At 10:33 AM -0500 2/4/06, W S wrote:
I have the Canon 180 and when the hood is on, the effective working
distance is cut even more. But there are not too many options in this
category. I read one review, can't remember the site, in which the
Tamron did better at lower aperture because the focus mechanism was
finer. So I'm not sure how accurate that test was if manual focus was
used. My preference is for lenses that render the image well in the
viewfinder, often when the light is less than bright, which also means
a camera with a good viewfinder is essential. Manual focus is the norm
for 3D macro subjects.
I have found the Canon 180 macro focus precision is not quite what I'm
used to compared to some of my former film gear. The tripod mount is
essential, as well as a remote release. The Canon tripod mount is very
solid. With a previous brand of digital camera and lens, the mount had
too much flex for use in the macro range.
Also, because of the internal focus on the Canon 180, the actual focal
length at 1:1 is closer to 120mm. I'm not sure about the other lenses,
but since working distance is nearly the same at 1:1, I have to conclude
that they have internal focus and shorter effective focal length.
I have also heard complaints about the slow auto-focus of the Canon 180
macro. I think they must not understand the issues with auto-focus, as
the focus distance range is about 4x a normal lens, assuming a normal
lens can to 1:4, and is why there is a focus limit switch on the Canon.
Some choices not mentioned are using a telephoto with extension and
possibly a 1.4x converter. With extension, you get close focus without
the loss of focal length, and hence get better working distance. It
would be interesting to know how the Canon 135mm + extension matches
the 180 macro. Can the 135 be fitted with a tripod mount? All that
extension tends to make for a more unstable system though.
If anyone has a good solution for macro work + good working distance
I would be very interested to hear about it.
Wayne
One of the best setups I ever used for taking pictures of things like
butterflies was a 400/6.8 Leitz Telyt with one or two 60mm extension
tubes. Great handling, very good performance and the fact that you
were at an aperture of about f/9 or 10 wide open didn't matter in the
sunshine. Flash isn't as easy to use, as hunting down small subjects
with a stopped down 400 is tricky. Working distance is over 3 feet
from the front of the lens for 1/2 life size.
Extension tubes are the preferred way to go, as you don't reduce the
focal length, and thus the working distance.
I now have 5 macro lenses from 55 to 200mm, including a couple for
EOS, but I still used a non-IF 400 with tubes for skittish subjects.
There were various 400/6.3 and f/8 lenses that were very good made in
the 60's, and if you can find one of these they are ideal. They were
T mount, and therefore making an extension tube is very simple for
any machinist. Shuoldn't cost you more than $50 for any length. The
lenses are going for anywhere from $100 to $200 (about $39 to $69
originally), and then you need a T-mount EOS adapter. They are
available for about $150. For small shy subjects this is way better
than a 180.
--
* Henning J. Wulff
/|\ Wulff Photography & Design
/###\ mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
|[ ]| http://www.archiphoto.com
*
****
*******
***********************************************************
* For list instructions, including unsubscribe, see:
* http://www.a1.nl/phomepag/markerink/eos_list.htm
***********************************************************
