Canon 180mm Macro on 20D?

Hi everyone,

I noticed very few people have used the 180mm Macro underwater -- Eric Cheng has used it with a 1Ds MKII (full frame sensor), but I can't find anyone that's tried it on a cropped sensor like the 20D. I have the 100mm macro, but I'd sometimes want to get even more zoom on a subject.

Ike has offered to make me a custom flat port, but the width (3.2") would probably mean no manual focus. Since the 100mm can be difficult to auto-focus (at 0.31m it's near impossible, but 0.48m is ok), I can just imagine how difficult it would be with the 180mm... Anyone know if the 180mm also has a minimum-focus distance selector like the 100mm macro?

BTW, I don't have the 180mm yet -- I'd be buying it specifically for UW use (although I'm sure it will be useful topside too). :-)

Thanks,

js.

Hi Jean,

In my opinion, if you can't manual focus, then forget it. Unless you're ONLY interested in setting the lens at the minimum focus distance and leaving it there, or using AF with the * button... I guess you could get that to work if you were happy using the lens in "crippled" mode.

RE your other question - you can never have too much magnification :-)

You should also look at the Tamron 180mm Macro - it gets excellent reviews.

Cheers

James

I decided against the 180mm because I just didn't think I'd get enough use out of it to justify the cost vs. the Sigma 150mm with 500D diopter, which quite a few people here (myself included) use. I don't know if Ike makes a port/focus ring combo that works with the Sigma 150mm, but I'd certainly consider that as a viable option for super macro. Like James said, though, you really have to consider whether you want a long lens like that without manual focus capability.

Hey Jean,

You won't have a higher magnification with the 180 mm than with the 100 mm macro since they both do 1:1. The only difference is that you'll have more water in between your subject and your lens (although the 180 mm is also somewhat longer than the 100 mm). With my 105 mm lens it's already difficult to hold your camera steady so that the image through the viewfinder isn't moving and with a 180 mm lens this will be even harder. So IMHO a 180 mm macro lens isn't an interesting UW option, but people may correct me if i'm wrong. I think it'll be a very difficult lens to shoot with. Probably it would be better if it had IS... Furthermore the 100 mm is f/2.8 and the 180 mm is f/3.5 which will make focussing for the 180mm more difficult as well.

If you want to go to higher magnifcations you'd better apply a 500D close-up lens to your 100 mm lens which won't cost you much light or you apply a teleconverter at the cost of one or two stops (and some image quality loss depending on the quality of the teleconverter).

cheers, udo

Hi Udo,

People seldom shoot the 150mm and 180mm macros at their min focus distance w/o a diopter- as there is too much water in between the subject and you. Alex may have tried them for tele-macro though.

Instead, like you said, the 500D diopter is used to cut the working distance. This is the best way to go >1:1 as it does not cut the amount of light collected. So your 150mm f2.8 stays an f2.8

Jean, another option is to shoot the 100mm w/ a teleconverter. Ike can do an MF port for that.

Cheers

James

I use three macro lenses 105mm VR, 60mm and 150mm (sigma) on my Nikon. James recommended that I get the 500D for the the 150mm and it was excellent advice.

I use both the 105mm and 150mm for tele-shooting UW. But the limitations are strict and it requires strobes pushed forward well in front of the camera. Despite being capable of producing striking images, it also produces lots of duffers.

This image was taken as a telephoto close-up with the 150mm in 40m + visibility! On my camera that is equivalent to 225mm on full frame.

To answer Jean's original question - the best solution is the Sigma 150mm and 500D, which actually you will find is too long much of the time (the length makes it very hard to aim). I find it AFs very nicely on my Nikon, but I think that the Canons like this lens less (and that is on 1D series cameras, so I think your 20D will struggle more).

The 150mm is not a shortcut to tighter cropped images. It does offer a way to tighter cropped images - but it is not an easy one (on a APS-C camera).

Alex

Instead, like you said, the 500D diopter is used to cut the working distance. This is the best way to go >1:1 as it does not cut the amount of light collected. So your 150mm f2.8 stays an f2.8

 

Jean, another option is to shoot the 100mm w/ a teleconverter. Ike can do an MF port for that.

James,

Canon's 1.4/2x Extenders don't work with the 100mm macro, BUT they do with the 180mm macro. :-)

According to Canon's lens specs, the Extender EF 1.4x II would give the following on the 180mm macro:

Apparent focal length (on a 20D): 403mm, f-stop 4.5, max. magnification 1.4, autofocus 0.8m.

