# Finally got my hands on the MP-E!



## Bios.

Borrowed the MP-E and MT-24ex from a guy in my department!

It's a difficult beast to master but I think I'm getting reasonable results.

#1



C. septempunctata by [[BIOSPHERE]], on Flickr

#2



C. septempunctata Mating by [[BIOSPHERE]], on Flickr

#3



4th Instar 7-spot Larvae eating A. fabae by [[BIOSPHERE]], on Flickr


#4



Weevil by [[BIOSPHERE]], on Flickr

#5



Harlequin succinea morph (Harmonia axyridis) by [[BIOSPHERE]], on Flickr

#6


Any ideas what this is? by [[BIOSPHERE]], on Flickr

#7



Hoverfly by [[BIOSPHERE]], on Flickr

Thanks.


----------



## Buckster

Very nice!  I'd love to play with one of those lenses.


----------



## jake337

Buckster said:


> Very nice!  I'd love to play with one of those lenses.



Agreed!  Come on Nikon you need something to match this lens!


----------



## jaomul

I'd say your getting reasonable results also


----------



## TheFantasticG

Jake, I wish Nikon made one. I wouldn't had to purchase the 60D for the MP-E that I picked up a couple of months ago. I wish I could see the images, but my connection is too slow. It'll have to wait until I get home tomorrow. Difference is I'm using the Canon ring flash. I have the twin speed light setup on my Nikon D7000. If you are familiar with macro work already as I was then its just a matter of getting use to working with incredibly small DOFs. I'm about to start focus stacking.


----------



## Bitter Jeweler

#4 has been nomernated in the photo of the month contest.


----------



## Bios.

Thanks guys.

Got a very cooperative nomada bee this morning. Not seen many recently I thought they had all gone for the year. Really pleased with these shots as I never thought I'd be able to get that close.





Nomada Spp. by [[BIOSPHERE]], on Flickr





Nomada Spp. by [[BIOSPHERE]], on Flickr


----------



## jake337

TheFantasticG said:


> Jake, I wish Nikon made one. I wouldn't had to purchase the 60D for the MP-E that I picked up a couple of months ago. I wish I could see the images, but my connection is too slow. It'll have to wait until I get home tomorrow. Difference is I'm using the Canon ring flash. I have the twin speed light setup on my Nikon D7000. If you are familiar with macro work already as I was then its just a matter of getting use to working with incredibly small DOFs. I'm about to start focus stacking.



I guess if I shoot in manual anyways without metering I could always get a canon to nikon adapter right?


----------



## Netskimmer

jake337 said:


> Buckster said:
> 
> 
> 
> Very nice! I'd love to play with one of those lenses.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Agreed! Come on Nikon you need something to match this lens!
Click to expand...


+1 WTF Nikon?!



jake337 said:


> TheFantasticG said:
> 
> 
> 
> Jake, I wish Nikon made one. I wouldn't had to purchase the 60D for the MP-E that I picked up a couple of months ago. I wish I could see the images, but my connection is too slow. It'll have to wait until I get home tomorrow. Difference is I'm using the Canon ring flash. I have the twin speed light setup on my Nikon D7000. If you are familiar with macro work already as I was then its just a matter of getting use to working with incredibly small DOFs. I'm about to start focus stacking.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I guess if I shoot in manual anyways without metering I could always get a canon to nikon adapter right?
Click to expand...


I think the main problem with that would me aperture control. I don't think this lens has an aperture ring and I don't recall seeing any Canon-Nikon adapters that allow that kind of communication between the lans and camera.


----------



## Jaemie

These are stunningly beautiful.


----------



## jake337

Netskimmer said:


> jake337 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Buckster said:
> 
> 
> 
> Very nice! I'd love to play with one of those lenses.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Agreed! Come on Nikon you need something to match this lens!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> +1 WTF Nikon?!
> 
> 
> 
> jake337 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TheFantasticG said:
> 
> 
> 
> Jake, I wish Nikon made one. I wouldn't had to purchase the 60D for the MP-E that I picked up a couple of months ago. I wish I could see the images, but my connection is too slow. It'll have to wait until I get home tomorrow. Difference is I'm using the Canon ring flash. I have the twin speed light setup on my Nikon D7000. If you are familiar with macro work already as I was then its just a matter of getting use to working with incredibly small DOFs. I'm about to start focus stacking.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I guess if I shoot in manual anyways without metering I could always get a canon to nikon adapter right?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I think the main problem with that would me aperture control. I don't think this lens has an aperture ring and I don't recall seeing any Canon-Nikon adapters that allow that kind of communication between the lans and camera.
Click to expand...


