Macro Lens for my 30D

<p>Looks like we will have wildflowers in our Sonoran desert this year, so I am looking for a Macro lens. I have searched a bit and think the 100mm lens would be the best for my purposes. There is quite an array of lenses from Sigma, Canon, Tokina, and Tamron.. There also is a significant difference in price. Any suggestions or recommendations. I also do butterflies but I am not a dedicated bug shooter as you can tell from my pictures here on this website. Four of my five lenses are Canon, but I have the Sigma 10-20. Thanks for any of your thoughts. </p>

<p>The EF-S 60mm f/2.8 lens is a good alternative if you want to use the lens for portraits in addition to macro. Because the 60mm has the field of view of a 100mm lens on 35mm, it fits right in the sweet spot for most portraits. The 100mm macro lens is really long on a 30D, but it will be better for most macro purposes due to the longer lens to subject distance when working at or near 1:1 magnification.</p>

<p>I love my Tamron 90mm macro, which I use on a 40d. Very sharp, great bokeh, and it's fairly lightweight. The autofocus is slow and noisy, but for macro you typically only use manual focus anyway. The manual focus action is very smooth, it's easy to make very slight adjustments with.</p>

<p>For your flowers you may not actually need a "Macro" lens in the strict case. There are various definitions of <em>macro</em> , but nowadays it typically means a lens, like the 90mm Tamron mentioned by Trevor (which I have and love), that goes to 1:1 reproduction--that is that the image on the sensor is exactly the same dimensions as the image in the "real world" on the other side of the lens.</p>

<p>Unless you are taking pictures of tiny little flowers only a few millimeters across, a so-called "macro" function like those on the EF-S 17-85 (APS-C sensor) or the EF 24-105mm L (for 35mm sensor) will get you plenty close.</p>

<p>Of course, a regular macro lens, like the EF-S 60 or the Tamron 90, is certainly eminently usable for larger subjects too, but they lack the flexibility of a zoom lens in composing the picture, etc.</p>

<p>I rarely find a reason to disagree with JDM's postings, but I do in this case. I started doing flowers with the Canon 50mm f/2.5 "compact macro," which only goes to 1:2 magnification, and I quickly found myself frustrated. I soon sold it and bought the Canon EF-S 60mm f/2.8. I now use that and the Canon 100mm L, both of which are superb. Even with these, I sometimes use extension tubes to get closer. Here is an example of about as close as you can get with 1:1, taken with the 100mm--http://dkoretz.smugmug.com/Nature/Flowers-and-mushrooms/2010-03-10-195109-ZS-DMap-2/807344506_FWHxE-XL.jpg. Here's one that I took with an extension tube and the 60mm: http://dkoretz.smugmug.com/Nature/Flowers-and-mushrooms/edited-stacked-sRGB-28/710719226_VnoKk-XL.jpg</p>

<p>On a crop sensor camera, there are clear pros and cons to the 60 mm length and the 90-100mm length. Trevor notes one of them. Here is my take:</p>

<p>60mm: cheaper, much lighter, much shorter, easier to handhold (because of the focal length, weight, and length), better for portraits, more magnification from a given length of extension tube</p>

<p>100mm: more working distance (very handy for bugs, which don't interest you much, but also preferred by some people to get more flexibility in lighting, and useful if the flower is not on the edge of the plant), more background blur, doubles as a nice moderate telephoto.</p>

<p>The Tamron 90 is optically quite good and as others have said it does have a noisy focus motor. It also extends to twice its length at 1:1. If there are branches between you and the subject you might bump the plant due to the extending lens. So my advise is to get one with internal focus. The EF-S 60mm, EF 100mm (also optically good), and EF 100mm IS L all have internal focus. I have not used the 60mm or the EF 100 IS L. I barrowed the Tamron and EF 100mm. I don't know what Sigma has for a macro lens.</p>

<p>In regards to zooms with Macro function, these lenses almost never get down to 1:1. I frequently find myself wanting more magnification. however a zoom will do well for landscape work especially if you set the lens to its hyperfocal distance and get a flow close and other plants in the distance. </p>

<p>You probably don't need to buy another lens. An extension tube (goes between your camera and the lens) or a close up lens (goes on your lens like a filter) gives you close-up focusing capability with only a little loss of sharpness, mostly in the corners. For flowers, these work extremely well. They are cheap, light, and compact. More here:</p>

<p>http://www.bobatkins.com/photography/eosfaq/closeup2.htm</p>

 

A 100 is very usable for portraits on a crop. Provided you like tight portraits or you have enough space.

