What do you think of...

[sambrody44]

This lens?

Click

For Macro shots?

Or would I be better off with this:

Click

Or this:

Click

I already have a a Canon 75-300mm USM. So I don't really need the zoom. I'm just new to macro, want a macro lens and don't know whether to get one that has a minimum focus distance of 9" or 3.1-4.9'.

 

[Big Mike]

The first one is a true macro lens, and will give you 1:1 magnification (with optional converter).
The other two lenses are using 'macro' as a catch word...and are not true 'macro' lenses.

My suggestion would be the Canon EF 100mm Macro or the EF-S 60mm Macro.

 

[Overread]

Big Mike is right - the first is the only true macro lens - however it does need the converter as well to attain that true macro status.
In addition insects require a good working distance (distance from camera to subject) and the longer the distance the better since it means less chance of spooking the subject. A longer focal length means a greater working distance and whilst macro (insect) is fully possible with a 50mm I (and many others) consider 100mm to be the minumum focal length/working distance that you want to start out with. The canon 100mm macro is the workhorse of many a macro photographer and is a very good and sharp lens.
There are also good macro prime (one focal length, no zoom) lenses made by sigma - the 105mm, 150mm *longest macro lens that is handholdable for longer periods of time* and the 180mm (rated as good as the canon 180mm L macro for image quality and build is solid (though not L class) and is under half the price of the canon).

 

[tomhooper]

If you are shooting Canon, go with the 100mm 2.8 Macro. You won't be disappointed.

 

[sambrody44]

I'm having a little trouble finding a Canon EF 100mm f/2.8 in my price range. What do you guys think of this one?
Click

 

[JerryPH]

I think this belongs in the beginners section... lol

 

[sambrody44]

If I put this in the beginner's section I'll get answers from people who are inexperienced. I posted here to get answers from people who have used these lenses and know enough about them to have accurate things to say about them. So I think this post is fine where it is.

 

[JerryPH]

The moderators placed different sections here so that the conversations could be targeted by the people based on theme specifics, not because you do not think someone will or will not answer your question, nor is any section a guarantee of any levels of experience. Both new and highly experienced people look in all sections of the board. There are sections so that when people look for answers about hardware, they are not obligated to search the entire forum, but the section RESERVED for this (we all make searches before posting our questions, right?).

I respect those guidelines, I MOST DEFINITELY appreciate it when those same rules are respected by others.

Please, let's do our best to respect the divisions and layout made for all of us. I do not want to start looking for technical info in "Off topic", nor do I want to see questions that already have answers 20 times over in the beginner section be asked in other areas just because someone thinks that no one will answer them in it is placed in the proper section. We are all big boys and big girls and should be able to act as such.

Please, let's respect the logical divisions made here for us by the good moderators of TPF.

 

[Overread]

^^ what Jerry said

and now back to the lens in question - I see generally very few recomendations for the lens that you link to - I do however see a lot of users recomend the Tamron 90mm macro. Even though its less than 100mm - 10mm is not really that much loss in working distance.
http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/330641-USA/Tamron_AF272C700_SP_90mm_f_2_8_Di.html
might fit you budget better

 

[JerryPH]

^^ what Jerry said

:thumbup: Thanks.

...the Tamron 90mm macro. Even though its less than 100mm - 10mm is not really that much loss in working distance.

I have the Sigma 105mm 1:1 macro, for the price, it is nothing short of incredible and I would feel comfortable putting it up head to head against anything in the same class in Tamron's line (not that any of the above linked lenses were of anything other than mediocre quality).

If macros are your thing, every little bit helps, especially if you need to get close to things that can sting you like bees, spiders and similar. Also because you are farther, chances are less that you will disturb them or cause them to fly away.

Food for thought.

 

[Overread]

ahh the sigma is in the same price bracket - (I just don't know US lens prices - so opted for one I knew was in a cheap line)

here:
http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/341918-USA/Sigma_257101_105mm_f_2_8_EX_Macro.html
The sigma line of macros are - as Jerry says - a very high quality line of macros - definatly up to the task and I would also say better quality than Tamron (sigma when they make a quality lens get to up to standard with canon and nikon in image quality - heck my 150mm macro (sigma) has been on my camera far more than my canon 70-200mm f2.8 IS - though that might just be my macro addiction showing

 

[sambrody44]

Thank you for the responses.

I will try harder in the future to post in the correct forum.

Just to clarify, this belongs in the Beginner section or the Hardware section?

 

[Bifurcator]

Don't worry about it bro! Big Mike is the only mod here and not only did he reply and address your question he also didn't seem to think the thread needed to be moved.

Don't let people having a bad day get you down. We all have bad days. Sometimes we can get away with our slights (which we all seem to sling from time to time) and sometimes they come across as cutting.

About which lenses to get I don't really know. I just read a thread here that showed Sigma up as EXTREMELY low quality poorly made lenses - straight out. The same thread said Tamron was better but I seriously have my doubts about that. Personally I for the past 30 years, have not purchased a non-maker lens and I never will either no matter what on-line opinions say. So for me concerning SLR lenses, it's no Tokina, no Tamron, and no Sigma. That's about the only wisdom I have to offer except to suggest that you hit the lens test sites and additionally try out the lens before you buy it. Most shops will allow this and the ones that won't don't deserve your business.

Here's some review sites:

http://www.slrgear.com/reviews/showcat.php/cat/2
http://www.photozone.de/
http://www.cameralabs.com/reviews/digital_camera_and_lens_reviews.shtml
etc.

You can find more with some searching.

Good luck! :thumbup:

 

[JerryPH]

Professional Photographer, June 2007... thats one of the 3 magazines that I read the shootout containing:
- Tamron Sp AF 17-50 F/2.8 XR LD
- Nikkor AF-S DX 17-55 F/2.8 IF ED
- Sigma 18-50 EX DC HSM Macro

Sigma eeked out a win. Same results in 2 other magazines, giving it 3 out of 3 wins. Putting it up against Nikon's 17-55 (the previous class leader) and beating it in near all catagories, especially sharpness, throwing it in a free 3:1 macro and then pricing it at almost 1/3rd the cost of the Nikon... well, there are times that it is good to stick to brand names, and times when not to do so.

It is just that the 3 lenses chosen by the OP are all of very low quality and results using all of these lenses will be less than favorable and if they could save a little more to raise their budget, I am sure they would be happier with those results over the lenses he chose.

Oh, I may have been a little grumpy, and I am sorry about that, but I do think I had a valid point.

 

[Overread]

Sigma tends to get the compliments and the insults all at once since not only do they make top class lenses like thier macro primes, but they also make very very cheap combo lenses - like the 70-300mm macro - which are very cheap to buy, offer a lot of diversity, but due to their price their construction is lacking when put to the test. Good for people on a tight budget and also for the early days of learning (when 300mm means nothing to a person) - they also force one to learn some decent lens use skills to get the best out of them.