Dammit Canon and Nikon!


----------



## zamanakhan

Man I really want this lens!!!i have too much invested in the Nikon system or I would have a 5dmk3 and the mp3 with a 16-35. Come to think of it, I can prob sell all my Nikon grear and to canon before a d800 would even ship to me


----------



## Cpi2011

So beautiful images here really fantastic set of photographs !!


----------



## groan

I have an old Rebel at home...
Would it be bad taste to go get an MP-E and put it on it?

Those are tremendous. I'd say you got the hang of it too.

Bee shot #2 is fabulous.


----------



## dxqcanada

I think the closest lens to this was the old Minolta AF 3x-1x f/1.7-2.8 Macro ... though the Canon can get 5:1.


----------



## Skaperen

jake337 said:


> Buckster said:
> 
> 
> 
> Very nice!  I'd love to play with one of those lenses.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Agreed!  Come on Nikon you need something to match this lens!
Click to expand...

Back in the day (film) I had an FE-2, bellows, reversing ring, step down (effectively up because in reverse) ring, and 20mm f/2.8.

The bellows was since ruined and was discarded.  The FE-2's mirror stop foam dried up and needs replacement.  But I still have the rest somewhere.  Maybe I should get the Nikon to Canon mount adapter and combine my Canon macro tubes with my Nikon macro tubes


----------



## Bios.

Thanks guys!

There are plenty of other ways to achieve this magnification but it's so much easier to have it all in one lens rather than needing to change tubes/converters etc and having full aperture control. I am definitely loving this lens at the moment!


----------



## jowensphoto

The last one in the first set is quite breathtaking.

Beautiful work!


----------



## unpopular

Skaperen said:


> jake337 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Buckster said:
> 
> 
> 
> Very nice!  I'd love to play with one of those lenses.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Agreed!  Come on Nikon you need something to match this lens!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Back in the day (film) I had an FE-2, bellows, reversing ring, step down (effectively up because in reverse) ring, and 20mm f/2.8.
> 
> The bellows was since ruined and was discarded.  The FE-2's mirror stop foam dried up and needs replacement.  But I still have the rest somewhere.  Maybe I should get the Nikon to Canon mount adapter and combine my Canon macro tubes with my Nikon macro tubes
Click to expand...


Though not at all comparable to this magnificent lens, especially in the areas of CA and Coma, you can get very high magnification with this route. Using high end enlarging lenses, or APO Rodagon scientific lenses from EO, may be comparable:

Rodnstock Rodagon 50/4, Kosher Salt - uncropped







Still, if shooting insects is your thing, bellows can be somewhat difficult.


----------



## Robin Usagani

well.. you magnify it even more with crop sensor.


----------



## unpopular

Huh. I didn't think of that, though it makes sense. 

Magnification confuses me a lot... If it were 3x on a FF would it be 3.6x on APSC, or would it be 4.8x (3*1.6)?


----------



## Josh66

I'm not so sure about that.  I think 1:1 would still be 1:1 - it would just be cropped.  FF vs. Crop Sensor, printed at the same size, the crop sensor would _appear_ larger, but it would be no different than cropping the FF photo.


----------



## unpopular

Well, sure. The projection within the image circle wouldn't change, but I still think _effective_ magnification depends on the format - even if absolute magnification doesn't.

Certainly my grains of salt would be smaller relative to a larger format - even to the extent of being not macro if on 4x5. After all, 5:1 is referring to 5 units per 1 unit of filmplane - right?


----------



## Josh66

unpopular said:


> Well, sure. The projection within the image circle wouldn't change, but I still think _effective_ magnification depends on the format - even if absolute magnification doesn't.


Crop Sensor - can never achieve that which cannot be done on FF (with cropping).
FF - same magnification, but more of it.  (Wider)


If print/display size stays proportional to medium size, magnification levels will be the same.

What you're saying is true, but that exact same effective magnification could be achieved on FF just by cropping.