 

(i even use my 100L for walking around currently but my tastes are on the long side...)

I had my mind set on the Sigma EX Macro l70 mm - F/2.8 - which according to some exceeds the Canon 100mm f 2.8 macro lens in resolution, but then I heard about the build quality of the Canon lens. Spring is the perfect time to get a Macro lens.... CHEERS-

<p>60mm will rock your world. You can get an extension tube to make it around 85mm. Now you have 2 macros!</p>

<p>I think there is a confusion here between extension tubes and extenders (teleconverters). The latter increase the focal length of the lens. Extension tubes don't. They decrease the minimum focal distance to allow more modification. See the link to Bob Atkins' site above. An extender of a given length has more impact on magnification and more effect on available light with shorter lenses. A full set of Kenko extension tubes will bring a 60mm macro to better than 2:1 magnification.</p>

<p>another vote for the 60. extremely sharp, ultra-wide dynamic range. i don't shoot flowers per se but this lens has produced the most appealing flower shots i've seen. must be seen to be believed</p>

<p>add a tube for greater than 1:1</p>

<p>equivalent to approx. 90mm or 100mm macro on a full frame.<br>

working distance is short -- sometimes the hood casts a shadow on the subject and has to be removed. (however, possibility of flare not much of an issue as the light source is over your shoulder [otherwise the hood would not cast a shadow])<br>

hood has to be removed for extreme close up work anyway. if you add a tube(s) and shoot greater than 1:1 working distance will be about 0.5 to 2 inches. so, obviously, not enough space for a hood</p>

 

<p>I just read the article by Boib Atkins. My jaw dropped when I saw an ad for the Nikon Close up 6T on that page. I have this filter. I got out of box for a buck. So, can I use this on my 30d with the 17-85 usn is lens with a 67mm step down ring to the 62mm Nikon 6t? What would be the problem of moving it using a step down ring? Thanks for the link.</p>

<p>sorry doble post</p>

<blockquote>

<p>I just read the article by Boib Atkins. My jaw dropped when I saw an ad for the Nikon Close up 6T on that page. I have this filter. I got out of box for a buck. So, can I use this on my 30d with the 17-85 usn is lens with a 67mm step down ring to the 62mm Nikon 6t? What would be the problem of moving it using a step down ring? Thanks for the link.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>No, I wouldn't recommend that. I'd have my doubts about using an oversized close-up lens, but using an undersized one is asking for problems. Worth an experiment if you already had the step-down ring handy, but I wouldn't buy one for this.</p>

<p>Th 6T is a wonderful lens, as is the 5T. Neither are manufactured anymore, and the 6T on a 70-200 lens gives you a lot of flexibility. I say this as someone with a lot of Nikon experience, and there is no problem using a step-up ring. The difference between a 6T close-up lens and a regular 3x diopter are quite significant.</p>

<p>First, thank you all for your comments. I still believe I will go for the 100mm Canon Macro lens, not the L, but the older model. I used extension tubes many years ago with 35mm cameras, but have not done anything with them recently. I was taking photos of coins at that time. circa 1950. I have had some success with one of my current lenses. I bought this lens when it first came out on the market and it has served me well, but I am sure I could do better closeups with a macro lens. Here is a shot with the Canon 17-55nn 2,8 lens. Taken along Lake Constance last fall. Butterfly on Bodensee.</p><div></div>

