A macro lens for a dedicated amateur with a Canon 40D EOS

Just three days ago, I made the leap from a film camera (a Canon Rebel I dearly

loved) to digital. After going through a file I'd been keeping for five years

on digital cameras (and throwing out everything from 2003 through 2005 since

the technology has changed so rapidly), I settled on the Canon 40D EOS. I have

been stunned and thrilled with the camera, especially with pictures I've taken

in low light/no flash and with how much closer I can get to my subject.

 

Having said that, I now pine for a dedicated macro lens. The guy at the camera

store (whom I've known all my life and trust) strongly recommended the Sigma

macro 150mm. I want a macro lens to be able to go out and shoot close-ups of

flowers, damselflies, etc. (we live in the middle of the woods of eastern

Ohio). I don't expect that I'll need to use a macro lens a LOT, but do want

the options it offers for nature photography. Here are my questions:

 

1) What does everyone think of the Sigma macro 150mm?

2) If you prefer another macro lens, what is it and why (bear in mind I can't

go over $500)?

3) What about teleconverter lens to make my Canon 40D EOS kit lens into more of

a macro lens than it is?

 

Please remember I'm an amateur! I get a little lost with all the technical

jargon. Thanks so much for your input.

From what I've read, EVERY manufacturer of macro lenses makes good quality ones. You can check reviews of different macro's to make sure you're getting what will fit your needs.

Take a look at Canon's 100mm macro.

<blockquote><i>1) What does everyone think of the Sigma macro 150mm?

</i></blockquote><p>

I stay away from SigMa lenses.

 

<br> 

<blockquote><i>2) If you prefer another macro lens, what is it and why (bear in mind I can't go over $500)?

</i></blockquote><p>

 

Tokina AT-X 90mm f/2.5. It's a manual focus lens that was produced for various mounts. I have one for Nikon and use it with an Nikon-EOS adapter. It is an exceptional lens, and was tested by <b><a href="http://www.photodo.com/products.html">Photodo</a></b> for an MTF score of 4.6, making it to the top-10 with over 400 lenses measured.

<p>

But if you have the money, the Canon 100mm f/2.8 USM is a very versatile lens and probably more convenient to use.

 

<br> 

<blockquote><i>3) What about teleconverter lens to make my Canon 40D EOS kit lens into more of a macro lens than it is?

</i></blockquote><p>

None. If you want macro cheap, get extension tubes and a 50mm prime (or go for the EF 50mm f/2.5 1:2 macro lens). Or buy a reverse adapter ring and a manual 50mm lens with a matching filter thread.

Just for the case you haven't seen it yet ... this link ...

 

http://www.photo.net/learn/macro/

 

... answers quite a few questions about macro photography.

 

 

The typical candidates for macro lenses are ...

 

EFS 60/2.8 or Sigma 70/2.8

 

EF 100/2.8 or Sigma 105/2.8 or Tamron 90/2.8

 

EF 180/3.5L or Sigma 150/2.8 or Tamron 180/3.5 or Sigma 180/3.5

 

... all of these lenses are optical very very good. All of them are capable of doing "1:1 macro" (this means something that is 1cm big in reality can also be 1cm when projected onto sensor/film).

 

The main difference is "working distance" and price of course.

The shorter the focal length of the lens, the lower is the working distance (means you'll have to be nearer to your subject). While flowers are very likely not bothered by this, damselflies are ... so eventually the 60mm/70mm aren't a good choice.

 

I personally would take Canons EF100/2.8 USM macro lens.

 

If your kitlens is the EFS 18-55, keep in mind that teleconverters (regardless of brand) do not fit. (I'm not aware of any teleconverter that fits EFS lenses). Canons latest distance rings should (to my knowledge) fit EFS lenses. However, a closeup-lens is eventually a better choice for a start.

The Canon 100mm f/2.8 macro is a very high-quality lens that I think you would enjoy for years to come.

If you do a search, you'll find plenty of posts about choosing macro lenses, many of them from grumpy old men like me who aren't keen on using off-brand equipment. That said, if you are going to buy off-brand lenses, macros are probably one of the safest bets - most reputable makes are optically very good, and the issue is much more one of handling.

 

Dragonflies/damselflies are very diverse in their behaviour. On a 1.6-factor body, you might have a problem getting close enough with anything less than a 100mm lens, but I have taken plenty of whole-insect photographs, even of the smallest damselflies, with the excellent Canon 100/2.8USM, a lens I can recommend highly. But some species hardly seem to settle at all, and when they do so, they fly off when you are many feet away. Careful observation of perching places, the use of a tripod, maybe a long release, a wireless release, or even a hide, can be the only way to get a shot, and you may need something like a 300/4L IS on extension tubes - 150mm is still nowhere near long enough. A macro lens longer than 100mm starts to be very awkward to use handheld on a 1.6-factor body, and certainly is far from ideal for botanical subjects, for which the 60/2.8 is in my view preferable to the 100/2.8USM. Overall, for what you want, I would strongly recommend the Canon 100/2.8USM.