----------



## unpopular

Well, yeah, ofcourse! After all, that is all that a any sensor is doing - cropping the image circle.


----------



## Josh66

unpopular said:


> Well, yeah, of course!


Duh.  LOL.

I think we're both saying the same thing.

It's like there's some unspoken rule that you can't crop FF photos...


What are we arguing about again?  I forgot...lol.


----------



## unpopular

I think Schwetty's point is that while I can get up to about 5x (or more) with my Rodagon and bellows, you would not get that much if you used it on FF without cropping. So my comparison isn't 100% accurate. 

Still if you used a 28mm APO Rodagon, you may still out perform it - but at about $1000, it's a kind of pricy option for a lens in barrel at f/4.


----------



## Robin Usagani

Sorry, I was just saying about someone mentioning Canon rebel.

1:1 just means you can fit an object that is about the size of your sensor and fill the whole sensor with it.  Since a crop sensor is smaller, you can fit smaller object to fill your whole sensor.

so a 5:1 you can fill the whole sensor with an object about 1/5 the size of your sensor.


----------



## Robin Usagani

so basically a crop sensor will magnify your full sensor shot by 1.6.


----------



## Josh66

The same object would fill the same area on a FF sensor - there would just be more extra room around that object.  But I know you know that, lol.


----------



## Robin Usagani

Yeah LOL.  It is a hard topic to explain.  You either get it or you dont.


----------



## unpopular

Another comparable lens is the Zeiss Luminar, Leica also made an equivalent. These both can be found on ebay for around $500 to well over $1000 depending on the focal length. One would need a bellows or helical to make these lenses functional. But certain models are rumored to have an image circle of over 5"!!


----------



## Bios.

A couple more:




Miner Bee (Lasioglossum calceatum) by [[BIOSPHERE]], on Flickr




I just love pollen! by [[BIOSPHERE]], on Flickr




10-spot chequered form (Adalia decempunctata) by [[BIOSPHERE]], on Flickr


----------



## TheFantasticG

jake337 said:


> TheFantasticG said:
> 
> 
> 
> Jake, I wish Nikon made one. I wouldn't had to purchase the 60D for the MP-E that I picked up a couple of months ago. I wish I could see the images, but my connection is too slow. It'll have to wait until I get home tomorrow. Difference is I'm using the Canon ring flash. I have the twin speed light setup on my Nikon D7000. If you are familiar with macro work already as I was then its just a matter of getting use to working with incredibly small DOFs. I'm about to start focus stacking.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I guess if I shoot in manual anyways without metering I could always get a canon to nikon adapter right?
Click to expand...


From what I've researched no one makes an EF to F mount adapter because the physics of light don't work in that direction, but they do work when you use an F mount lens on a EF mount body. No one makes a Canon Lens to Nikon Body adapter.


----------



## unpopular

eep. wrong adapter... brb...

---

weird. you're right. it should be possible with a corrective lens, which in this case you'd simply remove. I don't know why this adapter doesn't seem to exist.


----------



## TheFantasticG

Yup. I spent many hours searching to avoid buying a Canon body... but to no avail.


----------



## unpopular

I read that it has to do with the physics of physical size, not the physics of light. Canon lenses are too big to fit into the Nikon hole. It is possible, but you'd have to move the lens flange forward and place a corrective lens in between. You'd be better off using a Luminar or whatever the Leica equivalent was. Still you can get very good results using enlarging lenses.

---

holes, flanges? this is all sounding a bit dirty.


----------



## EDL

I thought it was because the sensor to flange distance is longer on Nikon than Canon.  This allows room on a Canon body to mount the adapter and have it machined so it mounts a Nikon lens at the right distance from the sensor so full focus range works?  Theoretically, an adapter could be made for Nikon to mount a Canon lens and you'd be able to focus up to a certain range, but not all the way to infinity?


----------



## unpopular

If that were the case, chinese manufacturers would be making adapters with goofy corrective lenses that perform like dirt. Been there, done that.


----------



## TheFantasticG

You might be right there, unpopular. It's been awhile since I did all that reading about it. I gave up after some months and just bought a 60D for the MP-E.


----------



## Bios.

Aphis fabae by [[BIOSPHERE]], on Flickr




C. 7-punctata feeding on A. fabae by [[BIOSPHERE]], on Flickr

Thanks.


