Macro lenses Canon 100mm vs Irix 150mm

[RedRobin]

The Canon EF 100mm F/2.8L IS Macro is a very well established and highly rated lens. In my experience in the field it works equally well on either full-frame, crop-sensor or mirrorless bodies and also with a Kenko 1.4x Extender (the Canon Extenders don't physically fit). As a wildlife photographer I only very rarely shoot any other subjects with this lens but realise it is useful for human portraits or similar.

I mostly shoot with the 1.4x on this lens, offering me 140mm F/5.6, hence my interest in the Irix 150mm F/2.8 Macro lens. Such focal lengths help not to spook insect subjects by being able to be further away.

But the Irix 150mm F/2.8 neither has Autofocus nor Image Stabilisation. The lack of AF is absolutely no problem because I always shoot Manual Focus for close-ups/macro as it is more accurate and especially as the mirrorless Canon EOS-R has very effective visual focussing aids (coloured peaking) in the EVF viewfinder. Image Stabilisation is more of an issue but selecting faster shutter speeds will help - This helps sharpness anyway. I have started shooting my Canon Macro with IS switched off to see how I go. I nearly always shoot Manual-mode and so have complete control of the exposure balance.

One of the very attractive features of the Irix, strangely named 'Dragonfly', macro lens is its very wide MF ring with a ridge and the ability to change its resistance tension or even lock it.

In depth reviews show that the Irix bokeh is even smoother than the Canon's. I have found a couple of reviews online but not by users in the field and no-one here on TP has mentioned Irix according to a Search.

https://www.digitalcameraworld.com/reviews/irix-150mm-f28-macro-11-dragonfly-review

https://www.ephotozine.com/article/irix-150mm-f-2-8-macro-1-1-dragonfly-review-33078

Does anyone here have any information or experience of the Irix 150mm please?

 

[Cagey75]

The Canon EF 100mm F/2.8L IS Macro is a very well established and highly rated lens. In my experience in the field it works equally well on either full-frame, crop-sensor or mirrorless bodies and also with a Kenko 1.4x Extender (the Canon Extenders don't physically fit). As a wildlife photographer I only very rarely shoot any other subjects with this lens but realise it is useful for human portraits or similar.

I mostly shoot with the 1.4x on this lens, offering me 140mm F/5.6, hence my interest in the Irix 150mm F/2.8 Macro lens. Such focal lengths help not to spook insect subjects by being able to be further away.

But the Irix 150mm F/2.8 neither has Autofocus nor Image Stabilisation. The lack of AF is absolutely no problem because I always shoot Manual Focus for close-ups/macro as it is more accurate and especially as the mirrorless Canon EOS-R has very effective visual focussing aids (coloured peaking) in the EVF viewfinder. Image Stabilisation is more of an issue but selecting faster shutter speeds will help - This helps sharpness anyway. I have started shooting my Canon Macro with IS switched off to see how I go. I nearly always shoot Manual-mode and so have complete control of the exposure balance.

One of the very attractive features of the Irix, strangely named 'Dragonfly', macro lens is its very wide MF ring with a ridge and the ability to change its resistance tension or even lock it.

In depth reviews show that the Irix bokeh is even smoother than the Canon's. I have found a couple of reviews online but not by users in the field and no-one here on TP has mentioned Irix according to a Search.

https://www.digitalcameraworld.com/reviews/irix-150mm-f28-macro-11-dragonfly-review

Does anyone here have any information or experience of the Irix 150mm please?

I only ever shoot macro with manual focusing too, it's much more precise once you get used to it. I use the to and fro method, lock in the min focus distance I want and then move the camera in and out to lock it where I need. This works out best for bugs who can be erratic and change position often and the DOF is so razor thin AF can miss a lot.

I almost bought the non L 100mm Canon, I would be adapting it to a body with IBIS so the L doesn't hold any extra value for me personally, though it is weather sealed where the non-L is not. And the L is apparently better at handling flare https://www.the-digital-picture.com/News/News-Post.aspx?News=18790

Looking on B&H, where the specs are usually reliable - there is nothing really between these lenses when it comes to working distance at 1:1. The Irix gives you 34cm, the Canon 30 - I thought the Irix would give a lot more space considering it's 50% longer. The Canon has IS, this can be very nice for composing, when at 1:1 magnification every breath can make the frame seem to shake like crazy regardless of SS used. The Canon will also be much better for other purposes, it is also over 200g lighter.

tough decision as I think you like to shoot dragonfly? the 150mm would be preferable for that but for all else I would choose the Canon.

