What Type of Canon Camera will suit a Canon MP-E 65 mm Macro lens

[carrie]

I would love to one day buy a Canon MP-E 65mm Macro lens unfortunately not compatible with my 650D, could someone please tell me a canon camera that this lens is suitable for, heaps of thanks

carrie

[Wobbles]

Hi Carrie,
what makes you think you need a new camera? The MP-E 65 is an EF lens so it will fit any modern Canon EOS camera whether APS-C, APS-H or Full Frame.

Regards
John

[strictfunctor]

I've used this lens on a 350D, 50D, 7D, 5D2, and 5D3. Happy with how it goes on all of them.

[Speedway]

As said the lens will fit but as you are listed as a beginner I would think twice about this very specialised lens as they are not just fit and shoot you will need correct lighting and mounting equipment to use this lens. I looked at one some time ago and decided against it.
Cheers
Keith.

[Steve Axford]

I agree. Brilliant lens, but very difficult to use. Better to use a standard macro until you yearn for higher magnification.

[strictfunctor]

Humbug. Get a macro ringlight, the Canon one with ettl. You can shoot hand-held, and you'll have exciting bug shots that will make you feel like a pro in no time.

[Tricky]

I would agree with Steve that this is not a lens for a beginner. Do you have a standard macro lens at the moment? If so, try focusing on insects without using AF, moving the lens in/out to achieve crisp focus; if you can do that, then you are not really a beginner and you should be fine with the MP-E.

Please note that you will probably require a macro flash. Whilst natural light is preferrable with the MP-E, it can be hard to find enough. I would stay away from Canon's ringflash and instead get the slightly more expensive MT-24 twin flash.

Have to say... a 650D with an MPE and MT-24 on the end of it would be a bit imbalanced... both in terms of physical weight and allocation of equipment budget...

[strictfunctor]

Arguably, the twin-light is better, but to suggest the lens is too big or too expensive for the body is snobbery. Lighter is better. At ISO 160, manual everyhing, who cares whether you have an xxxD or an xD?

[Steve Axford]

Er. why ISO 160? Wouldn't ISO100 or 200 or 400 be more appropriate?

[strictfunctor]

Er. why ISO 160? Wouldn't ISO100 or 200 or 400 be more appropriate?

Reputedly, I wouldn't swear by it, ISO 160 and multiples thereof are less noisy than other nearby values.

[Steve Axford]

Fortunate you wouldn't swear by it, since it aint true. It all came from some guy (a video shooter) who did noise tests on a dark field by leaving the lens cap on. Unfortunately, this isn't a very good test and he mistakenly found that ISO 160, 320, 640 etc was the lowest noise. SInce the camera only uses 100, 200, 400 etc and simply adjust the other settings up or down with a gain adjustment, this is actually rubbish, and is quite predictable for a dark field - but not for a complete photo.

[strictfunctor]

Fortunate you wouldn't swear by it, since it aint true. It all came from some guy (a video shooter) who did noise tests on a dark field by leaving the lens cap on. Unfortunately, this isn't a very good test and he mistakenly found that ISO 160, 320, 640 etc was the lowest noise. SInce the camera only uses 100, 200, 400 etc and simply adjust the other settings up or down with a gain adjustment, this is actually rubbish, and is quite predictable for a dark field - but not for a complete photo.

Live and learn, and unlearn. ;-)