macro lense upgrade

MinisculeCatastrophe · Apr 28, 2011

I currently own a Canon Rebel XSi with an 18-55mm lens (the kit lens) and am looking to upgrade to a macro lens. I've narrowed it down to two, and I'm not totally sure what the better lens get would be, and even if I would eventually want to get both? Thanks for any help you guys can give

.

Amazon.com: Canon EF 50mm f/1.8 II Camera Lens: Electronics
or
Amazon.com: Tokina 35mm f/2.8 AT-X PRO DX Macro Lens for Canon Digital SLR Cameras: Electronics

I've read a few articles about the benefits of owning a "nifty fifty," hence my confusion about owning one or the other or both. I noticed that the FStop is lower on the first, but it's a much more preferable price. Thanks again!

o hey tyler · Apr 28, 2011

Neither of them are really "macro" lenses. I personally wouldn't buy either of those if my intent was to get very close to objects. But I don't do a lot of Macro photography, but I am sure Overread could shed some light on this situation. He shoots Canon and is very knowledgeable about macro work.

GooniesNeverSayDie11 · Apr 28, 2011

For true macro on a budget (assuming you want a lens and not extension tubes ) you would probably want canon 100mm 2.8 or a Tamron 90mm 2.8. Personally I have the Tamron 60mm f/2. Its fast if I want shallow DOF portraits, does 1:1 macro and pairs nicely with a 1.4x converter to give me roughly an 85mm f/2.8 with more working distance or more magnification.(since MFD would not change with the teleconverter ). They go for like $399 after rebate currently. If you want to spend more, the Sigma 180mm f/3.5 is supposed to be pretty good for its price.

Overread · Apr 28, 2011

These are two lenses I would no go for when starting out with macro photography.
First up the Canon 50mm f1.8 lens isn't a macro lens - instead it is a regular 50mm lens which good optical quality if somewhat cheap build quality (a very plasticy build). It is very cheap, but good optically which makes it a popular lens for people on budget.
For macro with this lens you would need to add a set of extension tubes (Kenko AF tubes are the most popular for price and quality - canon extension tubes are way overpriced and build quality is the same as the kenko). This would (with the full set of kenko AF tubes) get you just over 1:1 magnification (this is the same magnification that a true macro lens gets).
For budget the 50mm and extension tubes is a good move for many not quite sure if macro is going to be a big thing for them or if they are on a limited budget to start out.

The Tokina 35mm macro lens is a true macro lens (it gets the 1:1 magnification) however the working distance for this lens (distance from lens front to the subject) is very very tiny. This presents a not insignificant difficulty against both lighting and also getting close enough to some subjects (not just insects which might spook far more easily, but also against regular subjects which might get pushed back by the lens front).
It is a good lens overall, but for pure 30-35mm type work a regular 30/35mm lens is a better bet whilst for pure macro work a longer focal length macro lens is more prefered. This lens is good as a light close up lens though - some macro addicts use it

As said above a more standard starting macro lens when on budget would be a Tamron 90mm macro lens or something like a sigma 105mm macro or Tokina 105mm macro. Image quality wise all the true macro lenses are pretty much on the same performance - even the 100mm L macro from canon isn't much different from the original 100mm non-L macro lens in image quality terms. Build quality - price - features and AF speed/performance are what differs between the different lenses on the market.
The 90mm or longer focal length lenses are typically recommended for those looking to work with insects (as stated longer lenses mean moreworking distance) whilst if you're doing flowers or other more static subjects you can look at some of the shorter options - the Sigma 70m macro or Canon EFS 60mm macro (it might be EFS but its image quality and performance are very good - just that it only fits to crop sensor cameras).

ziggy · Apr 28, 2011

Agreed. Neither of those are macro lenses. I think canon macro lenses are 60mm 100mm and probably 180mm.

Overread · Apr 28, 2011

ziggy said:
Agreed. Neither of those are macro lenses. I think canon macro lenses are 60mm 100mm and probably 180mm.

Carefull - as said the Tokina 35mm macro is a macro lens - no tricks at all. It is however not that popular because of its tiny working distance. It might be getting a bit more attention in recent times brecause of the sudden loss of new camera lens supplies whilst the Tokina 35mm was never a massivly popular lens - ergo it has more actual stock left as opposed to the more popular options.

Davor · Apr 28, 2011

If you are on a budget i recommend looking for a second hand Macro lens, if you find a good conditioned one you will be paying around 250-350. I got my Tamron 90mm for about $200, of course its an older model but the optics are just as good if not better than the new one.

dylanstraub · Apr 28, 2011

I've been using the Canon 60mm macro for a while now and I'm glad I bought it. I was using the 100 mm ef f2.8 for macro shots but the magnification is better on the 60mm at half the weight. I also second Davor's opinion that you should seriously consider a used lens. You can always trade up to a new one later. I seem to gravitate to used lenses myself. The 60 mm was the first new lens I bought only because I couldn't find it used anywhere.

Overread · Apr 28, 2011

dylanstraub said:
. I was using the 100 mm ef f2.8 for macro shots but the magnification is better on the 60mm at half the weight.

The weight factor I won't disagree with (its the reason I own both a heavier 150mm and a much lighter 70mm macro lens) however you say the magnification on the 60mm is better than the magnification on the 100mm - this statement is confusing me as I am not quite sure what you specifically mean by it - since both lenses are true macro and get the same 1:1 magnification at their closest focusing distance.