----------



## Dracaena

Dude, this is much much more than reasonable, I want this lense so bad!


----------



## Bios.

Thanks man.


----------



## pgriz

The images are really good.  Can't give the lens all the credit - the lighting is very good.  Can you share your shooting setup?  With the very thin DOF, I'm pretty sure you were shooting on a tripod with a rail system - am I guessing right?


----------



## msaha

Amazing results!
wow!
such sharp photos can only come from a great lens!


----------



## Bios.

pgriz said:


> The images are really good.  Can't give the lens all the credit - the lighting is very good.  Can you share your shooting setup?  With the very thin DOF, I'm pretty sure you were shooting on a tripod with a rail system - am I guessing right?



Thanks, nope I was shooting handheld, if you have done much +1x macro then the lens isn't much more difficult to use than anything else. It just takes practice, a steady hand and a few techniques such as the left hand brace and holding breath. I think this lens would be a nightmare to use on a tripod even with macro rails as even handheld it is sometimes very difficult to locate your subject. Here's my setup: 

Mp-e/mt-24ex diffusion setup by [[BIOSPHERE]], on Flickr


----------



## TheFantasticG

It's not that hard. I use mine on rails attached to a tripod. Next time I'm home I'm going to purchase a new ball head because this 11# ball head isn't cutting with the rails attached.


----------



## mjhoward

Bios. said:


> pgriz said:
> 
> 
> 
> The images are really good.  Can't give the lens all the credit - the lighting is very good.  Can you share your shooting setup?  With the very thin DOF, I'm pretty sure you were shooting on a tripod with a rail system - am I guessing right?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Thanks, nope I was shooting handheld, if you have done much +1x macro then the lens isn't much more difficult to use than anything else. It just takes practice, a steady hand and a few techniques such as the left hand brace and holding breath. I think this lens would be a nightmare to use on a tripod even with macro rails as even handheld it is sometimes very difficult to locate your subject. Here's my setup:
> 
> Mp-e/mt-24ex diffusion setup by [[BIOSPHERE]], on Flickr
Click to expand...


Are you focus stacking or just using a small aperture?  For the magnification, you seem to be getting pretty deep DOF.


----------



## mjhoward

Schwettylens said:


> well.. you magnify it even more with crop sensor.



No. Magnification is a property of the optics, not the system (which includes the sensor).  FOV is different between the two, even at high magnification, but the actual magnification remains the same.  Let's say you took a photo of something that is 23.6mm wide.  At 1:1 magnification, on a DX sensor it will fill the entire width of the frame since that is the width of the sensor.  On a FX sensor, however, that same subject AT 1:1 would only fill ~2/3 the width of the frame.  This is because the FOV is different, NOT the magnification.  To fill the frame of an FX sensor with the same subject, you would need a magnification of ~1.5:1


----------



## Bios.

Mjhoward: No stacking, I'm pretty sure most of these were taken at f11. I try to find "magic angles" to maximise the depth of field, see here: No Cropping Zone: Magic Angles


----------



## Buckster

Bios. said:


> Mjhoward: No stacking, I'm pretty sure most of these were taken at f11. I try to find "magic angles" to maximise the depth of field, see here: No Cropping Zone: Magic Angles


So, you're using a tilt/shift?


----------



## AndaluzMirlo

Really love your photos!


----------



## unpopular

Buckster said:


> Bios. said:
> 
> 
> 
> Mjhoward: No stacking, I'm pretty sure most of these were taken at f11. I try to find "magic angles" to maximise the depth of field, see here: No Cropping Zone: Magic Angles
> 
> 
> 
> So, you're using a tilt/shift?
Click to expand...


I think the idea is the same Scheimpflug, only that instead of the lens plane being adjusted to meet the subject, the subject plane relative to the lens plane is being adjusted. While the idea of "Magic Angles" seems valid, it's not terribly sophisticated. It's more just skewing the DOF over the area of the subject area.

It's important to note that the amount of DOF does not change, but rather how the subject falls into that area. So if you imagine acceptable sharpness as a cube, you could fit the subject into that cube a number of ways. If you put the subject in at a diagonal, you'll get more of teh subject in sharp focus than if you fit the subject in perpendicular to it's face.

It's an interesting approach, and until I can get T/S bellows worked out It's something I'm deff going to investigate.


----------

