Canon macro lens

<p>what kind of macro lens should I get for a Canon AE-1 for close up photography? But nothing over 250 dollars. Also where would I look to get a macro lens?</p>

<p>Eric Jason</p>

<p>You have a few choices. As well as cost, think about how you're going to use it. If you think you might need true macro magnifications, greater than 1: 1, go for a shorter focal length, perhaps a 50mm, and look for a bellows as well. If you want to stay in the close-up range, say 1:1 to 1:4, you may prefer a 100mm which would give you more working distance.</p>

<p>About the most ridiculous bargain in the world in used macro lenses is the Canon FD 50/3.5 macro lens. It is a <em>very </em>good lens-- sharp and contrasty. In tests, it holds its own with the current EOS 50/2.5 version, and it also performs about as well as current Zeiss and Leica lenses. A few years ago they went for about $50 U.S. on the hated auction site, which is laughable, but I think it's a bit more now, possibly because people are adapting them to micro 4/3 cameras.</p>

<p>Alternatives: you can get a 100/4 Canon FD macro for $100 to 150. The 200/4 FD macro tends to be very expensive. Some people here are evangelists for Vivitar and Kiron macro lenses, but I have no experience with them.</p>

<p>Where to buy: KEH.com. You might try the hated auction site if you know what you're looking for, but generally KEH prices are about the same and they stand by what they sell.</p>

<p>I would second the 50mm, but get the matching tube to get to 1:1</p>

 

<p>Another option is to go with a Tokina 90mm f2.5 Macro but be sure to buy one with the 1-1 adapter included. Sharp as a RAZOR blade.<br>

Reports are the Vivitar 90mm f2.5 and the Tamron 90mm f2.5 are the same,<br>

another option is the Kiron 100mm f2.8 Macro.</p>

<p>At the local camera show last Sunday I found a 50mm f/2.8 Sigma macro lens in mint condition for $10. I already had two of them but for that price I couldn't resist. The Sigma goes to 1:1 without an extra tube and its speed makes focusing a little easier. If you want to spend enough to get two lenses then a 50/3.5 FD SSC or New FD can be paired with a 100/4 FD SSC or New FD or even a 100/3.5 Vivitar/Phoenix/Promaster/Cosina/Soligor. You will find many uses for any macro lens you get.</p>

 

<p>You cannot go wrong with either the 50 F3.5 or 100 F4. As David says the difference is working distance - for insects the 100mm will be easier. Be aware that neither is 1:1 without the extension tube (25mm for the 50mm lens and 50mm for the 100mm lens). The 50 F3.5 makes a very good general purpose lens as it is razor sharp. I have heard lots of good things about the Tokina 90 F2.5 but have not personally used it.</p>

<p>Thank you all! I will look for the best.</p>

<p>Eric Jason</p>

<p>I have the Sigma 50 f/2.8, and I agree, it is a steal for such a great lens! Very sharp! I have to agree with Jeff.</p>

<p>I'll jump in on the Canon 50/3.5. This fine lens just doesn't disappoint, I always keep one in my Canon FD bag. I also use the famed Kiron 105/2.8 (AKA Lester Dine 105/2.8), but I think a better choice for a beginner is the Canon. The Tamron 90/2.5 in the Adaptall mount is also excellent and interchangeable mong lots of cameras if you change to something else. So you really have quite a few excellent choices to pick from. Either check out Ebay or KEH...these lenses seem to always be available.</p>

<p>Other relatively cheap but excellent options are Vivitars f2.8 55mm or 90mm in FD mount, which don't require extension tubes to reach 1:1 and can be found for under $100 with a little patience (they're not labeled series 1 and thus tend to attract a little less attention in online auctions).</p>

<p>If you're shooting macro with an AE1, consider getting a Magnifier: clips on to the viewfinder and greatly assists precise focus. Flips out of the way when you don't need it.<br>

<img src="http://www.myphotoweb.com/Canon_camera/accessory_pages/images/loupe1.jpg" alt="" width="500" height="370" /></p>

<p>I just bought a 50mm F3.5 on ebay for $22 its a great lens.<br>

I looked at a used one several years ago for $300?<br>

Go figure, there are some bargains to be had if you just look for a while.</p>

<p>The Kiron 105/2.8 can be had for that price. Awesome lens.</p>

<p>The Vivitar Series 1 90mm F2.5 Macro is VERY good. It will do 1/2 life size to infinity or with the dedicated Macro Adapter it will go to 1:1 (with loss of infinity focus). This is very well made lens and is one of my favorites.<br>

I also have the 50mm f3.5 which I got with a camera body. It's a beater and I haven't used it as much as the Vivitar, but even my copy is sharp and it is more compact and lighter too.</p>

<p>Ed</p>

<p>Thank you all for your advice, I greatly appreciate it!</p>

<p>Eric Jason</p>

<p>Like Stephen, I also have experience with the Canon FD 50/3.5, Kiron/Dine/Vivitar 105/2.8 or 2.5, and the Tamron 90/2.5. I sold my Canon about 20 years ago, but it was always a tack-sharp lens and rendered great photos.</p>

<p>Currently I own a Vivitar 105/2.5 (same as the Legendary Kiron), a Tamron 90/2.5, and a Micro Nikkor 55/3.5. I have done quite a few comparison tests with these lenses, and I have determined that the sharpest all around lens of the three is the Tamron 90mm. The Nikkor was a close 2nd, and the Legendary Vivitar came in third place. Now, just to be fair, I need to emphasize that all three lenses did an outstanding job, but the Tamron edged out the other two by a small, but noticeable amount.</p>

<p>Last August, I reviewed these three lenses and one other at my blog. If you feel like checking out what I found, here's a link to it:</p>

<p>http://mwmcbroom.wordpress.com/2010/08/14/manual-focus-macro-classics-a-comparison/</p>

<p> </p>

<p>Thanks, Michael. Wish I'd known about your blog before: I'd just ordered a Plustek 7600Ai - sure hope I made the (or at least "a") right choice ...</p>

<p>Hey James,<br>

Let us know how that Plustek works out for you, okay? I'm very curious about the sorts of results that can be had with that scanner. I doubt very much you'll see 7600 ppi of true image resolution, but I've heard reports that it is in the high 3000s, which is up there with the dedicated Nikon scanners, and that's nothing to sneeze at.</p>