Ad
Ad
Ad
Pages: [1]   Bottom of Page
Print
Author Topic: Canon MR-14EX ring flash - can't use UV filter???  (Read 7431 times)
Jonathan Wienke
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 5759



WWW
« on: April 13, 2003, 05:17:02 PM »
ReplyReply

One thing to consider, a lens hood has absolutely no negative effect on image quality, whereas any fliter will reduce the light available to the lens, and introduce a small amount of additional distortion to the image (additional reflections with lens elements, etc.) All Canon lens hoods are reverse-mountable for easy storage--they extend toward the rear of the lens barrel from the front when attached that way thereby greatly reducing the need for additional storage space.
Logged

lester_wareham
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 116


WWW
« Reply #1 on: July 26, 2005, 10:04:17 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote
Just got my MR-14EX and unpacked it to fit on camera/lens to check if operation seems ok.  Imagine my dismay to discover that you have to remove any filters on the lens in order to get the flash on.  
Wow This is a problem. The one time you definatly want a filter on your lens is when doing macro work.

Particularly if you are stalking insects though the undergrowth.

For those who mention the use of a lens hood, this is not possible with any sigificant magnification due to the small working distance. The 180mm may be an exception.

Can you get the filter on once the ring flash is on?

I assumed it clipped on rather like the lens hood - is that not the case?
Logged
jani
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1603



WWW
« Reply #2 on: July 27, 2005, 02:39:16 PM »
ReplyReply

Jonathan, that setup looked insane the first time I saw it, and it still does.

I love it!
Logged

Jan
mikebinok
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 71



« Reply #3 on: July 29, 2005, 02:16:53 AM »
ReplyReply

I have the MP-E-65, an MT-24EX, and I can confirm that at 5x the lighting does come in at a pretty sharp angle.  But you can still get front lighting on your subject.

Working distance from front of lens is about 1 to 4 inches (going from memory) at 5x to 1x respectively.

Depth of field is miniscule, about a millimeter and a half at 5x and open f/stops.  The shallow DOF, short range, and large size of the thing when it is at 5x (it zooms like mad, I believe the length triples at 5x) make it a pain in the butt to use.  I like the lens, but I've got bugs on the brain!  With anything other than a static subject and a tripod shot you will lose MOST of your shots because of DOF problems or the subject moving out of the frame.  But some of the ones you keep can be amazing.  I have head-on shots of harvester ants ("red ants" in much of the central and southwest USA) almost filling the frame.
Logged
cerebros
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 43


« Reply #4 on: April 11, 2003, 12:57:44 PM »
ReplyReply

Just got my MR-14EX and unpacked it to fit on camera/lens to check if operation seems ok.  Imagine my dismay to discover that you have to remove any filters on the lens in order to get the flash on.  Obviously i wouldn't be planning on using filters for macro work, but i always leave a UV filter on my lenses to guard against any little accidents (since I can't afford to risk having repairs/replacements), and i guess a lot of photographers do this too.

Why on earth didn't Canon design the MR-14EX so that it would fit on over a filter?  It's going to be so annoying having to remove the filter whenever I do macro work - it'll probably kill off all my shooting where I just see something good in the garden and dash indoors to fetch the camera, as it'll probably be gone by the time I've unscrewed the filter...
Logged
cerebros
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 43


« Reply #5 on: April 12, 2003, 05:07:52 AM »
ReplyReply

My point is that a lot of photographers use UV filters to protect their lens.  Hoods are fine, but they're a pain to find space for in your kit bag, and to be honest I rarely find myself in a situation where a hood is necessary (or i can't shade the lens with my hand).  Whereas a UV filter protects the lens all the time.
Logged
PDez
Guest
« Reply #6 on: April 22, 2003, 11:30:04 AM »
ReplyReply

I think this has veered off of the original issue.  It is impossible to use the MR-14 or MT-24 with a hood.  It would be very convenient if the filter were able to be used for protection.  When dealing with subject matter a few inches from the front element, I sure would like to have my UV multicoat filter on to prevent any possible damage.  There is no way it is going to affect any picture I take, but it might save the lens from harm.
Logged
Phillip
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 9


