Playing with EF 100mm L Macro last weekend

[ScottyP]

Great excuse for a hike in the state park.

[ebiggs1]

Nice shots.  

[RobertTheFat]

Is it possible that the lens is back-focusing just a bit? Note, for example, that in the flower picture, the sticks in the background were the only things that came close to achieving focus.

[Waddizzle]

---

@RobertTheFat wrote:

Is it possible that the lens is back-focusing just a bit? Note, for example, that in the flower picture, the sticks in the background were the only things that came close to achieving focus.

---

Maybe, but judging from the other shots, that seems unlikely.  I've had more than a few shots come out like that.   Don't forget that the DOF becomes VERY shallow at that focusing distance.

Most of my shots that turned out like that were hand held, using One Shot mode.  Sometimes a breeze can move the flower just enough before the shutter activates.  Sometimes it is me wobbling and weaving from bending over so far.  I don't have to move far for the DOF to move off of my subject.  This is a scenario where BBF hinders you.

[ScottyP]

Yeah, all faults in these images are user error, compounded by the insanely shallow DOF doing macro on FF with the subject only 5-6 inches in front of the lens.  No autofocus at all here; it was Manual focus and I was adjusting focus by moving the camera forward and back, not even by twisting the focus ring.  

On the mushrooms I was on a tiny tripod and using live view, zoomed in, to pick what tiny slice would be in focus in each shot.  That let me do a long exposure so I could stop down to f/22 or so for max DOF but it was still so shallow!   One of these days I need to try stacking images. 

[ebiggs1]

"... I could stop down to f/22 or so for max DOF..."

Scotty the shots are nice no matter.

One thing though, at f22 on a 100mm lens diffraction is going to be a, or start to be a, problem.  Could be what you and the others are seeing.

Diffraction can cause an issue in macro photography, maybe even more so than normal.  But since DOF is so shallow at macro distances, the increase in DOF benefit from very small apertures sometimes over comes the softness caused by lens diffraction.  Sometimes not, so beware of diffraction.

[ScottyP]

---

@Waddizzle wrote:

---

@RobertTheFat wrote:

Is it possible that the lens is back-focusing just a bit? Note, for example, that in the flower picture, the sticks in the background were the only things that came close to achieving focus.

---

Maybe, but judging from the other shots, that seems unlikely.  I've had more than a few shots come out like that.   Don't forget that the DOF becomes VERY shallow at that focusing distance.

Most of my shots that turned out like that were hand held, using One Shot mode.  Sometimes a breeze can move the flower just enough before the shutter activates.  Sometimes it is me wobbling and weaving from bending over so far.  I don't have to move far for the DOF to move off of my subject.  This is a scenario where BBF hinders you.

---

Actually the tips of the stamens are in focus.  That was all I could do with so little DOF. I took about 20 shots of that, back to back, using manual focus and just easing the camera forward and back to adjust focus, not twisting the ring.  I picked this one because the little pollen grains at the tips of the yellow stamens are in focus.  I have like 19 other images with various other parts of that flower in sharp focus but the stamens are blurry. 

The sticks and the front edges of the petals happen to be in the same plane (I was shooting down at a 30 degree angle) so by accident they are also in focus.  

I could/should boost the ISO more to let me stop down farther but as you see with the mushrooms, even f/22 on a tripod doesn't give you much real estate in focus. 

[Waddizzle]

"Actually the tips of the stamens are in focus"  

I agree.  I noticed they were in focus, too.  Try using the 70-200mm to photograph flowers.  You can back up and get much more DOF when you're shooting handheld.  The EF 100-400 f/4.5-5.6L IS II USM has an even shorter MFD than the 70-200mm.

I shot those with 100-400 mounted on a 7D Mark II.  But, sometimes you want to be "inside" the flower, though.  For that you need the macro lens, a tripod, stacking software, and very stationary subject.

[ebiggs1]

Have you ever tried focus stacking?  You should give it a go if you haven't.  It can produce some amazing results.  Most of the great macro shots you see in print and elsewhere are done using focus stacking.

I had the EF 100mm f/2.8L Macro IS USM Lens for a while (sold it). I quickly learned that the EF 180mm f/3.5L Macro USM Lens would be even better which it was/is.  But I have also sold it.  Macro photography takes a lot of time to do it right.  It is a field unto itself.

The  EF 100mm f/2.8L Macro IS USM Lens is an amazing lens.  And, not just for macro.  As a mid-tele it shines too. This lens is ultra sharp at every distance, even wide-open.  It might be the sharpest lens Canon makes.  It is a, you must see it, to appreciate how sharp it is.  I want mine back, now!  

[Waddizzle]

I think your aperture is stopped down way too far.  Stay between f/8 and f/16.  I'm still looking for the sweet spot for the aperture setting with this lens.  So far, I've started at f/8, and haven't budged.

EOS Rebel T5, EF 100mm f/2.8L IS USM, 1/800, f/8, ISO 250 - Manual Mode, w/ISO Auto.  One Shot Mode.

Here is a near 100% crop of the same shot, probably around 80%, I'm guessing.  Backing up a little bit, to about just over 2 feet or so, gave me much more DOF.

I love the lens.  It's a great prime for non-macro shots, too.  Here's mallard trying to lead me away from its' young.

EOS Rebel T5, EF 100mm f/2.8L IS USM, 1/320, f/8, ISO 640 - Manual Mode, w/ISO Auto. One Shot Mode.

Here is crop, about 80% or so, of the same shot.

All of these shots were processed with LR6, mostly to reduce the noise, White Balance, and Exposure [brightness] adjustments in the dawn light.  The devil is in the details, they say.  Then, this lens is pretty devilish.