New EF-S 55-250 IS as Macro lens?

By my standard, the 55-250IS is decent close up lens.

 

I am debating if I should buy a cheap macro lens (Phoenix, Sigma, etc.) or a set

Kenko extension tubes for my 55-250IS? They cost about the same.

 

What sort of quality can I reasonably expect? This is taken with the 55-250IS at

250mm. (Flash on, f11, handheld).<div></div>

The Phoenix macro lens (marketed under several brand names) produces very good imagery, better than what I believe you could expect from the 55-250mm IS lens plus extenders. Considering the price of the Phoenix, it is surprising how good the imagery can be. I tested the Phoenix and, since I don't do macro all that often, was seriously considering purchasing that lens. UNTIL....

 

I was perusing eBay a couple of years ago and found a mint Tamron, 90mm f/2.8 SP Macro (which is the model issued previously to the present SP Di Macro Lens). I figured that I would take a chance on this lens because the auction was ending in a few minutes and the price was rather low. I got my Tamron lens for less than $125 including shipping.

 

This lens is a jewel. Despite the fact that the newer Di model is "supposed" to be optimized for digital, the Tamron 90mm f/2.8 SP Macro lens produces imagery of a quality right up there with my "L" lenses and as good as, if not better than, my 17-55mm f/2.8 IS lens.

 

I have never seen this lens go for a price as low as the one I purchased but, I have seen them occasionally for around $150 or so. I would recommend anyone needing an excellent macro lens at a very decent price to haunt the various used photo equipment sites: on PTON, eBay, Photocamel and Fred Miranda. Have patience and wait until you can fine the Tamron 90mm f/2.8 SP Macro lens at a good price.

 

Don't buy a Tamron 90mm f/2.5 Adaptall lens because you may have interface problems with your Canon EOS body and the imagery from the Adaptall lens is not up to the 90mm f/2.8 SP Maco models.

 

Another low priced option is to get a non-Canon (Nikon, Minolta, etc) macro lens and an adapter from that mount to the EOS body. For some reason a non-Canon manual mount lens will adapt better to EOS than will the manual Canon FD mount lenses.

 

Of course, you will need to focus this lens manually but, I do most of my macro shooting with manual focus anyway.

That was a fantastic bargain, Richard, not least because naive eBay bidders often bid high on that lens, confusing it with the more modern version. I have the latter, (the Tamron 90mm Di f/2.8 Macro) and I will say that it is optically superb, which makes it a bargain compared to the 100mm Canon lens. It goes to a 1:1 ratio. It is fast on autofocus, but since so much macro work requires the photographer to choose what they want in focus, it has a simple click forward or backward mechanism to go from one to the other. Not as convenient as full-time manual + AF, but not inconvenient either. It also has a convenient switch to limit the AF to a narrower range so the lens does not seek way out to infinity and back. I do recommend it.

I meant also to say that I have bought a Nikkor 105mm f4 Micro lens to use with an adapter. It only goes to 1:2 without an extension ring, but is also a superb lens for close-in work. I spent a little more on it than Richard did on his older Tamron, but it is available on line for decent prices, as are some other classic macro lenses. Look at Photozone.de and here at Photo.net for reviews of many of these lenses.

Ray, I would say thats a pretty impressive shot with the 55-250

You image above has more or less enabled me to choose between the 55-250 and the 70-200F4L. I'll be buying the 55-250.

 

Awesome shot.

Thanks for all the answers.

 

I only need/use a macro lens once in a long while. If a Tamron 90mm can be had for about the same money as a set of extension tubes, I would take my chances on the auction site. It just never occurred to me you can get one for much less than $400.

 

The EF-S 55-250 only goes up to 1/3 life size (from about 1 meter at 250mm), it is good enough for me otherwise.

I gave it away to an impoverished beginner friend, but I had a Vivitar 100mm macro (equivalent to the Phoenix, I'm told) and it was quite good as a macro lens, even though the autofocus sounded like one of those windup toy cars! Didn't use AF much anyway. I recommend the lens for the price, though image quality won't quite live up to one of the Canon macros.

 

I bought a 55-250IS for a lightweight travel telephoto lens and am very content with it in general, especially in the "wider" part of its range (it is actually sharper at 55mm than my expensive 17-55 IS!). It can be used as a closeup lens, as this grab shot shows:

 

http://www.photomacrography.net/forum/viewtopic.php?t=4326&highlight=roman+beetle

Incidentally, I have a set of the Kenko tubes, and don't really recommend them. They are just too clumsy to use, and too bulky to carry around if you don't do macro much. They do work tolerably when you use them, though.

Hello Ray,

 

Have you considered using using the Canon 250D or 500D closeup attachment lenses? The 500D would give you .14X-.5X, the 250D would give you .28X-1X. You simply zoom to vary the magnification. These lenses are dual element and would give you a high quality image and are a lot more convenient than extension tubes plus you don't lose any light due to extension. They are available in 58mm thread at B&H for $90 each.

I have both the Vivitar 100mm macro lens and the Canon 55-250 IS and have been surprised at the quality of close-ups I am getting with the Canon. I use a Sigma Achromatic Macro closeup lens on the front and at 250mm, manual focus and image stabiliser on, I am getting great results, better than the Vivitar. It is the image stabiliser that clinches it. Hand held I can rock back and forward to get best focus and stop down to f8-11 for best quality.