Macro Lens

[JoyceMM]

I see a lot of the pics of really close up flowers, spiders and insects. I use my 70-200 and 24-105 with an extension tube. I can crop with good results but still not get really, really close up. I am looking at the Canon 100 2.8L Macro. I see posts on others using it for portraits also which is what I normally take. I have to justify the expense. Opinions on macro and portrait use of this lens.

 

[nerwin]

I see a lot of the pics of really close up flowers, spiders and insects. I use my 70-200 and 24-105 with an extension tube. I can crop with good results but still not get really, really close up. I am looking at the Canon 100 2.8L Macro. I see posts on others using it for portraits also which is what I normally take. I have to justify the expense. Opinions on macro and portrait use of this lens.

I have the Nikon equivalent. The 105 2.8G VR and it's a fantastic lens for both macros and portraits.

Trust me, its worth it. Just remember when you are shooting at macro level..make sure you stop down.

 

[jake337]

Tokina, tamron, sigma and nikon all make good macro lenses. Can't go wrong with any of them.

Just make sure it's a"true" macro lens that focuses to 1:1.

 

[480sparky]

......
Just make sure it's a"true" macro lens that focuses to 1:1.

Since the word 'macro' has no official definition, any lens can be slapped with the label. Its better to look at a lens' specifications and look for the ratio or magnification number.

 

[beagle100]

I see a lot of the pics of really close up flowers, spiders and insects. I use my 70-200 and 24-105 with an extension tube. I can crop with good results but still not get really, really close up. I am looking at the Canon 100 2.8L Macro. I see posts on others using it for portraits also which is what I normally take. I have to justify the expense. Opinions on macro and portrait use of this lens.

if you don't need the "IS" just get the Canon 100mm 2.8 macro non-L just as sharp and only $300 - $350 (used)
it's good for macro (insects) and portraits

Canon 60D
Canon 100mm 2.8 macro non-L

 

[jaomul]

Or a tamron 90mm vc or even a sigma 105 OS if stability is a must for you. Most macro lenses in those focal range are well respected, and the third party options are much more affordable

 

[goooner]

I agree with beagle. I think the IS on the L lens is the most advanced IS available, but the lens is about twice as expensive as the non L version. I bought the non L version a couple of months ago and have been very happy. I reckoned that if I really want to do Macro I will have my camera on a tripod anyway.

Here are some flowers I took with it recently...
Some plants with my 100mm 2.8 Photography Forum

 

[Waterbug]

I have the tokina 100mm. It is manual focus, but using live view to focus produces great results.

 

[oldhippy]

I have the tokina 100mm. It is manual focus, but using live view to focus produces great results.

I have the same lens, mine is both auto and manual focus. It is only locked in manual when in the push pull position. Just curious. Thanks. Ed

 

[Yzerwing]

I see a lot of the pics of really close up flowers, spiders and insects. I use my 70-200 and 24-105 with an extension tube. I can crop with good results but still not get really, really close up. I am looking at the Canon 100 2.8L Macro. I see posts on others using it for portraits also which is what I normally take. I have to justify the expense. Opinions on macro and portrait use of this lens.

Have you considered an extension tube? They are far less expensive if you don't intend on shooting MACRO a lot. They cost around $40 for a three piece extension tube set which can be attached in ANY combination. It takes a little experimenting to learn to use but they do work fairly well.

 

[petrochemist]

I see a lot of the pics of really close up flowers, spiders and insects. I use my 70-200 and 24-105 with an extension tube. I can crop with good results but still not get really, really close up. I am looking at the Canon 100 2.8L Macro. I see posts on others using it for portraits also which is what I normally take. I have to justify the expense. Opinions on macro and portrait use of this lens.

Have you considered an extension tube? They are far less expensive if you don't intend on shooting MACRO a lot. They cost around $40 for a three piece extension tube set which can be attached in ANY combination. It takes a little experimenting to learn to use but they do work fairly well.

Extension tubes are great, and there are other cheap approaches to macro that work very well too. I often reverse one of my primes in front of another lens (using the prime as a highly corrected close up filter) I've comfortably reached beyond twice life size with this technique, just adding a coupling ring to my camera bag to have the option with me. (I've used the technique on my macro lens as well, to give a further boost to magnification)

I've never seen a prime macro lens that didn't give good results - Though nearly all zooms with Macro on them fail to impress - few will mange more than 1/4 life size. So aren't really macro at all!

It's only if taking a macro of a flat subject that a macro lens is likely to produce an image that you can't match with other techniques. True macro lenses are corrected to give a flat plane of focus at macro distances - not something you get with other approaches but not an issue in photographing flowers, insects or other natural subjects. The main advantage of a macro lens in real use is the ability to go quicky from infinity to macro without having to add filters/tubes etc.

 

[devorator]

I used Sigma 105 2.8 macro on Nikon and Canon 100 L 2.8 . Both are great lens not very fast AF on Sigma tho, but if you get a used one you'll be pleased for the price you pay. I don't know if they still make it but for me did a great job in the past (Nikon wise). For Canon definitely the L! Great fast AF and nice solid build.

note: Canon 60 2.8 usm macro is a cheaper alternative that really makes the difference. Half price and the image quality is really good.
Chris@2015


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk