A good macro lens?

[Phil2k]

Hi all,

Looking to begin shooting macro shots with my t2i and need a good macro lens. Does anybody have any recommendations?

My first lens was a Sigma (wide angle) and I have been very happy with the performance. Do Sigma make equally good macro lenses?

 

[trabaker]

What's you budget? I have the Canon 100mm f/2.8L and it blows me away every time I take it out of my camera bag. I've used the non L version and it was also a very good lens.

 

[Phil2k]

No budget per se. Basically, take a look at the picture taken by Carlos58 in this thread:

http://www.thephotoforum.com/forum/...s/289815-photo-month-may-winner-carlos58.html

I want a macro lens that takes pictures of that quality. Extreme magnification and detail.

 

[trabaker]

Any true macro lens will give you the 1:1 magnification you are looking for, if that isn't enough there's always extensions tubes used in conjunction with macro lenses. Also, I'm sure you know this but, there is much more to taking an amazing photo than gear. If budget isn't an option I recommend the 100 L lens just because of my personal experience. It is the sharpest lens I own (or probably will ever own for that matter!) If you want more working distance go with the more expensive 180 L, although I've never used that lens. If you are brand new to macro work I suggest you start out by using a zoom lens with macro capability to realize what all is needed for successful macro shots. Lighting, shutter speed and depth of field can be real big issues when first getting into macro work, so getting some practice before deciding to spend a grand on a top of the line lens might come in handy

 

[cgipson1]

Carlo uses the Nikon 70-180 Macro zoom if I remember correctly. To the best of my knowledge... Canon doesn't have anything like that zoom. But their L glass 100 macro will give you that kind of quality probably.. not sure about the non L, but I doubt it. (also don't forget that Carlo has a lot of experience, and knows that lens, and his gear very well)

You might also consider either the Tokina 100 macro or the Tamron 90 macro.. both are excellent macro lenses, and very popular ( and much less expensive)!

I disagree with Trabaker about using a normal zoom that has 1:2 or 1:3 macro capability, to learn with. That will not give you the shots you want, if you are looking for 1:1... nor will it help you learn the intricacies of macro lighting and DOF.

 

[unpopular]

If you can shoot full manual, I would suggest a Nikkor 50/4 enlarging lens with a bellows set. These lenses will do fine at 3:1, and ok up to 10:1 on APS-C.

However, if budget isn't an issue there are better options.

 

[cgipson1]

If you can shoot full manual, I would suggest a Nikkor 50/4 enlarging lens with a bellows set. These lenses will do fine at 3:1, and ok up to 10:1 on APS-C.

However, if budget isn't an issue there are better options.

To LEARN on? Are you kidding? Microscopic DOF, and the bulk and weight of a Bellows system? Don't you think just learning 1:1 would be a big enough challenge for a rookie with a T2i? lol!

Or am I missing your sarcasm, or something?

 

[sovietdoc]

I see a lot of comments here about macro so let me add my 2 cents.

First, you have to figure out what your primary types of subjects will be. If you just want to take photos of flowers and static objects, Canon 100mm f/2.8 macro is probably the best lens for you. There is even more extreme alternative to macro of static objects for canon. The MPE 65mm that can take 5:1 subject photos, magnifying the subject by 5 times.

If you primarily want to take photos of insects, good luck taking a "portrait" photo of a butterfly at 1:1 with that 100mm macro lens. This is why you'd need 150-180mm macro..

At those focal lengths you really have 3 choices. Tamron 180mm macro, Sigma 150mm macro and Canon 180mm macro. Tamron is the sharpest out the three but is cheaply made. Canon is the best build but not the best in optical quality and handling. Sigma has optical stabilization but is only 150mm and not 180.

Most people I know use Canon's 100mm f/2.8L for macro. It makes sense because it's the "noob" macro lens. You can't go wrong with it. Others who are more in macro insect photography use Sigma's 150mm because it has better working range and still has optical stabilization and unbelievable IQ. And lastly, the super die-hard macroists usually use a combination of 65mm MPE, 100mm f/2.8L macro and 180mm Sigma or Canon.

So it's up to you to make up your mind what you are going to shoot.

 

[unpopular]

If you can shoot full manual, I would suggest a Nikkor 50/4 enlarging lens with a bellows set. These lenses will do fine at 3:1, and ok up to 10:1 on APS-C.

However, if budget isn't an issue there are better options.

To LEARN on? Are you kidding? Microscopic DOF, and the bulk and weight of a Bellows system? Don't you think just learning 1:1 would be a big enough challenge for a rookie with a T2i? lol!

Or am I missing your sarcasm, or something?

::shrugs:: it's what I learned macro with...

extension factor, FTW!

 

[480sparky]

If you can shoot full manual, I would suggest a Nikkor 50/4 enlarging lens with a bellows set. These lenses will do fine at 3:1, and ok up to 10:1 on APS-C.

However, if budget isn't an issue there are better options.

Reproduction ratios are independent of sensor size.

 

[unpopular]

I'm also dreaming if converting an oscilloscope camera to use with a DSLR. the camera specification is 1x-3x with 3 1/4x4 1/4... I wonder what kind of magnification I'll get on APS-C?

 

[unpopular]

Reproduction ratios are independent of sensor size.

Effectively they aren't.

 

[480sparky]

Effectively they aren't.

A 10mm subject, photographed at a 1:1 ratio, will be projected on the film/sensor at 10mm.... Regardless of the format used.

 

[unpopular]

So then there would be a difference between magnification and reproduction ratio then?

Saying 1:1 is not the same as 1x?

 

[Phil2k]

I sppose I wouldn't want to limit myself to static subjects, however, I see static subjects making up the majority of my shooting, specifically water droplets, I'm going to be doing a lot of that. In terms of budget I'd probably want to cap the amount spent at $1,000.