at APS you will have a fixed say 2x. Or this will change?

I have been searching on the net for answers too. photo.net had answers given by Brian and Gustavo but mainly the answers were catering to those who were going to venture into macro photography. Not for those already in it. Will love more discussion on this.

Anvancy

[seta666]

I do not mean it is a better option, but a cheaper alternative with the gear you already own (raynox Kit). In my opinion the MP-E is a beautiful lens and it is my main lens now for field work, but I use Full frame camera

Also note that the 100mm macro is MACRO so different behavior from a normal 100mm tele lens
With 100mm macro plus raynox you will reach from infinity to 4X; when I say 4X I mean 4:1 (real) I do not use any conversion APS-C multiplier like 1.6 crop etc..

You could get the 100mm macro now and the MP-E if you move to a Full frame camera in the future. Sometimes the MP-E's minimum magnification of 1:1 is too much for FF camera, am sure you will use the 100 macro bellow 1:1 many times

Regards
Javier

[Harold Gough]

I don't recall whether anyone has used the MPE on an extension, to get even more magnification.

Harold

[enricosavazzi]

...
For Macro Rails any ideas on those cheap alternatives available on amazon. the 4 way ones.
...

Focusing rails and fixtures are an entire world by themselves. I was in the same boat 6-7 years ago. Tried most of the cheap ones and a few of the more expensive ones, before arriving to microscope focusing racks. Other users may have different opinions, but my experience so far is as follows.

The long story about focusing racks (not fully updated but still useful) is available at:
http://savazzi.freehostia.com/photograp ... _racks.htm
I have more and better updated information in my scientific photography book if you have access to it:
http://www.amazon.com/Digital-photograp ... ds=savazzi
There are also stickies about microscope focusers in one of the boards on this site.

The short story is: forget about the cheap racks from China Inc. and Manfrotto. They are of limited usefulness in close-up photography and macrophotography, and in my experience too imprecise for photomacrography. Expensive racks from e.g. Novoflex are slightly better, but still not designed for photomacrography. I simply do not recommend any photographic focusing racks for this use, only custom-modified microscope focusers.

My emphasis is on lab/studio equipment, but Arca plates and clamps are useful also in the field for coarse, initial focusing. This makes it possible to add just a short focusing rack for precision focusing. See the examples at:
http://savazzi.freehostia.com/photograp ... ystem.html

There is a wormscrew-activated focusing rack made by Really Right Stuff that has an Arca plate built at the bottom and an Arca clamp on top. It is very expensive but needs only an Arca clamp on the tripod and an Arca plate on the camera/lens. I have not tried it so I cannot recommend it, but the idea itself is nice (except that there seems to be no way to adjust it to take up any slack in the sliding mechanism, so if it is (or becomes) slightly loose you just have to live with it).

[anvancy]

So Javier, what you are trying to say is, I will have the flexibility of capturing dragonflies butterflies with the normal 100mm or with the raynox 150 and go all the way to 4:1 with the raynox 250? unlike the MPE where I cannot shoot dragonflies upfront.

Also will the non L series macro lens be enough?or I will have to buy the 100mm. L series?

My Mind is still wandering to the MPE. what I am seeing is, since I got the monetary power right now, I can afford the MPE. may be in future I may not have the chance again.

Just cannot make a firm decision. Javier, can you explain a little bit more on the infinity to the 4:1 concept? sorry bugging you too much.

I have been following morfa's posts on his stream and its quite helpful.

Rik, Harold what are your views on this?

Anvancy

[Harold Gough]

Harold what are your views on this?

Avancy,

I delayed answering while I did a quick test, which I have posted here:

http://www.photomacrography.net/forum/v ... 913#112913

I am looking into stacking supplementary lenses and am concurrently looking at Raynox, the 250 in the first instance.

I don't have a 100mm lens but my 35mm film experience was that I needed about 180mm to get a reasonable success rate with larger insects. This was achieved by putting a matched x2 TC behind the 90mm. Alternatively, I would use my 70-210 macro.

My current use of the Elmarit 60mm is to give the nearest available equivalent to the 90mm lens full frame on my m4/3 sensor. For more working distance I would use my Carl Zeiss 75-300mm or my Tamron SP Anniversary Edition 180mm.

I certainly don't currently have any lens combination to go from dragonflies to x4. A matched Apochromat teleconverter might largely fill the gap.

Harold

[seta666]

So Javier, what you are trying to say is, I will have the flexibility of capturing dragonflies butterflies with the normal 100mm or with the raynox 150 and go all the way to 4:1 with the raynox 250? unlike the MPE where I cannot shoot dragonflies upfront.

Also will the non L series macro lens be enough?or I will have to buy the 100mm. L series?

For butterflies and dragonflies you do not need any raynox lens, with the canon 100 is more than enough; I would recommend the non L one (no IS), which can be found cheap second hand and optically they are about the same

http://www.photozone.de/canon-eos/488-c ... 0d?start=1

http://www.photozone.de/canon-eos/461-c ... 0d?start=1

With canon 100 you would get from infinity to 1:1
with the DCR-150 something like 1:2 to 1:6 (I am guessing here)
with the DCR-250 up to 2.4:1 or so
with the MSN-202 up to 4:1 or so

Now I use both the Canon 100 macro and the MP-E in the field so I get from infinity to 5:1 but again, I use a full frame camera

If you can afford the MP-E and you want to buy it just go for it, as it is a wonderfull lens but if you do not own already a normal macro lens I think this is more necessary than the MP-E; with the MP-E you will not be able to take full body picture of insects larger than 2cm . Forget about taking butterfly or dragonfly pictures with the MP-E, unless they are tight portraits

Regards
Javier

[rjlittlefield]

I agree with Javier on the main point -- it is better to get an ordinary macro lens first.