<p>I think the 100mm f/2.8 macro lens would be a good choice. I have the Kenko extension tubes in addition to the 100, which can get you even closer, however, sometimes light problems arise with tubes (over-exposure and underexposure due to bad communication with the tubes). Although I've had some fun with them...<br /><a title="Yellow primrose by TA3, on Flickr" href=" src="http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4043/4367581319_e954308f65.jpg" alt="Yellow primrose" width="500" height="333" /></a><br />(Center of a primrose, 100 mm macro lens + 66 mm worth of Kenko tubes)<br />... I regret having bought the tubes. The macro alone is good enough. In addition, the macro lens is sharper than any of the alternative contraptions we all choose to use for macro. And the ability to easily autofocus if you want is great. I believe the author of one of the better closeup photography books says a macro lens isn't necessary but is convenient....indeed it is!<br />If you're anything like me, you'll enjoy the 100mm</p>

<p>I would vote for the canon 100mm 2.8 I like it on both FF and crop and think you will not make a mistake with that choice.</p>

<p>The Sigma 150 f/2.8 macro is another excellent choice, especially for bugs, unless you want to get right on their face;-) what people have to say about it at FM http://www.fredmiranda.com/reviews/showproduct.php?product=280&sort=7&cat=38&page=1</p>

<p>Both canon macros are great. I like the 60mm just a little more for its light weight and the crop factor.</p>

<p>My experience is unlike Teresa's. I routinely use Kenko tubes, individually or in combinations, with both my 100mm and 60mm macro lenses, and I have never had any problems. You need the newer series, which communicates properly with EF-S lenses, and if you swap them out while the camera is on (I don't), you need to pay attention to the instructions about which you mount first. Here is one example, taken handheld with the EF-S 60mm macro and one of the Kenko tubes: <br>

<img src="http://dkoretz.smugmug.com/Nature/Bugs/MG2234/720619865_AtrbV-L.jpg" alt="" /></p>

 

<p>I have the newer series that communicates with EF-S -- although it's unnecessary with the 100mm lens -- and I am an instruction reader. One thing I've noticed is apparent poor quality control with the Kenko tubes. I bought a set of Kenko tubes from a local store and they would not communicate at all with my 28-135mm lens (after re-seating, ensuring the tubes were connected in the right order, etc.). Knowing well that my friend's tubes worked fine with that lens, I returned them and bought the same set from another source that communicates fine with my 28-135mm lens, but perhaps works negligibly with my 100mm macro (judging by my experience versus yours).<br>

I also bought a Kenko 1.4 teleconverter recently (the new one that supposedly reports effective focal lengths, etc). It communicated fine with most of my lenses, but not with my 70-300mm. In fact, it communicated fine with my 100mm f/2.8 macro when the Kenko teleconverter package instructions warned that it would not! I returned that Kenko too.<br>

So apparently you got a better copy of the Kenko tubes than I did...or you got a copy that works well with your macro lenses. Who knows? It may not work well with some of your other lenses. I did have some luck with the Kenko tubes. Note the pic I posted above was with the combination of tubes and macro lens. It was inconsistent luck. Mostly it was exposure problems. Take one pic and it's fine. Take a second immediately using the same settings (in case the first was lost due to tripod shudder) and it over or under-exposed.<br>

But I digress, sorry to hijack the thread. Just felt I needed to defend myself a little.</p>

 

<p>Roger<br>

I myself went rounds about if I wanted a Sigma, Tamron etc lens. Then I finally woke up one day and have a Canon lenses now. In MY opinion I would use nothing else. I have a 100 f/2.8 I absolutetly love this lens. You can not beat the 1:1 ratio on it. Superb build and photo quality. This is just my 2cents worth.</p>

<p>I'm sorry I'm late on this but wanted to put in that I use a 62mm Nikon 5T with a 67mm lens thread and a step down ring. I have no vignetting on a crop sensor camera and didn't have any on a film camera. I see no reason the 6T should be any different. A step-down ring is less than $10 so why not try it. It's really handy to slip into a pocket or your bag and I've found the results to be excellent.</p>