Best canon lens for Macro

[fragle2112]

I was given a macro experience day and I would like to Know what would be the best lens to use for this please



Sent from my iPhone using ThePhotoForum.com mobile app

 

[jaomul]

How much do you want to spend, are you using ff or crop, what do you want to shoot.

I will say the sigma 105mm OS is great for lots but is quite long if you want to also use it as say a portrait lens on a crop

Also, there are very few true macro lenses that are not good

 

[waday]

Macro Lenses | Canon Online Store

 

[TCampbell]

I was given a macro experience day and I would like to Know what would be the best lens to use for this please

Specifically which camera model do you own?

The EF-S 60mm f/2.8 Macro USM is probably the most affordable "true" macro lens and it has extremely good optics. But the catch is that this lens only works on Canon EOS camera bodies that APS-C size sensors (any "Rebel" body and also the mid-range bodies such as the 80D, 70D, 60D, 50D, etc. as well as the 7D and 7D II). It does not work with camera bodies that have "full frame" sensors like the 6D or 5D series.

Next up is the EF 100mm f/2.8L IS USM. This is possibly the sweet spot in the range because it has probably the best optics of any of the macro lenses and it can work on any EOS camera body. The focal length is a bit longer (usually that's a good thing for macro) and it's priced at $800. (not a bad price).

There is a 180mm macro which is great for photographing subjects that are skittish (you don't have to get close) and it give you more working room between the camera and subject (one thing you'll notice about macro work is that you get so close to your subjects that you and your camera may cast shadows -- so it's nice to be able to get the shots from slightly farther away). But this is a $1400.

There is a 50mm "compact macro" -- it's actually a half-scale macro (not full 1:1 scale macro like a true macro) and canon makes a 2x adapter for it (extra) but it's still not as good as the 60mm lens. There's a more economically priced 100mm macro priced at $600 (instead of the $800 for the "L" series version) but that's an old lens and the optics aren't nearly as good as the 100mm L series lens. It's well worth it to spring the extra $200 for the "L" series lens.

There's also a speciality macro lens called the MP-E 65mm... but this is lens is for extreme close-up work. Whereas most true macro lenses let you get close enough to have a 1:1 scale image (size of subject on your camera sensor is as large as the subject is in real life), this lens lets you get to 5:1 scale (size of the subject is 5x larger on the sensor then the subject actually is in real life). So this is a bit like putting a microscope on the camera. However, all the other macro lenses can be used as normal lenses (you don't have to shoot close up) but this lens is special... it's focusing range only works at those very close 1x - 5x distances and it can't be used like a normal lens.

 

[beagle100]

Canon 100mm 2.8 macro non-L - cheap ($250) and sharp

 

[TCampbell]

Canon 100mm 2.8 macro non-L - cheap ($250) and sharp

Used? The current price I see everywhere is $599.

 

[kalgra]

Canon 100mm 2.8 macro non-L - cheap ($250) and sharp

Used? The current price I see everywhere is $599.

That even cheap at a used price. I routinely see the older non L 100mm go for $350 used.

 

[beagle100]

Canon 100mm 2.8 macro non-L - cheap ($250) and sharp

Used? The current price I see everywhere is $599.

I'm talking about used prices, look at these sites (most listings for the 100mm 2.8 non-L are under $300)
FM Forums
Photography-on-the.net Digital Photography Forums

 

[ashleykaryl]

I have a 100mm Canon macro purchased over 20 years ago that predates the USM version. It wouldn't be worth much, but it's extremely sharp at all apertures.

 

[Tigershark]

The 100mm f/2.8 L IS USM is an awesome macro-lens and if you search for a "Macro only", it's the best choice to me.

I once had this lens and sold it because I searched for a lens I'm a little more flexible with. Endet up with the 24-70 f2.8 L USM. It's a great "all round lens" (I use it for landscape and people photograpy as well) and the macro mode is awesome. Only problem is, it's not a real 1 : 1 macro and you have to be very close to the object to get great shots.

 

[GreggS]

Canon 100mm 2.8 USM (not L) is a fantastic value for its price

 

[table1349]

These are good if you are starting: Kenko Auto Extension Tube Set DG for Canon EOS A-EXTUBEDG-C B&H

If you like macro enough to stick with it you buy a dedicated macro lens and these tubes can still be used to get you closer than 1:1. If you don't like macro that much you can sell the tubes easily and get most of your money back as they hold their value very well or you can keep them, still have macro when you want it at a cheap price.

 

[Derrel]

Canon 100mm 2.8 USM (not L) is a fantastic value for its price

Yes, the Canon EF 100mm f/2.8 IF USM model...internal focusing system, USM focus motor, also called "the second version", the one with the internal focusing system, not the one that the barrel extends way out on at minimum focus distance...I owned one for years, sharp lens, but kind of ugly sharp-sided bokeh balls on OOF highlights due to its 8-bladed diaphragm opening. In many close-up situations, there will be visible out of focus bokeh balls from this lens. Focusing is also somewhat slow-ish for a USM prime lens, but the used market price is low on this lens.

Look also at the Tamron 90mm AF-SP macro, in any of three versions made over the last 15 years or so. Tokina's 100mm f/2.8 AT-X Pro model has received pretty good reviews as a value lens with good image quality. Not sure why anybody would limit themselves to Canon-only macro lenses: the Tamron 90 is clearly superior to the 100/2.8 EF I mentioned above, and is like the eighth refinement of a design that Tamron originated in the 1970's. Tamron's 90 AF-SP is probably their absolute crown jewel, and has been for 30 years, whereas Canon's V1 and V2 100/2.8 macros were seemingly afterthoughts.

Canon's aged 180mm macro is the lens they are best known for over the longest time frame in the macro lens realm. Long macro lenses have a lot of usefulness too, with 1:1 somewhere around 18 inches from the sensor plane of the camera, which is very handy.

 

[beagle100]

the OP is probably long gone but here's an example of that "ugly bokeh" with the Canon 100mm 2.8 macro non-L

Untitled by c w, on Flickr


ghastly horrible isn't it?

 

[Derrel]

Be honest--and show what I specifically mentioned: OOF highlights in the background.

This is crappy bokeh, from the Canon 100 EF macro...

I'm not swayed from my assessment of this lens, especially by an image that camouflages the bokeh the Canon 100/2.8 is known for. I posted an honest comment about the harsh, sharp-sided bokeh balls that I specifically mentioned are the signature of this lens. At close-up ranges and on shots where there are out of focus highlights in the image--as there are in many floral type close-up scenarios, this lens creates sharp-sided, ugly, bokeh balls. Look at them. Look at MY example images, and re-read what I wrote.

I sold this lens off with the rest of my Canon equipment. It is a sharp lens. It autofocuses somewhat slowly,and hunts a bit too at times. I do not like this type of OOF background rendering in a macro lens, which will often be shot against the light.