In combination with your existing Raynox lenses, you can use that as Javier describes to cover the range from infinity to 4:1 with no need to remove the macro lens from the camera.

However, the magnification range will not be continuous and the image quality most probably will not be as high as what you would get from the MP-E 65.

I just now ran a quick test using my Raynox DCR-250 in combination with my Canon 100 mm f/2.8 L IS USM, on a Canon T1i camera (APS-C sensor). For comparison, here are corner pixels for that configuration versus the MP-E 65 at matched magnification and effective aperture.

Probably I don't need to tell you, but it's MP-E 65 on the left.



I feel compelled to comment about this result versus the results shown by morfa at http://www.flickr.com/photos/johnhallmen/4320502042/. At first read they may seem contradictory, but really they're not. As morfa writes about half-way down the page:

The Raynox lenses ... perform a little bit differently depending on which lens you put them on though so you can't smack them onto anything and expect wonders. For instance I tried the +12 diopter on the Canon 100/2.8 USM macro lens: The results were not bad but nowhere near as good as from the MPE65.

I want to underscore this caution. Supplementary lenses are designed to work ideally with one particular main lens. When you use them with another main lens, the results will degrade depending on how much difference there is between the main lens you're using and the main lens that the supplement was designed for. Apparently the SumRay is similar to whatever the Raynox was designed for, while the Canon 100 is different.

--Rik

[Harold Gough]

Supplementary lenses are designed to work ideally with one particular main lens.

I have two versions of such a lens, designed for use with the Olympus Zuiko OM 80mm macro bellows lens. However, there is no such specified use for Marumi +3 and +5 Achromats, or if there is it is a closely-guarded industrial secret. They come in most popular filter thread sizes, from 49mm to 77mm, making them fit many lenses rather than restricting their use.

Harold

[seta666]

I want to underscore this caution. Supplementary lenses are designed to work ideally with one particular main lens. When you use them with another main lens, the results will degrade depending on how much difference there is between the main lens you're using and the main lens that the supplement was designed for. Apparently the SumRay is similar to whatever the Raynox was designed for, while the Canon 100 is different.

--Rik

Also extracted from the comments in that MP-E thread in Morfa's flickr, here John was answering a question I made about the Canon 100/2.8 USM

"seta666> I think the Canon 100/2.8 macro is a very nice lens. I did get a little more CA than I'm used to with similar lenses but other than that I think it was great. With Raynox-lenses it performed on par with Micro-nikkor 105/2.8VR or Micro-nikkor 60/2.8G – in other words very nice but not quite as good as some combinations I've tried – the Micro-nikkor 105/f4 in particular."

Well, that mikro-nikkor 105/4 seems to work pretty well but as I said before one thing I like about the canon is that it does not change length when focusing and that a tripod collar can be used.

Regards
Javier

[anvancy]

@Enrico: that was a helpful post. Will the velbon rail be sufficient for the initial phase. A point that needs to be noted is, I am not into professional macro shooting, where I have setups of microscope and objectives. Just a hobbyist person. keeping this factor in consideration, whats your view on the velbon? lets just focus on this particular one.

@Harold: that test was a welcome addition.thanks for sharing your test.

@Rik: Thanks for the quick test. here is what I have been thinking. contrary to what many people think, I not printing the photos that I will take. I mean I will for some, but printing high resolution shots is a no go from me. Next is the 100% sharpness. I will not be peeping at 100% all the time. Yes cropping will be done.But I dont suppose everytime the 100% will be of critical play. The MPE surely looks sharp at the corner. after all it was designed for C to C sharpness.

@Javier: I think stepping inside the 100m first and doing a new learning curve, is a better option. So the 100mm+raynox+the velbon to start off. I think not buying the MPE for its uniqueness is compensated by the flexibility that I will get to shoot varied insects with a single lens.
You have been a great help. I will keep the discussion running.



Anvancy

[Chris S.]

Will the velbon rail be sufficient for the initial phase(?) A point that needs to be noted is, I am not into professional macro shooting, where I have setups of microscope and objectives. Just a hobbyist person. keeping this factor in consideration, whats your view on the velbon? lets just focus on this particular one.

Anvancy, I have a Velbon rail and so know it reasonably well. It is not junk, but I have a hard time recommending it. Mine has been sitting on a shelf for two or three years unused; meanwhile, my microscope focusing blocks and Velmex stages have gotten constant use for macro stacking. The difference between the Velbon rail and a top-quality rail is similar to the difference between a budget tripod/head and a $1,000 tripod/head; the cheap ones can often be made to work, though frequently with annoyance; the good ones tend to work instantly and without trouble. Once one has tried a really good setup, there is no going back--the extra money buys convenience, dependability, and quick, repeatable results. It is possible to get good images with a Velbon rail under some circumstances (such as with low magnifications, careful use, and a willingness to put up with a level of aggravation). But spending more on a macro rail will, for many of us, be money well spent.

A very good approach, in regards to a macro rail, would be to avoid Velbon, RRS, Kirk, and their ilk, and put together a Velmex rig similar to what Hokan did here. Don't expect to get off as inexpensively as Hokan did, and be sure to call Velmex and speak with their helpful staff about your options. Be ready to do or hire a bit of custom fabricating to make it work with your setup. If you do that, you should have something that is very serviceable, and, while not as cheap as the Velbon, represents money well spent.

Cheers,

--Chris