 

[woof woof]

The one thing that could put me off a bit is that there seems to be little space between 3m and infinity which is the problem I'm having wit my current old 50mm macro.

How it like in use? Is there enough movement from 3m to infinity to focus on further distances easily?

 

[Cagey75]

The one thing that could put me off a bit is that there seems to be little space between 3m and infinity which is the problem I'm having wit my current old 50mm macro.

How it like in use? Is there enough movement from 3m to infinity to focus on further distances easily?

Not sure if anyone's had their hands on it yet bar reviewers. It does look a little tight from 3M to infinity though, but a nice chunky proper mechanical manual focus ring like that only needs a bare nudge to focus a little further. It does certainly look to be optimized much more so for close up photography

 

[RedRobin]

I only ever shoot macro with manual focusing too, it's much more precise once you get used to it. I use the to and fro method, lock in the min focus distance I want and then move the camera in and out to lock it where I need. This works out best for bugs who can be erratic and change position often and the DOF is so razor thin AF can miss a lot.

I almost bought the non L 100mm Canon, I would be adapting it to a body with IBIS so the L doesn't hold any extra value for me personally, though it is weather sealed where the non-L is not. And the L is apparently better at handling flare https://www.the-digital-picture.com/News/News-Post.aspx?News=18790

Looking on B&H, where the specs are usually reliable - there is nothing really between these lenses when it comes to working distance at 1:1. The Irix gives you 34cm, the Canon 30 - I thought the Irix would give a lot more space considering it's 50% longer. The Canon has IS, this can be very nice for composing, when at 1:1 magnification every breath can make the frame seem to shake like crazy regardless of SS used. The Canon will also be much better for other purposes, it is also over 200g lighter.

tough decision as I think you like to shoot dragonfly? the 150mm would be preferable for that but for all else I would choose the Canon.

.... Yes, it is a tough decision although I already have the Canon EF 100mm F/2.8L IS and am not unhappy with it. The image quality offered by each of the two lenses is equal. Weight difference when you add the Kenko 1.4x (as I mostly do) is only 83g in favour of the Canon for 140mm F/5.6 IS versus Irix 150mm F/2.8 non-IS.

But as it's very rare to shoot macro wide open because you want to maximise the DoF, then perhaps the F/2.8 is not important. BUT... the Irix would also give me the option of shooting macro at 210mm F/5.6 when my Kenko 1.4x is mounted, although I usually start off with my Canon 100-400mm L II (often + 1.4x) on larger bugs like dragonflies and then move in closer with the macro lens if tolerated.

The-Digital-Picture is one of my favourite review websites and they say about the Canon : "Hybrid IS corrects for both angular and shift movements and allows for roughly 2-stops of correction at 1:1 focusing distances and up to 4-stops of correction at longer focusing distances. If you plan on using your macro lens handheld in the field, the L-series lens – with its HIS, great build quality and weather sealing – will be your best choice. The value of image stabilization for handheld macros cannot be understated; it's hugely beneficial."

I took a couple of shots today with the Canon's IS switched off and it seemed more difficult without IS while shooting but the results look okay - I need to test this more and in better light. When moving through undergrowth etc, setting up a tripod is almost always guaranteed to spook the subject. My monopod with swivel foot helps sometimes.

 

[woof woof]

It's pretty normal for macro lens to have more space at the close end than the longer but shooting with my old Sigma it's definitely trickier than I'd like it to be when using it for non close up stuff and I would like more space at the longer end.

 

[RedRobin]

The one thing that could put me off a bit is that there seems to be little space between 3m and infinity which is the problem I'm having wit my current old 50mm macro.

How it like in use? Is there enough movement from 3m to infinity to focus on further distances easily?

.... That might indeed be a limitation but only when using the Irix not as a dedicated macro lens. The Canon has the advantage of more flexible use but I already use an RF 24-105mm and EF 100-400mm and so I only use my EF 100mm for macro/close-up shots.

Not sure if anyone's had their hands on it yet bar reviewers. It does look a little tight from 3M to infinity though, but a nice chunky proper mechanical manual focus ring like that only needs a bare nudge to focus a little further. It does certainly look to be optimized much more so for close up photography

.... I think you are right, Keith - The Irix has been very consciously designed primarily as a specialist macro/close-up lens. If my Canon EOS-R had IBIS (or a Canon equivalent) then the Irix would probably tick all the boxes. I think that Irix may have missed a trick by designing a macro lens without image stabilisation but perhaps they are relying on customers having IBIS camera bodies.