Sigma makes good macros. Their 70mm macro is considered the best macro available today, even compared to the 60 and 100 from Canon.

http://www.slrgear.com/reviews/showproduct.php/product/964/cat/30

 

But its autofocus is slow compared to Canon's USM. A long macro, like the 150, is prefered if you want to shoot skittish insects, but it is a very heavy lens. If weight is an important factor then you might even want to consider the 60. But since you are shooting a Canon I would recommend the Canon 100mm macro as the best all around compromise.

Read the reviews on the Canon 50mm, 60mm, and 100mm lenses, and the reviews on the Sigma and Tokina models.

 

I own a Canon 100/2.8 USM Macro, and you really can't go wrong with this lens for filling the general purpose macro niche in your bag. The image quality is, as is typical for macro lenses, excellent. The ergonomics and focusing (manual and auto) are also very well designed.

 

The Sigma macro lenses are good enough that they should be part of your decision. Just keep in mind that there have been *some* compatibility issues with Sigma lenses when Canon upgrades cameras significantly. It probably will never be an issue for you, but it should always be considered as a factor in your decision, imo. I don't know that everybody would characterize the Sigma 70mm Macro to be considered the best macro around today, I think Mike's statement is a little bold. It is a very good performer, and should be considered.

 

My decision ultimately came down to which lens was best as a multi-tasker. I didn't want to buy a macro lens to use only for macro, because I figured if I was buying a decent prime, I might as well buy one that could do other stuff easily. All of the macro lenses in this class can be used for general photography beyond macro work, but the excellent USM autofocus, and build quality/design pushed me to the Canon 100/2.8 USM Macro.

On a crop sensor camera, like the 40D, you will find a 150MM macro VERY difficult to hold still, when extremely close to a subject. It's even difficult to hold the Canon 100MM still.

 

I'm sure you don't want to lug a tripod around on your nature macro outings.

 

The increased magnification of 150MM won't help if your shots are blurred from shake.

 

I own the 100MM macro and it does a great job. I suggest you try different length lenses, in your camera store, on a 40D body.

 

You might even find a 60MM macro will meet your needs.

 

When you make a choice on a lens, I highly recommend B&H

 

http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/194451-USA/Canon_4657A006_100mm_f_2_8_USM_Macro.html

 

Grab it before the rebate expires.

Also be aware that when focused extremely close, the effective f stop on a macro lens drops off, forcing a slower shutter speed.

 

As the rear lens element moves farther away from the sensor, to focus closer, the brightness of the image it casts on the sensor decreases.

 

This is similar to the way the image from a slide projector would dim, the further you moved the projector away from the screen.

Canon 100mm is a very good choice. Very sharp, tack sharp. Also great for taking portraits.

Yes I echo the thought, all the true prime macro lenses are good and it is more a question of ergonomics.

 

In choosing a macro lens you need to trade working distance (end of lens to subject, normally quoted at life size magnification) with weight and size.

 

I normally recommend the EF 100mm macro as the best compromise for this.

 

Please take a look at this very recent question on the same subject http://www.photo.net/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg?msg_id=00O5Ic

One other problem with marco lens es ! as I have with my EFS-60mm macro; when you get real close to somethings it will do what is

called [ it goes hunting ] and you will have to manualy focus it also get a cheap but good tripod thats a must in macro work: Go to the KEH.com and Adorama.com and look thru their used

Items also go to fredmiranda.com for used items I have gotten a lot of good used equipment that way : good luck:

I posted the wrong foto the first foto is with my EF-S 17-85 Is lens

which is my walk around lens this foto is taking with the 60mm macro lens:

the 150 is very long on the 40D. recommend the canon 100 macro or the canon ef-s 60 macro

 

working distance at 1:1 with the 60 is about 3.5 inches -- may be too close for some insects. this might make the 100 a better choice

 

if you have a canon 50 1.8 (version II) you can use an extension tube to enable this lens to deliver true macro. extension tubes can be cheap -- see kenko's products online, available for as little as 20 bucks on ebay or 30-90 dollars new from, say, b&h or amazon

 

the canon 50 1.8 II sells for around $80 dollars new and is a very sharp optic when closed down to at least f2.5

 

also, get a tripod -- it's a must for most typical macro shots. when shooting macro using a 40D use the 'live view' mode to lock the mirror up (there are a couple other mirror lock-up options but live view is the easiest) and trip the shutter using timed delay (10 seconds, not 2 seconds) -- this will negate the vibration caused by your hand when you press the shutter button

 

here's a couple images i made the other day with the 50 and a canon 25mm extension tube:

 

http://www.photo.net/photo/6846580&size=lg

 

http://www.photo.net/photo/6846581&size=lg

Take advantage of the Canon lens rebate and purchase the EF 100 f2.8 macro. You won't be disappointed!

ps -- forget about autofocus in macro work

My 2 cents. Of the three big 3rd party lens mfg, I had the worst experience with Sigma. But they do have a very very good macro in the 150mm. If a longer working distant macro is what you after, Sigma 150 is the fastest and lightest. No one else make one like that. It is also optically very good from wide open to stop down as well. Sigma got it right with the 150 macro

Hi Catherine,

 

One thing to think about, a macro lens can be quite useful for other things, too. To me, a lens has a lot more value if it can serve double duty.

