1:1 Macro
- Thread starter RevHtree
- Start date
gregr
New member
lol- I was about to jump in to say the 65 is a great lens but not nearly ideal for all-round aquarium photography 
One really nice thing about the Canon 100mm macro lens versus all other macro lenses (Nikon included!) in that focal range is the Canon focuses internally-- all the others get longer as you focus closer. That can make using a flash on close subjects difficult.
Greg
One really nice thing about the Canon 100mm macro lens versus all other macro lenses (Nikon included!) in that focal range is the Canon focuses internally-- all the others get longer as you focus closer. That can make using a flash on close subjects difficult.
Greg
bkv1997
New member
David I appologize for high jaking your thread, but it is on the topic...
Greg, rev kinda sparked my interest into photography, but before jumping into a camera purchase I like to research things beyond obsesive.
From another site I was reading the below about the Canon motors being worse than the Nikons and the ration on the lower models Canon's being 1:2 vs 1:1 on the Nikons. So just for my sake can you explain why you consider the Canon better than the Nikon? I'm just curious especially since the below review was by a Canon user and he liked the Nikon Macro lenses.
By no means am I questioning your statements, but rather just trying to figure these things out.
Below is the quote I'm refering too. Thanks in advance for any further help.
"In my humble opinion, the best macro lenses are the latest autofocus mount models made by Nikon (my primary 35mm system is Canon EOS, by the way). Nikon makes 60mm, 105mm and 200mm focal lengths. Each lens will focus continuously from infinity to 1:1. You can shoot the moon and capture the bear claw without stopping to change lenses or screw in filters. How do these lenses work? Do they just have a much longer helical than the 50mm normal lens? Yes and no. "
"What about other companies? Canon makes 50, 100, and 180mm macro lenses. All three incorporate floating elements. The 50 is cheap but it only goes to 1:2 without a "life size converter" (sort of like a telextender) that you stick between the lens and the camera. The 50 is also annoying because it has the ancient non-USM Canon motor. So it can't do simultaneous AF and MF like the ring-USM lenses. The 100 goes to 1:1 but also has the old-style motor. The 180/3.5 is a new design with three low dispersion elements, a tripod mount, and USM for full-time manual focus. It is also compatible with the Canon telextenders"
Thanks again
Brandon
Greg, rev kinda sparked my interest into photography, but before jumping into a camera purchase I like to research things beyond obsesive.
From another site I was reading the below about the Canon motors being worse than the Nikons and the ration on the lower models Canon's being 1:2 vs 1:1 on the Nikons. So just for my sake can you explain why you consider the Canon better than the Nikon? I'm just curious especially since the below review was by a Canon user and he liked the Nikon Macro lenses.
By no means am I questioning your statements, but rather just trying to figure these things out.
Below is the quote I'm refering too. Thanks in advance for any further help.
"In my humble opinion, the best macro lenses are the latest autofocus mount models made by Nikon (my primary 35mm system is Canon EOS, by the way). Nikon makes 60mm, 105mm and 200mm focal lengths. Each lens will focus continuously from infinity to 1:1. You can shoot the moon and capture the bear claw without stopping to change lenses or screw in filters. How do these lenses work? Do they just have a much longer helical than the 50mm normal lens? Yes and no. "
"What about other companies? Canon makes 50, 100, and 180mm macro lenses. All three incorporate floating elements. The 50 is cheap but it only goes to 1:2 without a "life size converter" (sort of like a telextender) that you stick between the lens and the camera. The 50 is also annoying because it has the ancient non-USM Canon motor. So it can't do simultaneous AF and MF like the ring-USM lenses. The 100 goes to 1:1 but also has the old-style motor. The 180/3.5 is a new design with three low dispersion elements, a tripod mount, and USM for full-time manual focus. It is also compatible with the Canon telextenders"
Thanks again
Brandon
gregr
New member
The Nikon 105mm micro lens, which I just used yesterday for a couple hours with a D2X, is a very nice lens but the barrel extends outward as you focus closer. When focusing on infinity the lens barrel is completely inside the lens housing but when you get close to your subject- several inches down to 1", the barrel extends outwards effectively making the lens longer- up to a few inches longer. This is fine if you have the twin macro flash but if you're depending on a speedlight in the hot-shoe the lens will create a shadow on those close subjects. The built-in flash will have even more trouble.
I'd venture a guess that the article you're quoting from is old- a couple years or so ago Canon updated their 100 macro with a USM af motor. I also think the author of the article was making a statement not about a specific lens but about the line of macro lenses as a whole. And now Nikon has VR in their 105 micro- which is a great thing. I hope Canon does that.
Each manufacturer has strong and weak points- ultimately you buy what you buy and make the best of it
I'd venture a guess that the article you're quoting from is old- a couple years or so ago Canon updated their 100 macro with a USM af motor. I also think the author of the article was making a statement not about a specific lens but about the line of macro lenses as a whole. And now Nikon has VR in their 105 micro- which is a great thing. I hope Canon does that.
Each manufacturer has strong and weak points- ultimately you buy what you buy and make the best of it
Last edited:
wetWolger
New member
I got the canon 100mm macro. Excelent lens with amazing quality. I find that when combined with about a 12mm extension tube this lens will get macros like never seen before. For fun here are a couple 100% crops from this lens. This lens is accually capable of better images than this. These were taken quickly with a slight error in focus. But it will still give you an idea of how sharp the lens is at 100%.
flameangel88
New member
I'm in the process of getting a macro lens for my Nikon D50 and have read and saw a bunch of pictures from the Nikon 105mm and Tamron 90mm. I'm more of a beginner and obviously the photographer will made huge impact into the final picture but I feel the Tamron 90mm is a very capable lens and can give Nikon 105mm a good challenge. What is your opinion on this? TIA!
astrogazer
Premium Member
I think the sigma 105 gives the nikon a better run for its money.
astrogazer
Premium Member
Unless you're talking the new nikon 105vr
Similar threads