« Reply #7 on: May 02, 2003, 11:49:52 PM »
ReplyReply

I stand corrected from my earlier post.  After unpacking my MT-24EX tonight, I discovered that the 100 f2.8 USM can indeed be used with a hood and the twin light.  However, the manual states to turn off the twin light as the hood will block the flashes, so what is the point?  More important is the fact that a 58mm filter can be attached to the mounting ring once it is on the lens.  In addition, since I had to get a 72C Canon adapter to use the MT-24 on my 180 f3.5L, that adapter can be attached to a standard 72mm UV filter attached to the lens.

WOW, the 180 is incredible!
Logged
lester_wareham
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 116


WWW
« Reply #8 on: July 26, 2005, 10:06:22 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote
I stand corrected from my earlier post.  After unpacking my MT-24EX tonight, I discovered that the 100 f2.8 USM can indeed be used with a hood and the twin light.   More important is the fact that a 58mm filter can be attached to the mounting ring once it is on the lens.  
So does the mounting ring attach to the filter thread?

I only have the 100mm f2.8 Macro USM at present but hope to get the MP-E 65 some time. I am trying towork out which of the two macro flashes to get.

I have done some rough sums and it looks like the MT-24EX would be side lighting or even back lighting the MP-E 65 at high magnifications due to the short working distance.

Do you (or any other readers) have the MP-E 65 and MT-24EX who could comment on this point please?
Logged
Jonathan Wienke
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 5759



WWW
« Reply #9 on: July 26, 2005, 11:16:21 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote
Wow This is a problem. The one time you definatly want a filter on your lens is when doing macro work.

Particularly if you are stalking insects though the undergrowth.

For those who mention the use of a lens hood, this is not possible with any sigificant magnification due to the small working distance. The 180mm may be an exception.
I used a hood when I shot this:



Put a 72mm 500D on a 35-350L and it makes a surprisingly good macro lens. And you can leave the hood on. Sometimes lots of working distance is a good thing.
Logged

lester_wareham
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 116


WWW
« Reply #10 on: July 29, 2005, 03:35:10 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote
I have the MP-E-65, an MT-24EX, and I can confirm that at 5x the lighting does come in at a pretty sharp angle.  But you can still get front lighting on your subject.

Working distance from front of lens is about 1 to 4 inches (going from memory) at 5x to 1x respectively.

Depth of field is miniscule, about a millimeter and a half at 5x and open f/stops.  The shallow DOF, short range, and large size of the thing when it is at 5x (it zooms like mad, I believe the length triples at 5x) make it a pain in the butt to use.  I like the lens, but I've got bugs on the brain!  With anything other than a static subject and a tripod shot you will lose MOST of your shots because of DOF problems or the subject moving out of the frame.  But some of the ones you keep can be amazing.  I have head-on shots of harvester ants ("red ants" in much of the central and southwest USA) almost filling the frame.
It must be very challenging.

I have wanted to take shots like that for over twenty years but with my old FD system it was bellows with reversed wide angle lenses and manual flash and calculated exposure compensation. To be honest I got nothing to be proud off.

I have been able to get decent (although unexciting) life size shots with the 100mm macro and 20D internal flash (bit of a surprise).

So now all I need to do is convince my wife to let be get the MP-E and 24EX on top of the camera and a bunch of lenses. I might have to wait a while, perhaps xmas. She has the desire for a new kitchen….

I must ask, with these high magnifications do you work in a staged environment with your subjects or in the field?

Thanks

Lester
Logged
Jonathan Wienke
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 5759



WWW
« Reply #11 on: July 27, 2005, 01:32:08 PM »
ReplyReply

Here's the lighting I used:



More details at http://www.visual-vacations.com/Photograph...flash_setup.htm
Logged

lester_wareham
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 116


WWW
« Reply #12 on: July 28, 2005, 03:00:31 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote
Here's the lighting I used:
I can just see you sneeking up on small nervous insects with that!. Looks seriously heavy too.
Logged
lester_wareham
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 116


WWW
« Reply #13 on: July 28, 2005, 10:11:41 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote
I have about a foot of working distance. Which is nice when shooting poisonous spiders.
Good point!  Cheesy

Not many of those in the UK though.  :cool:
Logged
scubastu
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 77



WWW
« Reply #14 on: April 11, 2003, 01:19:39 PM »
ReplyReply

I think you just answered your own question on what to do.... leave the filter off...

