New to macro

[SuzukiGS750EZ]

Hey guys. I shoot canon and while not new to photography I'm going to try and get into macro. I've found three lenses I'm considering but if anybody has any other suggestions please speak up. I shoot with an 80D. The three are:

-canon 60mm 2.8

-tamron (I already have tap in console for other tamron) 90mm 2.8 model f017

-sigma 70mm 2.8 DG

 

[Dao]

What type of macro photos are you planning to shoot? If it is bugs type macro, I prefer using a longer focal length lens.

 

[SuzukiGS750EZ]

Trying out different things. What interested me was seeing ants, but I'd like to try multiple subjects.

 

[ac12]

What @Dao is referring to is that the longer focal length lenses give you a longer working distance (front of lens to subject).

• For some subjects, like insects, this makes it easier to shoot, before they jump/run away from you.
• The other is lighting. I find it much easier to light the subject when I have more than a couple/few inches between the front of my lens and the subject.

So, from your options, I would go with then 90mm Tamron.

I would also invest in a decent tripod that will get down to the height that you want to shoot, and a 4-way rail (front/back + left/right).

 

[Solarflare]

Tokina 100mm f2.8 macro

And thats really all there is to say. Amazing optics, amazing build quality, and dirt cheap for what it is.

 

[Original katomi]

If you are thinking of doing table top photos with extension tubes then the glass in canons 50 mm and 60 mm is better than the EFS lenses.

 

[SuzukiGS750EZ]

Hm. Tokina huh? How does that compare to the other glass I listed in terms of sharpness? They all seem to be f2.8 across the board. I just want something decent I can run with for a while while I see if I enjoy macro. I don't really have any interest in extension tubes and such at the moment.

 

[Original katomi]

From a having used the 50 mm or as it’s known nifty fifty that is a nice lens despite being plastic. But as others have posted a longer reach is better for things that run away if you get to close out of your list For photos of bees on flowers I would prob use the 55 250 I have both the 18 55and the 55 250 I think that the Tamron you will be hard pushed to get close enough but I don’t know that lens or it’s min focus distance.
Whatever have fun.
Ps when I was photographing bees they were ok until my canon started to bleep the noise upset them once I had turned th e bleep off the were ok again

 

[beagle100]

I would also go with a Canon 100mm 2.8 macro (non-L) or Tamron 90mm 2.8 macro
www.flickr.com/photos/mmirrorless

 

[Dao]

To be honest, most of the macro lens out there are pretty decent. If you need a macro lens to reproduce some work, then I think any one should be fine. 50mm, 60mm 90mm or 100mm. i.e. Take a photo of a painting.
If you are using it for small stuff such as a printed circuit then I think 50mm, 60mm 90mm or 100mm also fine. Just need to make sure you have enough room for lighting between the lens and the subject. For flowers and such any of those should be fine too but I prefer longer focal length. However, for live insects, longer focal length is better in my opinion. In that case, you do not need to get very close to the insect.

Sharpness wise, I only have experience with the old Canon EF 100mm and Sigma EX 100mm macro lens. Both are pretty sharp. In fact, according to those lens review sites I visit, most of the macro lens are very sharp. So what are the main difference between them? Build quality, lens dimension, focus speed, internal focus, image stabilization, lens flare control, weight, cost and compatibility.

My old Canon 100mm lens (not the current L and non-L version, mine is older) extend when focus. So the overall lens length max out at 1:1 ratio. It will be nice if it use the internal focus system like the current non-L and L version so that when shoot with 1:1 ration, the front lens element does not get closer to the subject than the newer one. The Sigma EX 100mm macro and the Tamron 90mm macro also extend when focus.

Although Sigma and Canon do have macro lenses longer than 100mm, but I still prefer 100mm myself.

So from the lenses listed from your original post, I will pick the Tamron 90mm since it has a longer focal length.

 

[SuzukiGS750EZ]

I'm thinking about going with the tamron since I have the tap in console and I'm happy with the other lens i have. Now i also have a speed light, is that what I need?

 

[dxqcanada1]

MWD - minimum working distance ... front of lens to subject.
As Dao/Act12 mentioned ... sometimes it is not good to get so physically close to the subject, as they might get spooked.

Canon 60 macro = 3.5"
Canon 100 macro = 6"
Canon 180 macro = 9.5"

Honestly, I have not met a macro lens that I though had bad IQ.

 

[Dao]

MWD - minimum working distance ... front of lens to subject.
As Dao/Act12 mentioned ... sometimes it is not good to get so physically close to the subject, as they might get spooked.

Canon 60 macro = 3.5"
Canon 100 macro = 6"
Canon 180 macro = 9.5"

Honestly, I have not met a macro lens that I though had bad IQ.

In the beginning when I tried to take photos of the bees, I think I was more scared of the bees than they scared of me when the lens getting close to them.

 

[deeky]

I'll second the Canon 100 mm, non-L lens. One other way to think about focal length that I think really applies here is to get away from the idea that longer length lenses magnify subjects more. Even my decent macro lens is at most a 1:1, meaning the subject is up to life size on the sensor. Unless you get into high end macro lenses, they don't actually magnify anything.

Instead, think of focal length in relation to angle of view. The longer the focal length, the narrower the angle of view. This allows you to focus better on a specific subject in most cases rather than the 'whole landscape". I think macro in particular usually has this more singular focus than other styles of photography.

So, in short, I agree you want to go 100 mm or longer. If nothing else, you don't have to get quite as close to get the same close up feel. Case in point, did you know dragonflies have hair on their backs:

IMG_6348a by breckmiller, on Flickr

 

[Derrel]

Longer macro lenses are nice, especially for insects, frogs, butterflies, bees, etc..I use to own the Sigma 180mm f/3.5 USM EX APO Macro, as well as the Canon EF 100mm f/2.8 Internal Focus ( the 2nd version of the 100mm macro), an older non_motor equipped Tamron 90mm AF-SP, and the Nikon 60mm f/8 AF-D.

I think a 90-180mm macro would be the best overall, if you had only one lens.