Canon Macro: EF 100 2.8 vs MP-E 65 2.8

[AxisOfBeagles]

Am seriously considering a macro lens (Uncle Sam's rebate needs to go back into the economy) and am trying to understand differences between these two lenses.

Focus capabilities aside, the issue I am curious about is the 1x (EF) vs 1-5x (MP-E). For insects (including aquatic macroinvertebrates apx. 5 - 15 mm), flowers, various small 'found' photo opportunities. Is the 1x enough? What are the advantages / disadvantages of going with the 1-5x MP-E?

 

[Lovesong]

Both of these lenses have their specialty. The 100mm is great for flowers, and anything that's larger than, I'd say, a cm. It is also a remarkably sharp lens that can be used for portraits. The 65 is a very specialized lens. It allows you to take pictures of extremely small things (I've seen some remarkable shots of grains of salt and sugar taken with it). It is essentially a microscope that fits a Canon SLR. There are several downsides to it in terms of what you're trying to do. First off, going anywhere 1:1 or higher means that moving things (like insects, and flowers blowing in the wind) will be a pain to get in focus. The lens is also full time MF, and you cannot use it for anything other than macro. In addition, you will need some macro lights to go with it, as the light at 1:1 plus will prevent you from getting any decent shutter speed. You will also need support up the wazoo, including tripods, rails, and some leveling columns.

Alright, did I convince you against the 65? In reality, it is a great lens (I rented one a while ago), but for your purposes, you might want to look at either the 100 or 180 macros. Sigma's 150 macro is also well regarded as is the Tamron 90. I think (I don't shoot insects) you might need something with some more FL than the 100, as you won't have to get in as close, and thus scare off the bugs.

 

[AxisOfBeagles]

exactly what I was looking for - thanks Lovesong