The Extender EF 2x II would give:

Apparent focal length (on a 20D): 576mm, f-stop 6.7, max. magnification 2, autofocus N/A.

I could use an EF12/25 extension tubes with the 100mm... That would give me the equivalent of 1.2x and 1.4x.

Hmmmm... I have the EF12 extension tube and the 100mm macro. The 100mm sucks at 0.31m minimum focus distance, but is ok at 0.48m. I wonder what it would be like at 0.48m with the EF12 extension tube... Something to try when I get back home tonight. :-)

Thanks!

js.

Hi Jean,

Excellent advice from Alex.

We all use the Kenko Pro (Teleplus) teleconverters which work well fit all lenses, and will not shut down AF above F5.6 on Canon non-pro bodies.

Cheers

James

Canon's 1.4/2x Extenders don't work with the 100mm macro...

No, but Kenko Pro TC's do work with the 100mm, and the 100mm will even AF with the Kenko 2X TC if there's reasonable light.

No, but Kenko TC's do work with the 100mm, and the 100mm will even AF with the Kenko 2X TC if there's reasonable light.

Like these?

http://www.bhphotovideo.com/bnh/controller...1025&is=REG

http://www.bhphotovideo.com/bnh/controller...1029&is=REG

Thanks,

js.

Yes, those are the ones. Get the white ones to be "cool." :-)

Cheers

James

Thanks to everyone for your excellent comments and suggestions!

I've purchased the Kenko Pro 300 DG teleconverters (1.4x, 2x, and 3x) for my 100mm macro. I'm looking forward to doing some tests, and I'm confident Ike will be able to set me up with a longer 'flat focus port' for my 100mm. I don't expect the 3x will be usable UW, but you never know... :-)

js.

Very good. Herbko and Todd both have some excellent photos taken w/ the 100mm+2xTC.

Cheers

James

JS - good luck with supermacro!

I've had mixed luck with the 180mm lens on full-frame. Specifically, I've had problems getting sharp images when it's used with a diopter of any sort. The external diopters I have for it are too strong, and I've had problems using one internally and getting sharp image in the viewfinder.

Manual focus is an absolute necessity for shooting macro at such long focal lengths.

Very interesting but confusing posts!

I noticed very few people have used the 180mm Macro underwater -- Eric Cheng has used it with a 1Ds MKII (full frame sensor), but I can't find anyone that's tried it on a cropped sensor like the 20D. I have the 100mm macro, but I'd sometimes want to get even more zoom on a subject.

Like Jean, my longest lens has been the Canon 100mm macro and I've had the desire for something even longer. However, for a newbie it's hard to know if this desire is just an admission that you lack the skills to get closer to your target. Actually, I'm sure that more time in the water and more knowledge about the behaviour of the fish would take away some of my longing for longer lenses, but I can't help but think that there is a useful and interesting role for them. Basically for fish that are both shy and small.

So what did I find confusing?

James wrote:

People seldom shoot the 150mm and 180mm macros at their min focus distance w/o a diopter- as there is too much water in between the subject and you.

The 180mm has a min focus distance of 48cm, about 25cm of that is occuppied by the lens port leaving a water column of well under a foot. How can that be too much? Well, maybe it is too much if you dive in poor visibility but I certainly hope/think you can get away with more than that in clear tropical waters. It would be of interest to me and probably other newcomers to hear from experienced UWphotographers what they consider an acceptable shooting distance range.

In the same post of James (but said in different words in other posts):

Instead, like you said, the 500D diopter is used to cut the working distance. This is the best way to go >1:1 as it does not cut the amount of light collected. So your 150mm f2.8 stays an f2.8

This will indeed get you beyond life size magnification and makes sense if you are trying to maximize magnification. However, I thought the main purpose of a telemacro lens is typically to get more working distance. The diopter actually reduces the effective focal length of the lens which does not fit this objective (your expensive 180mm lens is reduced to 132mm at infinite focus, things are a lot worse at closest focus; 97mm according to my rough calculations).

Alex wrote:

I use both the 105mm and 150mm for tele-shooting UW. But the limitations are strict and it requires strobes pushed forward well in front of the camera. Despite being capable of producing striking images, it also produces lots of duffers.

That picture is clearly not a duffer!!! Alex, any chance you remember the approximate distance this one was shot at? Must be well beyond one foot, possibly beyond one meter, if you have to start pushing the strobes out.

