Canon macro flash

Anyone using the Canon MT-24EX macro flash with the Canon 180 mm L macro? I see the flash attaches directly to the 100 mm macro (which I use) but for the
180 (which my wife uses) an adapter is required and I wanted to know if this adapter blocks part of the frame or has other issues?

Do you use just one 550 and set it for fill flash or do you use two and ratio them? We have two 550's with the off-camera shoe and Wimberley flash brackets but use it only with a 500 mm for fill flash, not macro. Maybe we should re-think this for the 180 mm.

I think we'd need another bracket to get the flash pointed down enough for macro? Also, I think there's something in the spec about min working distance and it was outside the macro range, right? I think .5 meters or 1.6 ft for guaranteed E-TTL operation, or can you extend this with a small aperture?

Thanks again for all the great info ... I'm still leaning toward the ringflash for the 100 mm macro but maybe we'll play with the 550EX and see if we can soften the light a bit. Part of the allure of the dedicated macro flashes was having two flashes you can ratio, and also having something relatively small (compared to the 550EX) right at the front of the lens.

Yes, my ringflash is the 14EX, and it fits the 180mm. There's no vignetting with its use. It also fits the 65mm 1-5x macro, and does an excellent job with very tight flower macros, for example.

Yes, 1:1 ratio is quite flat, but I've been very pleased when I set it at 1:3 or 1:2. The "ring" is composed of two individual flash tubes, and the entire unit can be rotated as you wish, unlike some old ringflashes that just had one continuous tube that encircled the entire flash.

I've seen other photographers' results with the MT-24EX that were very nice. As
I said, I've not used it all that much since getting it, so maybe I just haven't hit upon the right settings. But...I've experimented a fair amount and in every case I preferred the results from the ringflash.

Here's a link to one of my shots using the ringflash and 65mm 1-5x macro, at about 2x lifesize:
http://www.dannyburk.com/yellow_pansy.htm
Danny

I usually use just the one 550EX (with the 180L) but occasionally I will use a double (Kirk) bracket with a 420EX as the fill. (I use the
420 because it supports wireless E-TTL and slaves with the 550EX, etc.) It depends really on what I'm shooting. For butterflies, flowers, and "large" things, the mag is almost never more than 1:3 and the one light does just fine. (It sits on the bracket at an angle of about 30-35 degrees above the lens axis.) As I get closer (1:2 -
1:1), I usually put a diffuser over the 550EX and then, sometimes, use the second flash. Two big flashes are cumbersome and heavy, however, so I try to go with just the one when possible. (I use one of those little LumiQuest Promax mini softboxes as a diffuser. It makes the
"size of the light source" much larger relative to the subject and reduces the harsh "spotlight" effect. This "spotlight" effect seems more apparent the closer the subject is to the flash, although logic would seem to indicate just the opposite. Go figure.)

About the "minimum distance" for the flash to work with E-TTL: When I first read this after buying the flash I was concerned, too. However, either the diffuser or the f/22 f-stop settings or the exposure compensation for close focus or something seems to make this completely moot. I often have my flash not more than 12 -14 inches from a subject and have never had any over/under exposure issues using
E-TTL. One of my most favorite shots is of a jumping spider, using the 180L 1.4TC focused as close as I could get (giving 1.4:1 = greater than lifesize), and with the 550EX (no diffuser this time)
within 12 inches of the little bugger, and I got several great shots.
I don't really know how to interpret the "minimum flash distance" information other than it might have something to do with the beam width and multiple meetering points ??? or the addition exposure compensation for macro work counteracts it ??? just a guess. I've never had any problem with macro subjects being well under the
"minimum flash distance", to my knowlege.

I have an MT-24EX and Canon 180 L macro. The adapter is a small ring that screws to the front of the lens, similar to a step-down ring. It works perfectly and doesn't create any blocking or vignetting.

I've not used the setup all that much, but to date I've not been pleased with the quality of light compared to my ringflash. The MT-24 is much more harsh, regardless of where I position the flashes; I like to set the ringflash at a ratio of 1:3 or 1:2, which provides very soft modeling.

Thanks Danny, I think we'll get this ringlight instead of the 24EX for now ...
will this one accept the external power boosters, like the Quantum Turbo Z we use on the 550EX?

Nice ... but now my wife, the "Macro Queen", wants one of these darn 1-5x macros for her birthday! Thanks, I think

I have the same equipment as Danny (180L, MPE-65, MR-14EX and
MT-24EX). The 14EX has built in "diffuser panels" over the bulbs that soften the light very nicely. To accomplish the same thing with the
24EX, I put a couple of layers of "scotch" tape over the flash and it did soften the light, somewhat. I've got some regular "diffusion material" that I intend to ultimately use instead, but haven't gotten around to cutting and attaching it to the 24EX, yet. I've tried both the 14EX and 24EX with the 180L (using the adapter ring Danny mentioned), but for that lens I much prefer to use my 550EX on a Kirk bracket. When shooting at 1:2 or less both the 14EX and 24EX are too close to the lens axis for my tastes and don't cast "long enough shadows", even using high ratio differences on the lights. Because of the longer focal length of the 180L and its greater stand-off distance, I feel any kind of ring-light (including the 24EX) just doesn't cut it on that lens. I do use the 24EX with my 65mm, however.
Because the subject distances are so much smaller with that lens, the angle of the lights from the center of the lens axis are about the same as my Kirk setup with the 180L, and so I find the flash shadows to my taste. One advantage the 24EX has over the 14EX (when using the
65mm) is that the flash heads can be removed and placed almost anywhere around the subject. This has been very useful to me a couple of times. If you do decide to use the adapter ring with the 24EX on the 180L, you won't be able to use the big lens shade that comes with the 180L, of course. In this case, get a 58mm rubber lens hood to screw into the front of the 24EX (it has standard 58mm front threads for hoods, filters, etc., believe it nor not.) For the 65mm lens and
24EX combination, there is a special, small metal lens hood that I bought that screws into the front of the 24EX, just for that particular lens. This is because the flash heads hang out far enough to "flare back" into the 65mm front element. I don't know if this could be a problem for your 100mm or not (probably not) but you can always get the rubber lens hood to be safe. Hope this was useful.

Interesting ... thanks Danny. Is your 'ringflash' the 14EX? If so, does that one also fit the 180 mm? I thought one of the mounting rings for one of the
Canon macro flashes was too narrow for the 180 mm and vignetted a bit, but maybe I'm thinking of a really old one?

I heard 1:1 makes it too flat, but this sounds good. Maybe we should be getting the 14EX instead.

Yes, both the ringflash and the 24EX will accept an external power booster (I also have a Turbo).

Hmm, maybe your wife will let you use the 1-5x macro on occasion