 

[Cagey75]

.... Yes, it is a tough decision although I already have the Canon EF 100mm F/2.8L IS and am not unhappy with it. The image quality offered by each of the two lenses is equal. Weight difference when you add the Kenko 1.4x (as I mostly do) is only 83g in favour of the Canon for 140mm F/5.6 IS versus Irix 150mm F/2.8 non-IS.

But as it's very rare to shoot macro wide open because you want to maximise the DoF, then perhaps the F/2.8 is not important. BUT... the Irix would also give me the option of shooting macro at 210mm F/5.6 when my Kenko 1.4x is mounted, although I usually start off with my Canon 100-400mm L II (often + 1.4x) on larger bugs like dragonflies and then move in closer with the macro lens if tolerated.

The-Digital-Picture is one of my favourite review websites and they say about the Canon : "Hybrid IS corrects for both angular and shift movements and allows for roughly 2-stops of correction at 1:1 focusing distances and up to 4-stops of correction at longer focusing distances. If you plan on using your macro lens handheld in the field, the L-series lens – with its HIS, great build quality and weather sealing – will be your best choice. The value of image stabilization for handheld macros cannot be understated; it's hugely beneficial."

I took a couple of shots today with the Canon's IS switched off and it seemed more difficult without IS while shooting but the results look okay - I need to test this more and in better light. When moving through undergrowth etc, setting up a tripod is almost always guaranteed to spook the subject. My monopod with swivel foot helps sometimes.

Ah! I completely missed the TC 1.4x part in the equation. With that, I don't really see much advantage to the Irix for macro, like you say we're almost always stopping down anyway. Many macro lenses force the aperture to close the closer in you focus too, not sure if this is the case with the Irix? It might well be at 5.6 at 1:1

It's pretty normal for macro lens to have more space at the close end than the longer but shooting with my old Sigma it's definitely trickier than I'd like it to be when using it for non close up stuff and I would like more space at the longer end.

This is where AF comes in to play for a macro lens, when you suddenly want to switch from macro to general distance shooting. A 150mm MF is never going to be the speediest reaction lens no matter how much room is given to focus between near and far

 

[RedRobin]

Many macro lenses force the aperture to close the closer in you focus too, not sure if this is the case with the Irix? It might well be at 5.6 at 1:1

.... I didn't know that. There appears to be no forcing aperture closure on my Canon 100mm and I don't know about the Irix but would be surprised if this is the case. I'm thinking that the aperture forcing probably happens on those lenses which have a Macro switch and which aren't truly dedicated macro.

This is where AF comes in to play for a macro lens, when you suddenly want to switch from macro to general distance shooting. A 150mm MF is never going to be the speediest reaction lens no matter how much room is given to focus between near and far

.... For my wildlife photography the 100mm (with 140mm option) is never the lens I would use to suddenly switch from near to far. I usually go out with both my 100-400mm + 1.4x + 1DX-2 and 100mm + 1.4x + EOS-R and switch cameras according to target distance. For landscapes (snaps in my case) and portraits (usually animals) I use my RF 24-105mm + EOS-R.

I went out early-ish, about 8:00am, into my wild 'BackYard' this morning just for test shooting with Image Stabilisation (IS) switched off and found a fly very settled on a buttercup (probably with a hangover from Saturday night partying) which was a perfect test. Also I found a very very tiny yellow ladybird. I shot everything handheld. I shot the same subjects with and without IS and as a result, IS makes a huge difference to the number of possible keepers!

I was also able to test and confirm that no matter how fast or slowly I can manually focus, a 140mm focal length is totally inadequate to grab a shot of a Song Thrush about 30ft away - That's why I bought the 100-400mm and 500mm plus Extenders.

After this morning's session I have now decided that for anything smaller than a dragonfly it is far too tricky to reliably shoot handheld without IS. Even a monopod, let alone a tripod, can be an encumbrance out in the tangled habitat of many minibeasts. Shooting a damselfly while emerging would call for the tripod.

So in conclusion the Irix lack of stabilisation is a deal breaker for me. I would rather have paid more and had it as a feature. Everything else I have learnt about the Irix 150mm is very attractive indeed and is at least equal to the Canon 100mm F/2.8L IS Macro.

