Looking for a decent Macro Lens

[Dubaiian]

Hi All,

After a few recent sucesses with insects (by my standards) I have decided that my next lens should be a decent macro.

Some of my most recent lens' have been L series and I am ridiculously happy with them.

I note that there is a 100mm Canon Macro available in EF or EF L Series. Three questions really......

1. Is 100mm a good length for photographing insects and flowers when I dont have too much time to set up and will this lens do fun stuff like the water drops thingy?
2. What other uses would 100mm cover?
3. Is there a very big difference between the EF and the L series quality apart from IS? Checking around it seem that the former is about $580 with the L at about $950.

Thanks in advance for your help.

 

[Edsport]

I don't know about those 2 lenses but have you considered rings and use your existing lenses?

 

[Dubaiian]

I don't know about those 2 lenses but have you considered rings and use your existing lenses?

Thanks for the response Edsport. I had a brief look at rings (are these also referred to as Tubes?) but did not really understand how it all worked.

I am not adverse to spending "L" series money, but if there is an option that saves money and does not degrade IQ, I would love to hear about it.

 

[Lowrider]

I have also been looking at macro. Canon also has a 50mm macro lens that looks interesting for size and weight. Anybody have experience with that one?

 

[cgipson1]

I have also been looking at macro. Canon also has a 50mm macro lens that looks interesting for size and weight. Anybody have experience with that one?

50mm is not recommended if you want to shoot insects. The 1:1 focusing distance is so small that it will spook most insects, and they will leave! Smallest I recommend is an 85.. and prefer a 90 to 105.

 

[cgipson1]

Hi All,

After a few recent sucesses with insects (by my standards) I have decided that my next lens should be a decent macro.

Some of my most recent lens' have been L series and I am ridiculously happy with them.

I note that there is a 100mm Canon Macro available in EF or EF L Series. Three questions really......

1. Is 100mm a good length for photographing insects and flowers when I dont have too much time to set up and will this lens do fun stuff like the water drops thingy?
2. What other uses would 100mm cover?
3. Is there a very big difference between the EF and the L series quality apart from IS? Checking around it seem that the former is about $580 with the L at about $950.

Thanks in advance for your help.

#1.. yes, 100mm is optimal for insects... the 1:1 focusing distance is adequate, so that there is enough distance between you and the insect not to scare most of them off. A 100mm will do very well for water drops, and other fun things like that.
#2 It will also do very well as a portrait lense, and general purpose short telephoto!

#3 I don't shoot Canon.. so can't help you! I would go L (I have the Nikon equivalent... typically better build quality, better focusing, etc...)

 

[TCampbell]

I use the EF 100mm f/2.8L Macro IS. I also have the EF-S 60mm Macro USM (which can't be used on my 5D II, but can be used on APS-C bodies).

The 50mm "compact macro" is a 1:2 macro. You have to buy the "life size converter" (basically an extension tube) in order to convert it to true macro. The cost of the 50mm "compact macro" plus the cost of the "life size converter" puts it over the price of the 60mm macro. BTW, the 60mm macro is amazing -- easily rivals the quality of my 100mm L series glass.

I don't own the non-L version so I can't offer a comparison opinion -- the L version has significantly better MTF curves suggesting that the contrast & resolution is much better. They also make a 180mm macro (also L series) and it has even better MTF curves, but of course it's also more expensive.

"longer" is usually preferred for two reasons... (1) flowers don't scurry away, but insects do. It allows you to get a close detailed view without getting so close that the critter wants to scurry away. (2) at close lens-to-subject distances, your lens can cast a shadow on the subject. Being able to be a little farther away improves your flexibility with lighting options. For this reason... the 100mm is preferred over the 60mm.

Note that the IS is only useful for various lateral camera movements. But one of the challenges with macro is narrow depth-of-field. You end up having to shoot at much higher f-stops than you'd guess and it's very easy to miss focus on your subject. Even if you do lock focus, the tiniest forward/backward movement of your body will throw that off. For this reason, I pretty much lump a tripod into the list of "required" equipment when shooting macro (and some people would add focus rails to that list.) That means IS won't really matter.

 

[Nod]

I have a couple of friends that use the Sigma 105 f2.8 EX DG Macro lens with great results.

 

[Edsport]

I don't know about those 2 lenses but have you considered rings and use your existing lenses?

