Macro lens for canon 400d

[Monster]

I'm looking for a macro lens for my canon 400d.

I've had a browse around on google, and my mind's reeling from all the options there seems to be.


Simple question, which macro lens is the best? Which macro lens would give me the most magnified, close-up, and clear images?


Thanks

 

[Big Mike]

Most lenses that say 'Macro'...don't really give you true One to One magnification. Some from Canon that do are; EF-S 60mm, EF 50mm F2.5, EF 100 F2.8 & EF 180mm. http://www.usa.canon.com/consumer/controller?act=ProductCatIndexAct&fcategoryid=155

 

[HASHASHIN]

i have the 100 2.8 and i love it

 

[Monster]

Is this the 100 2.8 ? -> http://cgi.ebay.com/Canon-100mm-f-2...oryZ4687QQssPageNameZWDVWQQrdZ1QQcmdZViewItem

Do you know where I could find some examples of just how magnified, close-up and clear the pictures I could take with it are?

For magnifcation, closeness, and clarity, could it beat something like this taken by the Sigma 70-300mm DG Macro Telephoto?:

 

[Big Mike]

http://www.pbase.com/cameras/canon/ef_100_28_macro_u

I'm not sure, but that Sigma may have more magnification...but maybe less working distance...I don't know.

The Canon is a top quality lens...it can produce images that are quite a bit sharper than the Sigma.

 

[Monster]

Okay thanks.

If I bought the EF 100mm F2.8, do you think that I'd have any use for the 18-55mm Lens that I got with the camera? Or would the 100 2.8 act as a complete replacement, bettering the 18-55mm in every respect.

 

[Big Mike]

That's not really a good comparison. The 100 F2.8 is a much better quality lens and could be used for a lot of things...but 100mm on that camera would be pretty limiting. You would have trouble shooting indoors, where you might run out of room to back up...and shooting a large group of people would require you to be very far away.

There are several good options for replacing the kit lens...but I don't think the 100 Macro is an option for that. For macro/portrait though...it's one of the best.

 

[Monster]

Ok thanks
Goddit.

 

[HASHASHIN]

these were all taken with the 100 f2.8 on a 400d

 

[Monster]

Sexy.

There are several good options for replacing the kit lens.

What like?

 

[HASHASHIN]

that all depends on how much you want to spend...

the 17-40 4L is a great replacement

 

[Kingpatzer]

I'm seriously considering the Tamron 17-50 f/2.8 XR Di II LD Aspherical [IF] Autofocus

It's a lot cheaper than the Canon, and I've heard pretty good things about it. But I really would like to get a chance to try one out for myself.

Still, it can be had for around $350-$400 compared to the $500-$600 range for the Canon 17-40 f/4L USM.

The 17-40 f/4.0L is a nice lens, but I'm an f-stop snob In Canon glass to get to f/2.8 in that range you have to get the 16-35 f/2.8L USM which prices out at about $1.5k

 

[Big Mike]

Another option is the EF-S 17-55 F2.8 IS. It's said to be as sharp as an L lens, although with possible dust problems. However, it's not much cheaper than the 16-35mm F2.8 L.

I have the 17-50 Tamron in question; Great Lens.

 

[uberben]

In addition to the tamron mentioned before, a couple other decent walk around lenses I have used in the past are a Canon 28-105 f/3.4-4.5 and Sigma 24-70 f/2.8.

 

[soylentgreen]

Depending on your budget, the Canon EF 180mm f/4L Macro is as good as it gets as far as image quality. You can get fairly close to the subject to acheive good magnification despite it being such a long lens. Down to around 18" I believe. Also works well for telephoto and even portaiture. I find it works perfect for nature photography where I need more working distance.