Here is a fuller review of the Irix 150mm :

https://www.ephotozine.com/article/irix-150mm-f-2-8-macro-1-1-dragonfly-review-33078

 

[Cagey75]

.... I didn't know that. There appears to be no forcing aperture closure on my Canon 100mm and I don't know about the Irix but would be surprised if this is the case. I'm thinking that the aperture forcing probably happens on those lenses which have a Macro switch and which aren't truly dedicated macro.



.... For my wildlife photography the 100mm (with 140mm option) is never the lens I would use to suddenly switch from near to far. I usually go out with both my 100-400mm + 1.4x + 1DX-2 and 100mm + 1.4x + EOS-R and switch cameras according to target distance. For landscapes (snaps in my case) and portraits (usually animals) I use my RF 24-105mm + EOS-R.

I went out early-ish, about 8:00am, into my wild 'BackYard' this morning just for test shooting with Image Stabilisation (IS) switched off and found a fly very settled on a buttercup (probably with a hangover from Saturday night partying) which was a perfect test. Also I found a very very tiny yellow ladybird. I shot everything handheld. I shot the same subjects with and without IS and as a result, IS makes a huge difference to the number of possible keepers!

I was also able to test and confirm that no matter how fast or slowly I can manually focus, a 140mm focal length is totally inadequate to grab a shot of a Song Thrush about 30ft away - That's why I bought the 100-400mm and 500mm plus Extenders.

After this morning's session I have now decided that for anything smaller than a dragonfly it is far too tricky to reliably shoot handheld without IS. Even a monopod, let alone a tripod, can be an encumbrance out in the world of minibeasts. Shooting a damselfly while emerging would call for the tripod.

So in conclusion the Irix lack of stabilisation is a deal breaker for me. I would rather have paid more and had it as a feature. Everything else I have learnt about the Irix 150mm is very attractive indeed and is at least equal to the Canon 100mm F/2.8L IS Macro.

Here is a fuller review of the Irix 150mm :

https://www.ephotozine.com/article/irix-150mm-f-2-8-macro-1-1-dragonfly-review-33078

Apparently even when a macro lens reports that is still wide open, it's still losing up to 2 stops of light at it's closest focus distance. There's some physics involved that I won't even attempt to explain Some lenses do report the true F stop, I think Nikon macro lenses do like the 105mm. At closest focusing it will be stopped down to 4.8 or 5.6, it's only really 2.8 standard distance focusing. But I can't think why anyone would want the lens wide open at 1:1, DOF would be too ridiculous to keep anything in focus.

Taken from another forum:

"This is how all lenses are. As you focus closer, the true f/stop increases. For unit-focusing lenses, when you go to 1:1 you lose 2 stops. So an f/2.8 lens focused to 1:1 will be f/5.6. The 105mm Nikkor loses focal length as it focuses closer so it does not have quite this much loss.

The difference between Nikon and Canon is that Nikon reports the effective aperture and Canon does not. So I can rack my MP-E65 out to 5X and it still reads f/2.8 even though it's actually around f/11"

But I'd agree, IBIS or OIS is so useful for close up work, I often shoot macro one handed as I'll have a diffused flash unit in the other and IBIS helps a lot when framing.

 

[StewartR]

Apparently even when a macro lens reports that is still wide open, it's still losing up to 2 stops of light at it's closest focus distance. There's some physics involved that I won't even attempt to explain Some lenses do report the true F stop, I think Nikon macro lenses do like the 105mm. At closest focusing it will be stopped down to 4.8 or 5.6, it's only really 2.8 standard distance focusing. But I can't think why anyone would want the lens wide open at 1:1, DOF would be too ridiculous to keep anything in focus.

Taken from another forum:

"This is how all lenses are. As you focus closer, the true f/stop increases. For unit-focusing lenses, when you go to 1:1 you lose 2 stops. So an f/2.8 lens focused to 1:1 will be f/5.6. The 105mm Nikkor loses focal length as it focuses closer so it does not have quite this much loss.

The difference between Nikon and Canon is that Nikon reports the effective aperture and Canon does not. So I can rack my MP-E65 out to 5X and it still reads f/2.8 even though it's actually around f/11"

Just to add my 2p-worth, that this is all correct as I understand it.

 

[StewartR]

I mostly shoot with the 1.4x on this lens, offering me 140mm F/5.6, hence my interest in the Irix 150mm F/2.8 Macro lens....

... the Irix would also give me the option of shooting macro at 210mm F/5.6 when my Kenko 1.4x is mounted...

Your maths is a bit faulty here, Robin.

