Macro Lens Recomendation???

[BuS_RiDeR]

I've been debating what type of lens to save up for... And granted, the purchase is a ways off... But I wanted some opinions before I make my final decision.

I am leaning heavily towards a macro lens... In particular the Canon EF 100mm F/2.8 Macro.

Can anyone suggest a better choice? Or am I on the right track...

This will be my first Macro Lens and I will be using it for general purpose macro shooting. No specific type of Macro yet...

Also, I have given the extension tube option some thought.. But, I think I'd prefer a "dedicated", so to speak, macro lens.

 

[Robin Usagani]

thats a good choice. If you want to spend less, go with 90mm tamron. I love mine.

 

[BuS_RiDeR]

thats a good choice. If you want to spend less, go with 90mm tamron. I love mine.

Thanks, I'll look at the Tamron as well...

 

[Overread]

Honestly any of the current macro prime lenses on the market is a good choice:

Canon 60mm macro - 100mm macro - 100mm L macro - 180mm L macro
Sigma 50mm, 70mm, 105mm, 150mm, 180mm
Tokina 105mm
Tamron 60mm, 90mm, 180mm

Each one offers you top quality optics and the differences between them are mostly marginal optically speaking. The kinds of thing that you notice only in side by side unedited test shots. The best way is to consider :

1) Budget - what fits your costs

2) Features - AF, teleconverter compatibility, internal focusing etc... - consider the specific bonuses that each offers you

3) Focal length - longer focal lengths give more working distance to work with; 90mm is the shortest most advise you start with if considering insects; otherwise any range will work (shorter just requires a bit more work for insects sometimes). Furthermore note that longer focal lengths render background areas more blurred than shorter ones, though its an extremes point (ie 50mm compared to 180mm)

4) What comes in the box (canon 100mm comes without lens hood or tripod collar for example).

 

[pgriz]

I've looked at the 100mm Canon, and ended up going with the Tamron 90mm, mainly due to cost. The two lenses are pretty close optically, and the AF on the Tamron is a non-issue for me for macro use. I've a friend who has the 100mm Canon and both our lenses give very good results when compared side by side. So, take Overread's advice (excellent as always), and figure out what your focal length needs are and what the other features you need. The longer the focal length, the more working distance you have (important for critters), but generally, the larger the lens is.

One of my photographic buddies has recently tried his 200mm prime with extension tubes and got very good results. So that may be another option if you already have the lenses ( I note you have the 75-300mm zoom). Frankly, I can't see why anyone who does macro WON'T have extension tubes available - they not very expensive, and they do give you options.

 

[BuS_RiDeR]

Honestly any of the current macro prime lenses on the market is a good choice:

Canon 60mm macro - 100mm macro - 100mm L macro - 180mm L macro
Sigma 50mm, 70mm, 105mm, 150mm, 180mm
Tokina 105mm
Tamron 60mm, 90mm, 180mm

Each one offers you top quality optics and the differences between them are mostly marginal optically speaking. The kinds of thing that you notice only in side by side unedited test shots. The best way is to consider :

Thanks for the reply. Its good to hear thoughts about this from others

1) Budget - what fits your costs

Well, since I am on government disability now... My budget is going to stay as low as possible... But I also want good quality. But I'm going to have to put money aside specifically for the lens either way. So I guess L glass is out of the question...

2) Features - AF, teleconverter compatibility, internal focusing etc... - consider the specific bonuses that each offers you

Honestly, I didn't realize you could get a macro lens that also offered tele-converter capability... But really I just want a good AF Macro lens... I guess if its in the same price range... I'd go for the TC as well.

3) Focal length - longer focal lengths give more working distance to work with; 90mm is the shortest most advise you start with if considering insects; otherwise any range will work (shorter just requires a bit more work for insects sometimes). Furthermore note that longer focal lengths render background areas more blurred than shorter ones, though its an extremes point (ie 50mm compared to 180mm)

After looking at the available choices, I'll probably go with the 90-105 range.... Now to sellect a brand... Two votes for Tamron 90mm so far...