The only time I put a filter on the lens is it's a polarizer, close-up diopter (for underwater) or some Cokin special effects filter...outside of that, my lenses are uncovered....a hood will likely offer as much protection as a UV filter if not more....and hoods are cheaper to replace/fix.

my 2 cents...

stu
Logged
cerebros
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 43


« Reply #15 on: April 26, 2003, 03:56:22 AM »
ReplyReply

Exactly - a UV filter protects the lens front element all the time.

A lens hood still has to be put on before it starts protecting, the lens, doesn't protect against a freak stone being chipped up and smacking the lens element (unlikely perhaps, but stranger things have happened), and it doesn't protect at times when you can't attach the lens hood to the lens (e.g. when using the MR-14EX)

While Canon lens hoods are reversible, they still take up more room than the lens on its own - and that can mean the difference between being able to fit a lens in your kit bag or not.

Plus, the hoods for wide angle lenses like the 16-35 are far too wide to be able to justify having them reversed on the lens while in your kit bag - it has to be stored seperately.
Logged
lester_wareham
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 116


WWW
« Reply #16 on: July 27, 2005, 05:12:49 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote
I used a hood when I shot this:
Put a 72mm 500D on a 35-350L and it makes a surprisingly good macro lens. And you can leave the hood on. Sometimes lots of working distance is a good thing.
That's a nice shot.

You can have the hood on the 100mm but at 1:1 it's obscuring the light from the subject.

More on topic is you are not going to be using a hood with a macro flash for obvious reasons.

Even more of an issue with the MP-E 65mm, I guess ('cos I don't have it yet) the front element to subject working distance will be about 40mm at 5:1.

Anyone who uses the MT-24EX and MP-65mm at 5:1 can they comment about how much front lighting there is or do you end up with only rim or back lighting?

Can they also clarify if the twin flash can go over a filter with the MP-E 65mm or 100mm if if the filter needs to be removed and then replaced?

The workig distance with the 180mm makes the filter point less of an issue (yes its on my wish list too....).

Thanks folks.
Logged
Jonathan Wienke
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 5759



WWW
« Reply #17 on: July 28, 2005, 09:39:50 AM »
ReplyReply

With the lens at 350mm, I don't have to get right up in the critters, I have about a foot of working distance. Which is nice when shooting poisonous spiders.
Logged

mikebinok
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 71



« Reply #18 on: August 15, 2005, 07:50:50 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
I must ask, with these high magnifications do you work in a staged environment with your subjects or in the field?
I haven't been back to this forum in awhile, so I'm tardy in answering this.  This is a link to my pride-and-joy harvester ant shot.  Done in the field with the MP-E-65 and MT-24EX.  I literally had dozens of red ants crawling all over me while taking it!

http://photomacrography.net/forum/viewtopic.php?t=700

In most cases, I work in the field, shoot digital, and for moving subjects, expect to throw away 50 shots for every one that isn't a throwaway (and of course perhaps one in fifty of THOSE is a really good shot).  Frustrating, and some will argue that it isn't what a skilled photographer would do.  But it does work for me, and for shooting a subject that moves perhaps five millimeters in a second with a lens that gives about one millimeter of DOF, I really don't think there is a better solution!
Logged
lester_wareham
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 116


WWW
« Reply #19 on: August 17, 2005, 04:40:26 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote
Done in the field with the MP-E-65 and MT-24EX.  I literally had dozens of red ants crawling all over me while taking it!
Thanks for the feedback.

Do they bite?

Digital is the thing for wildlife shots in general and high magnification work. I guess the cost would be prohibitive with film.

Thanks again. If you have some more shots please do share them.
Logged
Pages: [1]   Top of Page
Print
Jump to:  

Ad
Ad
Ad