100mm f/2.8 + 1.4x Extender = 140mm f/4
150mm f/2.8 + 1.4x Extender = 210mm f/4

But it's not as simple as that. When you fit the Extender, you increase the magnification without changing the working distance. So when if you're comparing the 100mm lens + 1.4x Extender with the 150mm lens:
* the focal length is similar (140mm vs 150mm)
* the aperture is one stop worse (f/4 vs f/2.8)
* the magnification is higher (1.4:1 vs 1:1)

 

[Cagey75]

Just to add my 2p-worth, that this is all correct as I understand it.

I remember the first time I got a dedicated macro lens and being disappointed that i couldn't actually get 2.8 when focused in very close. Of course as I learned more about macro shooting in itself this didn't bother me at all. If I'm going anywhere near 1:1 these days I'm stopping down to at least f/11 mostly before I even fire off a tester

 

[RedRobin]

Your maths is a bit faulty here, Robin.

100mm f/2.8 + 1.4x Extender = 140mm f/4
150mm f/2.8 + 1.4x Extender = 210mm f/4

But it's not as simple as that. When you fit the Extender, you increase the magnification without changing the working distance. So when if you're comparing the 100mm lens + 1.4x Extender with the 150mm lens:
* the focal length is similar (140mm vs 150mm)
* the aperture is one stop worse (f/4 vs f/2.8)
* the magnification is higher (1.4:1 vs 1:1)

.... Thanks for correcting me on that, Stewart.

 

[RedRobin]

I remember the first time I got a dedicated macro lens and being disappointed that i couldn't actually get 2.8 when focused in very close. Of course as I learned more about macro shooting in itself this didn't bother me at all. If I'm going anywhere near 1:1 these days I'm stopping down to at least f/11 mostly before I even fire off a tester

.... Like I think you said earlier, I tend to avoid shooting at wider apertures on macro or close-ups because the DoF will be better at higher numeric value apertures.

I have never been bothered by whether a subject us 1:1 or not either - I just shoot according to how I visualise an image in the viewfinder.

 

[Cagey75]

.... Like I think you said earlier, I tend to avoid shooting at wider apertures on macro or close-ups because the DoF will be better at higher numeric value apertures.

I have never been bothered by whether a subject us 1:1 or not either - I just shoot according to how I visualise an image in the viewfinder.

Same, hence why I say 'near' - either side of it I prefer some images with more environment within them, could be 1:3, 1:2 or whatever, but 'they' say true macro is 1:1 or greater magnification. Like all other such rules, they are there to be broken regardless. It's good to have the option to pull back and allow more of the subject's environment in the frame or get right up in their grill and get insane details in the eyes of a bug!

 

[RedRobin]

Hmm, CanonRumors who are usually very reliable, have just posted a heads-up for a new Canon RF Macro lens which "will be first of its kind macro lens" - Not expected until 2020 :

https://www.canonrumors.co/rf-24mm-...-a-new-macro-rf-lens-coming-ahead-of-cp-2020/

Now I am absolutely NOT dissatisfied with my Canon EF 100mm F/2.8L IS Macro but I need a bit of distance so not to spook my minibeast targets and therefore a Kenko 1.4x lives semi-permanently on it, all mounted on my mirrorless EOS-R body - For me a perfect combo in my Lowepro toploader holster ready for a quick draw after I might have already got something in the bag with the EF 100-400mm + 1DX combo < That's how I roll [bloody hell, what is Robin on this morning!? - He's getting excited about roaming the grasslands of central Bulgaria hunting for minibeasts next week].

BUT, the prospect of a RF Macro lens, providing it is at least 100mm, to mount on my EOS-R greatly excites me and could make my combo more compact as well as take advantage of the mirrorless features, but only providing the lens has image stabilisation.

This is a handheld shot from my first session recently with my EF 100mm + 1.4x + EOS-R combo : [The cropping is minimal]

BEAUTIFUL DEMOISELLE by Robin Procter, on Flickr

^ Click the image for more info on Flickr.

 

[PhilH04]

Just to add... you can use your Canon extenders with the 100mm macro if you use a 12mm extension tube between them.....

 

[RedRobin]

Just to add... you can use your Canon extenders with the 100mm macro if you use a 12mm extension tube between them.....

.... Thanks but my Canon 1.4x III is either in use on my mark IIs 100-400mm or 500mm L lenses so I personally prefer to keep my Kenko extender on the macro.

I forgot I have a set of extension tubes and if I add one to my 100mm Macro + Kenko 1.4x combo I could get even closer < IF tolerated by the minibeast! I'll test it.