Macro lens

[cindy7543]

I've been thinking of trying out some macro photography but don't know which lens would be ideal to start with. Does anyone have any recommendations? (budgeting around $600-900) for Canon 70D

Sent from my SM-N900T using Tapatalk

 

[goodguy]

If you want a lens that will work well only for photography then get the Nikon 105mm 2.8, fantastic lens but not very usefull in doing anything else.
If you want a lens that will do more things then get the Nikon 60mm 2.8G, this lens is very sharp, does Macro very well and is a good walk around lens so you get a lot for your money and its considerably cheaper then the Nikon 105mm lens.

 

[Juga]

Tamron 90mm has some really nice reviews.

Tamron 90mm f/2.8 SP Di MACRO 1:1 VC USD Lens AFF004C-700 B&H

They have it in Nikon mount as well.

 

[Smokeyr67]

I think before I answer your question, it might be best if you tell us what camera your using

 

[cindy7543]

Sorry about that... It's for Canon 70D

Sent from my SM-N900T using Tapatalk

 

[Juga]

Canon....?

 

[goodguy]

Sorry about that... It's for Canon 70D

Sent from my SM-N900T using Tapatalk

I think you should have posted this at the Canon forum, would save me the trouble answering your post as I know very little about Canon lenses.

 

[Overread19 7]

The equipment section is for all camera brands, we even let Pentax users in here - so no need to move to another section.


As with regard to macro lenses any true macro lens is typically a good solid lens. You've a range of options including

Canon 100mm f2.8 macro (original not the IS which is more than your budget)
Sigma 70mm macro - 105mm macro OS (the 150mm and 180mm OS are beyond your budget)
Sigma 105mm macro - 150mm macro -180mm macro (out of production but easily found in good quality second hand)
Tamron 90mm macro
Tokina 105mm macro

In general any of those lenses above and others which are prime (single focal length) macro lenses will suit your needs. They'll all be very sharp with good general optical quality (the differences are often minor between brand options).

Focal length is also different with macro as at the closest focusing distance each one will show the same frame capture and content. The difference is that background elements will be more blurred with a longer focal length lens, whilst shorter focal length ones will render backgrounds with less blurring. This can make somevery short focal length macro lenses appear to have a greater depth of field because the fall off into blur isn't as strongly defined; however the depth of field remains the same for all.

Note also that a longer focal length means that the distance between camera and subject is increased and thus the lens subject distance is also typically increased (makes it easier when working with insects but also for getting lighting into the subject and for reducing the overshadowing of hte camera and photographer onto the subject.

So see what fits your budget and has features you want and go for that lens. Note that I'd recommend a 90mm or longer focal length macro lens to begin with - you can drop down to around 60mm if working with stationary subjects (ie things that are not bugs). Any shorter than 60mm and things get very hard very quickly.

 

[lambertpix]

FWIW, I picked up the Canon 100mm f/2.8 macro not too long ago, and I'm pretty happy with it. It's not a super-exotic magnify-the-bujeezus macro like the 65mm MP-E is, but it's also very versatile - I've used it for portraits and low-light settings where the (relatively) fast aperture comes in handy.

 

[Overread19 7]

FWIW, I picked up the Canon 100mm f/2.8 macro not too long ago, and I'm pretty happy with it. It's not a super-exotic magnify-the-bujeezus macro like the 65mm MP-E is, but it's also very versatile - I've used it for portraits and low-light settings where the (relatively) fast aperture comes in handy.

MPE 65mm is a very specialist lens and even within macro groups its a rarer lens. It's very hard to use and not one that I recommend to beginners or those looking to try out macro.

 

[TCampbell]

I've been thinking of trying out some macro photography but don't know which lens would be ideal to start with. Does anyone have any recommendations? (budgeting around $600-900) for Canon 70D

Sent from my SM-N900T using Tapatalk

If you are "thinking of trying out" then I would suggest you rent a few lenses rather than buy. A lens is an expensive investment should you decide that macro is not for you.

Also... if you're getting into macro, you will want to own a tripod, and you may want to learn how to do "focus stacking". The depth of field becomes "paper thin" so the tiniest movement on your part (if hand-holding) will take something that was nicely focused and throw it completely out of focus just because your body moved by a few millimeters.

You can do focus stacking by manually nudging the focus ring on your lens between each photo, but they also make a macro accessory called a "focus rail". This mounts to your tripod and the camera then mounts to the rail. The rail has a knob which allows you to move the whole camera forward or backward on the rail by a few millimeters at a time so you can take a series of shots each at a slightly different distance and then stack them together. You use software to merge them. There are lots of focus stacking apps on the market.