4) What comes in the box (canon 100mm comes without lens hood or tripod collar for example).

This is less important to me, as I am more concerned with the lens... But obviously a decision making factor.

I've looked at the 100mm Canon, and ended up going with the Tamron 90mm, mainly due to cost.

Good to know... I will consider this.

...the AF on the Tamron is a non-issue for me...

Can you explain this? I have bad vision, and AF is important to me.

I've a friend who has the 100mm Canon and both our lenses give very good results when compared side by side. So, take Overread's advice (excellent as always), and figure out what your focal length needs are and what the other features you need. The longer the focal length, the more working distance you have (important for critters), but generally, the larger the lens is.

Thanks for the input. Its appreciated.

Frankly, I can't see why anyone who does macro WON'T have extension tubes available - they not very expensive, and they do give you options.

Hmmm... Another good poimt. But I think after debating it, that I'd prefer the 2.8 aperture. As I mentioned, I am on a pretty tight budget , and can't do both the lens and the tubes.

But, I haven't made a final choice yet... Thanks for the info.

 

[Overread]

So I guess L glass is out of the question...

I wouldn't worry about that too much. The L grade has little to offer over the regular lenses when it comes to macro work. Heck the sigma 180mm macro (now discontinued) was generally more popular than the canon 180mm L for its cheaper cost and pretty much identical optical performance.
The 100mm L has the IS feature which is about the only boon it has over the others (aside from a generally faster AF).

Honestly, I didn't realize you could get a macro lens that also offered tele-converter capability... But really I just want a good AF Macro lens... I guess if its in the same price range... I'd go for the TC as well.

I think we got crossed meanings here - teleconverter compatibility means that it will fit typical teleconverters rather than the lens itself having a teleconverter mode. Several lenses will fit varying teleconverters which can be helpful if you want more magnification or a bit more focal length reach.

Can you explain this? I have bad vision, and AF is important to me.

AF is possibly the biggest weakness of macro and macro lenses in general. Most macro lenses close down to around f5.6 effective aperture by the 1:1 mark and with the tiny motions causing large differences when handholding the AF can find it very hard to get a reliable lock on without a lot of hunting. It's not impossible, but don't be surprised if it can prove to be more challenging than regular AF use (esp if you're down at the 1:1 ranges). In this case I'd probably go for the Canon 100mm; it tends to have a reported better AF speed overall than most of the others (macro lenses by general standard have slow AF)

Depending the kind of work you do you might find that you will need to approach things from a tripod angle. It will slow things down, but lets you use the LCD and the magnify image mode to help manually focus things. You can even do insects with this approach (and without fridges) though you will need to shoot at the right times of the day (cool times such as early mornings or after short showers, evenings can also be good for some bugs as they "roostup" for the night.

 

[BuS_RiDeR]

...

Great info. Thanks for the input.

 

[pgriz]

@ Bus_Rider: When I do macro, I'm always focusing manually (just like Overread says, usually with the Live-view option on my T1i, and sometimes tethered to a laptop if I'm indoors and have the luxury of a table). I find AF in Macro to be useless mainly because the DOF is usually 1mm or less, and the camera has no idea where exactly you want the focus point to actually be. I also shoot macro on a tripod with two-axis micro-focusing rails, and "usually" am shooting flash (either single or several depending on the subject) to keep the subject motion or camera shake as minimal as possible.

As for the lens speed, I rarely shoot wide open in macro, since the DOF at f/2.8 at 1:1 is truly razon-thin. Usually my shots are at f/8-f/16 to get "reasonable" DOF around the subject, although I avoid higher f/stops due to loss of detail due to diffraction. Where the f/2.8 comes in handy is when I'm using the macro lens as a portrait lens, the subject is 10ft. away or more, and I WANT the shallow DOF to blur the background. Then IS comes into play as well. But I don't do many portraits, so this is an under-used aspect of my equipment.

@Overread - great advice as usual.