What Kind of Macro

<p>I am interested in macro photography. At first, I decided on buying a Canon 100mm f/2.8 macro lens but then I learned about the Tokina 100mm f/2.8 Macro. Photozone gives them both really good reviews. I am on a tight budget so I started thinking about the Tokina lens. I have been advised though that it isn't as good to buy a third party lens so I am still debating between the two. Any advice on which lens? Other macro recommendations are greatly appreciated too. Thanks! </p>

<p>I am very happy with all of my Tokina lenses but if the OEM lens is close in price say 40 bucks go with it. as for the 2.8 I doubt you will ever shoot it tha wide because well MACRO you need DOF and F11-22 is used a lot... with F8 being my favorite for sharpness on most lens.</p>

<p>Extension tubes will give you the ability to mount any of the current lenses you have. Unfortunately, AF tubes can get pricey, but fortunately they are still cheaper than dedicated macro lenses. You will loose speed, as in f/stops, but if you put say the 50mm f/1.8 onto 50mm worth of tubes, you get 1:1 macro and loose about 2 stops... bringing you to around f/3.5. This is plenty fast enough to get good focusing. Dedicated macro lenses have the advantage of being designed specifically for Macro, so they are corrected for close-focus abberation issues, but a normal lens on extension tubes is the best quality you can get without making a huge investment. Just be sure the adapter says AF... some Chinese companies are selling very cheap extension tubes that do not have electronics in them, meaning you get no AF control and no aperture control for your lens. Another advantage of dedicated Macro lenses is the ability to shoot a normal scene quickly without changing lenses and removing adapters. If you are shooting outdoors and would like to be able to shoot full scenes and macro work at the same time, it may be worth the investment. If you are in a more controlled environment and plan on strictly doing macro work in that setting, the tubes will work fine.</p>

<p>When using extension tubes, you simply use the same focal length as your lens to produce macro. So with a 50mm lens, you need 50mm of extension, 24mm lens you need 24mm, 80mm lens you need 80mm of extension. Obviously, the longer the extension tube, the more light you loose and the harder it will be to see the subject. The disadvantage to using extension tubes on wide lenses is that the in-focus area will be basically touching the front of the lens.</p>

<p>Is this for an AF camera or an MF Sam? What type of camera you got Sam?</p>

<p>I have a Canon EOS 40D</p>

<p>Digital? OHHH that is alt LOL extention tubes may work well then.... I use them on a Kiev 6s.</p>

<p>If i wer you i wuld just buy a bellows insted of extention tubes for the lenses for it. I mean if your going to buy manual lenses anyway it doesnt matter. and the bellows are adjustable so you dont have to keep switching between tube sizes. Although extention tubes fit in a camera bag better thain a bellows. But what the hell do i know i still dont own eather. I just borow ether from friends when i get the chance..lol</p>

<p>dan Mar I have both and I never put them in my bag unless I know I am going out to shoot for that ..... said I do need to put the bellows in the bag for my Screw mounts because those are the best lenses I have in 35mm short of my Nikors.</p>

<p>Dan, the only reasons I recommend tubes over bellows was because I figured he was talking about AF equipment and he wanted to maintain aperture control. </p>

<p>The best lens of the lot I'd say is the Tamron Adaptall 2 90mm f2.5, either that or the slightly more obscure Elicar 90mm.</p>

<p>Sam, most of the macro lenses are wonderful and sharp. Since macro gives you such a shallow depth of field you normally have to close down the aperture to increase the depth of field anyway. By the time you reach f8.0 just about any macro lens on the market will give you outstanding image quality. I have yet to see an ugly macro picture. <br>

As far as your 40D is concern the Canon 100 mm f2.8 macro is about the best there is. It is not expensive and it is an excellent lens. A very close second is the Tamron SP 90 mm f2.8 AF. That is an understanding macro for the price and it will get you to 1:1 magnification at a decent focus distance. The Sigma and Tokina are just as good.<br>

If you want to save some more money a manual focus macro lens is another way to go. The Tamron adaptall 2 90 mm macro is another likely candidate. A lot of people like manual focus because you usually shoot macro on a tripod with lots of time to focus. If you want to chase a flying insect you may reconsider the autofocus option.<br>

Your other options will be the extension tube and the add on macro lens. They are both good options and using them within their limitations you will get some outstanding images. Canon makes their own extension tube. You can also get the ones from Kenkos and others. <br>

Since add on lens require you to add another piece of glass in front of the lens, it is generally the last option. However I have also seen some beautiful images from the Sony and Raynox macro lenses.</p>

<p>Bellows are the chime... if you have a sturdy tripod even a sneeze with Macro is a butt With the new Auto stable cameras and lenses in Digital it is easy..... I prefer hard.</p>

<p>I thought the Canon 100 USM macro was kind of harsh. I tried 3 Tokinas and they all had an issue with not getting flat field focus across the frame... too bad, otherwise the lens was very pleasing to me. From other's examples, I think the Tamron 90 is the one to buy in this length. For a cropped camera I think the little EF 50CM is the star... about half the price of what you are looking at now. I sold the 100 and kept the 50. Now I use a TS-E 90, sometimes with tubes or TC... but that is certainly not a budget lens. Seriously, get the 50CM</p>