 

The Canon 100/2.8 macro lens has reasonably fast AF at non-macro focusing distances, so long as the limiter switch is used. For that reason, it can work well as a moderate telephoto for more normal distances, too. This lens finds its way into my camera bag a lot, as part of my walk around kit. I know folks who use it as a portrait lens, and have done so myself on occasions when I didn't have my 85/1.8 at hand.

 

Now, I don't have any of the current third party macro lenses to compare, so can't really comment much about them. Everyone seems to build optically good macro lenses, simply because it's not all that difficult to design and build a good macro lens.

 

But before I'd consider purchasing any of the third party lenses, I'd want to carefully test their AF speed to see if they can perform well for other purposes, too. (Note: I usually don't use AF for macro shots, so any lens' AF capabilities don't matter to me in that respect.)

 

If you used a 90 to 105mm for macro work in the past, with your new 40D the Canon EF-S 60/2.8 might be the lens of choice, although it will not be usable on full frame cameras or on your film camera. The 60/2.8 is said to be basically a downsized EF 100/2.8.

 

If you tended toward 150 to 180mm for macro work previously, the Canon EF 100/2.8 would be the rough equivalent on your 40D. It has the advantage of being fully usable on full frame/film cameras too. I also like that it can have a tripod collar added (but don't like that it's not included, costs extra).

 

The 100/2.8 *can* be used without the tripod collar, of course (it's really not so large and heavy that it can't be tripod mounted via the camera's baseplate). But, for macro work I have mine fitted with a long Arca-Swiss style lens plate that acts like a simplified (and cheaper) focusing stage.

 

One oddity of the 100/2.8 is that it's matching lens hood (also an additional accessory) is huge! I think that's to allow it to be easily reversed for storage. There are times - such as when working with macro flash - that I use a smaller, generic, 58mm screw-in lens hood instead.

 

No. Unless you really need the distance from your macro/close-up subjects (nasty biting and poisonous critters, for example) I would *not* recommend a 150, 180 or 200mm macro lens for use on a 40D. The camera's 1.6X crop factor makes all these lenses act like a very long macro teles. This in turn makes it more challenging to get adequate depth of field, calling for smaller f-stops to help with DOF, along with the slower shutter speeds that follow, and thus can be a lot more challenging to hand-hold without camera shake blurring your images.

 

I still have the Canon 180/3.5 macro, but it sees a lot less use now on my 1.6X crop D-SLRs, than it did on my full frame film cameras in the past. Also, it's more of a dedicated macro-only lens, in part because it's AF is a bit slower and can be somewhat frustrating to try to use at non-macro distances. I'm not saying it isn't an excellent lens... It is. But I'd have to qualify that it's a specialized *macro* lens for the large part, not as dual purpose as the 100/2.8, and simply not as useful on 1.6X cameras.

don't know why i didn't think of this before. here is a test shot done with the canon 50 1.8 II on a canon 25mm II extension tube.

 

the shot is not at all an example of great macro work, but what's remarkable is (this test shot) was done handheld with no special lighting at ISO 640 (to facilitate hand holding).

 

in general you don't shoot macro at anything other than ISO 100, and you use a tripod (and a pricey macro lens with extensive set up time).

 

i walked up, got the shot, and walked away in less than 20 seconds. this shot shows the potential of the 40D as well as the usability of a low-cost macro rig.

 

you can get this type of set up for as little as $100. the canon extension tube costs a couple hundred retail but kenko's tubes work just as well and cost (off the top of my head) $60 online new, $6-30 used

 

http://photoboovy.blogspot.com/2008/01/little-purple-flowers.html

 

enjoy that camera and good luck with macro

where's my mind. the shot (in my post above) is not only ISO 640 but is a crop. about 30% of the frame is cropped out. that's a total compromise for macro technique -- but it does show off the potential of the camera/lens pretty nicely

You've received good (if conflicting) advice. Only thing I can add is to emphasize that if you are REALLY interested in shooting skittish bugs, the Sigma 150mm macro is probably the best choice for lightness and reach combined. If you want more of a general purpose macro lens, a 100mm lens (probably the Canon one) is a better choice on a 1.6 crop body, as it will be lighter and easier to handhold. I'd avoid the 50, 60, and 70mm macro lenses if you have any interest in shooting insects at all (yes, I'm sure many posters will have great insect shots taken with these lenses, but it is much harder!).

 

For damsels and dragons in particular, you definitely need reach. I spend a lot of time photographing these guys, and my preferred lens on a full frame camera is the 300/4 IS with 1.4 or 2x teleconverter. Even 150 on a 1.6 crop camera is on the short side.

Thanks, everyone, for your invaluable input . . . ended up purchasing the Canon 100mm 2.8 f and LOVE LOVE LOVE it so far. Look forward to taking more photos, educating myself and learning as I go . . . in addition have signed up to take a photography course to help me do the best macro photography I can. Thanks to all for your input!