Thanks for the response Edsport. I had a brief look at rings (are these also referred to as Tubes?) but did not really understand how it all worked.

I am not adverse to spending "L" series money, but if there is an option that saves money and does not degrade IQ, I would love to hear about it.

Yup they're referred to as tubes. Tubes don't degrade IQ because there is no glass. It just basically moves the lens further from the camera which magnifies the object. You can get really cheap tubes that has no electrical contacts which you won't be able to change the aperture and there is no auto focusing. The more expensive ones has electrical contacts. I got mine on ebay. Some good deals on there...

 

[Netskimmer]

I use tubes (a true macro lens is at the top of my list) A few good things about extension tubes, they are chaper and they can be used on a lens of nearly any focal length, they can even be used on a true macro lens to achieve greater than 1:1 magnafication. Because of this last point I would get at set of good tubes even if you already have or plan to get a true macro lens. One major drawback of extension tubes is that they increase lens magnification by greatly reducing the working distance of the lens used. You typically have to get very close to achieve focus, this makes them far less suitable for insect photography.

 

[jerryjazz]

Hi All,

After a few recent sucesses with insects (by my standards) I have decided that my next lens should be a decent macro.

Some of my most recent lens' have been L series and I am ridiculously happy with them.

I note that there is a 100mm Canon Macro available in EF or EF L Series. Three questions really......

1. Is 100mm a good length for photographing insects and flowers when I dont have too much time to set up and will this lens do fun stuff like the water drops thingy?
2. What other uses would 100mm cover?
3. Is there a very big difference between the EF and the L series quality apart from IS? Checking around it seem that the former is about $580 with the L at about $950.

Thanks in advance for your help.

I think if you can afford the L lens thats the way to go. I use the 60mm macro, the 50mm with extension tubes and the Tamron 90 mm macro.

 

[TheFantasticG]

I use a Canon 65mm MP-E on a 60D body. I use a Sigma 150mm w/a 1.4x TC on a D7000 body. I also have the Tamron 90mm in the Nikon mount flavor. I can tell you that if insects are your goal then get the longest lens you can, I.e. Canon 180mm L macro lens. If you want to go over 1:1, get the MP-E and level up your ninja skills. It's hard to go wrong with any current macro glass out there (except the Promaster -- that one sucks).

 

[Dubaiian]

Thanks for all of the advice everyone. Going back to the tubes, I have been looking at some of the images on various forums captured through tubes and it seems this would be a more sensible place to start. If I get good at this technique and find the limits of the tubes I should then upgrade to a great lens.

I have found the Kenko tubes here in Dubai and the photoshop recommends them. I think I will give these a go for a couple of weekends before I make the bigger investment. I have the L series 24-105 and the L series 100-400 which I can use with the tubes. I have read that even if I get a good macro lens later, I may still use the tubes so it's not wasted money. Should I be using the 24-105 at the longer end or the 100-400 at the short end.

What do you think of the plan?

 

[Dao]

I don't know about those 2 lenses but have you considered rings and use your existing lenses?

Thanks for the response Edsport. I had a brief look at rings (are these also referred to as Tubes?) but did not really understand how it all worked.

I am not adverse to spending "L" series money, but if there is an option that saves money and does not degrade IQ, I would love to hear about it.

Yup they're referred to as tubes. Tubes don't degrade IQ because there is no glass. It just basically moves the lens further from the camera which magnifies the object. You can get really cheap tubes that has no electrical contacts which you won't be able to change the aperture and there is no auto focusing. The more expensive ones has electrical contacts. I got mine on ebay. Some good deals on there...

From what I read, the extension tubes will degrade the image quality since the lens was not optimized with the tube.

 

[Buckster]

Thanks for the response Edsport. I had a brief look at rings (are these also referred to as Tubes?) but did not really understand how it all worked.

I am not adverse to spending "L" series money, but if there is an option that saves money and does not degrade IQ, I would love to hear about it.

Yup they're referred to as tubes. Tubes don't degrade IQ because there is no glass. It just basically moves the lens further from the camera which magnifies the object. You can get really cheap tubes that has no electrical contacts which you won't be able to change the aperture and there is no auto focusing. The more expensive ones has electrical contacts. I got mine on ebay. Some good deals on there...

From what I read, the extension tubes will degrade the image quality since the lens was not optimized with the tube.

That's not been my experience with them.