If you say it becomes hard to aim do you mean keeping the lens steady enough to avoid motion blur or is it just difficult to keep/get the subject in the view finder, or to judge focus.

There's lots more to think and talk about but but I tend to write too much so I hope replies will fill in the blanks.

Bart

Very good. Herbko and Todd both have some excellent photos taken w/ the 100mm+2xTC.

Although mine is certainly not in the same category as Herbko's and Todd's, this was a shot I got of an arrow blenny with that 100mm+Kenko 2XTC combo (on one of my first dives using it). I didn't have a manual focus ring, so this was using AF. Note: I was also using it on a full frame camera, which means you could get the same magnification from farther away. My point is that it really is a nice combo to use!

The 180mm has a min focus distance of 48cm, about 25cm of that is occuppied by the lens port leaving a water column of well under a foot. How can that be too much?

 

That picture is clearly not a duffer!!! Alex, any chance you remember the approximate distance this one was shot at? Must be well beyond one foot, possibly beyond one meter, if you have to start pushing the strobes out.

If you say it becomes hard to aim do you mean keeping the lens steady enough to avoid motion blur or is it just difficult to keep/get the subject in the view finder, or to judge focus.

Hey Bart,

My understanding is that the minimum focus distance is from the front of the lens, not the film plane? And also that is only the minimum focus - chances are you won't want to use just the minimum focus. And then camera to subject distance become far too long.

As soon as you dive with a 150mm+ macro lens on a camera you realise why 50/60mm and 100/105mm lenses have always been the most popular underwater. Longer lenses are a pain to use. Yes they do offer you a chance to frame subjects more tightly from a longer distance. But it is much easier to learn to get close to subjects with a 60mm or 100mm than it is to deal with the problems of a 150-200mm lens.

To give you an idea of how little I favour the 150mm I own. Of my macro dives I generally make about 3% with the 150mm and I would say about 65% dives with a 105mm and the rest, say 32% with the 60mm.

The shot you see (above) may be nice. But most of the others from that dive just don't hold up. They can look great on the LCD screen, but on closer examination they are just shot through too much water.

I am prepared to take on a high risk/low return technique because I am searching for different and new images and am prepared to take whole dives that may turn out as failures. But nearly everyone will not like these super-long lenses - and that is why I sound negative when talking about them.

Alex

To give you an idea of how little I favour the 150mm I own. Of my macro dives I generally make about 3% with the 150mm and I would say about 65% dives with a 105mm and the rest, say 32% with the 60mm.

 

Alex

My lens usage with the 5D are similar adjusted for sensor size: more than half with 100 + 1.4x, some with just the 100 and very few with the 2x. Most of the time I use 100 + 1.4x I also add the 500D for closer focus. The +2 diopter, 500D, limits the focus range to about 1/2 meter, and I think that's close to the outer range of working distance for a good shot, so most of the time it's a good tradeoff to include it to get higher magnification.

I think the 180mm by itself even foused near 1:1 still leaves too much water between the port and the subject for a really good shot in most case.

My understanding is that the minimum focus distance is from the front of the lens, not the film plane?

Actually it's measured from the film/sensor plane, but <Michael Caine>not a lot of people know that.</Michael Caine>

Hmm, this software doesn't seem to support impersonation

Martyn

Like Jean, my longest lens has been the Canon 100mm macro and I've had the desire for something even longer. However, for a newbie it's hard to know if this desire is just an admission that you lack the skills to get closer to your target.

Bart,

Indeed longer lenses can be a crutch. My wife used to love wide-angle, mostly because when we started, her camera could take wide-angle wet lenses, and mine could not. So, she developed a love for wide angle -- and indeed she's quite good at them. On the other hand, my camera could take wet close-up diopters, so I got to be pretty good with macros. :-) Eventually both of us were using 20Ds UW, and on this last trip, we both had 100mm macro lenses. This is where I could definately see a difference in our use of the lens. Where-as I tended to get as close as possible -- just before the lens couldn't focus anymore -- Melanie often used it to get shots of subjects she couldn't get close to, were passing by too far, etc. I don't have to tell you that her pictures were not as sharp as mine -- too much water between the camera and subject. It's a learning curve, I guess. After seeing the results, I expect that on our next trip she'll focus on the macro stuff when using the macro lens. :-)

So, in the end, I think that if you're getting close enough with a macro lens that it can't focus anymore, you're probably a good candidate for super-macro. :-)

LateR!

js.