Canon macro lens recommendation needed

<p>Hello. Here are a couple of questions I'm not finding easy answers to.</p>

<p>Does or has Canon made a true macro zoom in their "L" series?</p>

<p>I was hoping to find a lens that would serve a few purposes. Macro, and more casually, portrait and landscape. Is there an L-series lens that might accomplish this? I am probably looking at used since my budget is $1500. Macro photography is outdoor insects and flowers.</p>

<p>My current lenses include the 400 5.6L and the 70–200 2.8 L. For macro, I have been adding the 500D to the 70–200. That is a bit heavy and the fixed working distance, zoom and focus are all difficult. It also does not work for landscape.</p>

<p>Any help with this would be greatly appreciated. This is a pretty big deal for me and I am hoping to get it right. Thanks!</p>

<p>Why L?<br>

In fact Canon has two L macro lenses: 100 IS and 180 mm, but I bet that the non-L lenses are very good as well: 50 and 100 mm (non IS), also an EF-s 60 mm. And the MPE-65 lens but that's for special purposes. Have a look at Canon's website(s) for more info.<br>

You can hardly go wrong with macro lenses.</p>

<p>Anything that would serve for landscapes as well? Guessing the "macro" zooms that exist aren't good for macro since the min focus distance is pretty far (> 15"). Does that sound right?</p>

<p>Nicholas, I don't think there's such a thing as a true macro zoom, but Canon does have some macro capabilities built into its 24-70mm f/4 L lens, which is reviewed at the link below.<br>

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/Canon-EF-24-70mm-f-4-L-IS-USM-Lens-Review.aspx<br>

But for an extra $240 (at current prices after rebates), I would rather (and do) have the combination of a 17-40 f/4 L, a 50mm f/1.4 prime and a 100mm f/2.8 (non L) macro than the 24-70 f/4 L IS.</p>

<p>The 100mm f/2.8 macro lens (and the L macro lens) will do a good job of shooting portraits and landscapes in addition to macro, but since you already have the 70-200 f/2.8 I wouldn't think you'd use either of them for those purposes very often unless you were out with only the macro lens on your camera.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>Does or has Canon made a true macro zoom in their "L" series?</p>

 

</blockquote>

<p>Nobody, to my knowledge, has made a true macro zoom. Generally, "true macro" would mean a lens that can focus close enough to get 1:1 magnification, that is, the image on the sensor is life size. (the Canon 50 is an exception: it goes only to 1:2.) None of these lenses, as far as I know, are zooms. Manufacturers use "macro" on zooms to mean "relatively close focusing," not really "close enough to count as a real macro lens."</p>

<p>So you need to ask yourself: is "close focusing" close enough for you? The manufacturer's specs should give you the maximum magnification (the magnification and minimum focusing distance), which will tell you how close to "true macro" they are. You can also add a close-up adapter or extension tubes to one of these lenses to get higher magnification. The details, however, will vary from lens to lens.</p>

<p>On the "L" issue: I agree with Jos. I shoot a lot of macro, using both the 100mm L and the EF-S 60mm (not L). No one can tell the difference when looking at the prints. Most L glass is very good, but there is lots of very good glass that is not L.</p>

<p> </p>

<p>This is really helpful. Thanks very much! Any thoughts about using the 24-105 F4 L IS? Maybe in comparison to the 24-70? Both look like good possibilities. Thinking I can put an extension tube on either to get up close.</p>

<p>The 70-200 isn't so great for landscape at 70 mm. Hoping to solve that with something like one of the two above.</p>

<p>The 24-105 is an excellent lens as a general shooter, and it does decent close focus, like the other zoom lenses mentioned above. But it and the other zoom lenses are not macro. Maybe you don't want real macro, of course.</p>

<p>If you do, I wouldn't worry overmuch about "L" status unless you are looking for status markers rather than users.<br>

Check out the reviews of true macros on Photozone.de. Especially consider the bargain in the lot, the Tamron 90mm f/2.8.</p>

<p>Thanks JDM. I see the point that these are not dedicated macros lenses. I'm leaning towards the 24-105 but with a reservation. I am hoping to have one lens shoot "acceptable" portraits and landscapes but a quite good job at macro. Do you think this lens will do well with a Canon 12mm extension tube?</p>

<p>That would add more magnification by allowing me to get closer, though I'm not sure how close. This seems like the best available one lens compromise.<br>

<br />If I opt for the 24-70, then I lose magnification and have a lens that Canon says does not have a macro feature. Again extension tube can be added, but assuming that the 24-105 would work better that way, since it already has some macro capability. Does this sound right?</p>

<p>I have and use a 24-105mm all the time on a "full-frame", but the range is more awkward on a APS-C body than is the excellent EF-S 15-85mm, which has the same sort of 'macro' ability - in fact is really pretty much the APS-C eguivalent of the 24-105 except that Canon don't label any EF-S lenses as "L".<br /> If all you need is an occasional closer view, I'd suggest getting some decent quality "plus" lenses that screw into the front of whatever lens - they don't need any electronic circuitry, so are a lot cheaper. They also can produce very good results, much better than is usually acknowledged.</p>

<p>Went for the 24-70 f4L IS with it's glorious "Macro/Lock" switch and a it's 7.87" minimum focusing distance. :-)</p>

<p>Thank you much for your help with this. What better than a cadre of professionals on photo.net to receive input from. Much appreciated!</p>

<p>A 12mm extension tube on the 24-105 will get you about 3 inches closer to your subject (at 105mm, you can focus on a subject about 14 inches from the sensor plane instead of 17 inches without an extension tube).</p>

<p>A 25mm extension tube on the 24-105 gives you a minimum focus distance (again, at 105mm) of about 11 inches from the sensor plane, which is about 2 inches from the end of the lens when the tube is fitted. At that distance, most insects will be scared away. The <strong>maximum</strong> focusing distance at 105mm with a 25mm extension tube fitted is about two feet (14 inches from the end of the lens), but the magnification will not be enough for insects.</p>

<p>Although the lens is quite usable with both tubes, only the 25mm tube gives you anything approaching what might truly be termed "macro", but without much working distance (i.e., distance from end of lens to subject).</p>

<p>However, a 25mm tube will also work on your 70-200, allowing it to focus as close as a couple of feet away, or about 12 inches away if you fit both a 25mm tube and the 500D diopter that you already have. This does not give you the flexibility of a macro lens but it might be somewhat useful for insects.</p>

<p>As you also care about weight, another approach would be to buy a dedicated macro lens in the 90-100mm range (Canon, Sigma or Tamron: they are all superb) and to carry a couple of wider primes for landscapes, such as a 24mm and something in between. But if you are serious about insects you'll do best with a dedicated 180mm macro lens (again, Canon, Sigma or Tamron).</p>

<p>The 180 is definitely on the wish list. Wanted to get going with handheld first. Also need the wide angle. Between the 70-200, 400 5.6, tubes and 500D, I can get further away from flighty insects and timid spiders. Thanks again!</p>

<p>Nikon 70-180 micro with an adapter for Canon - about $1400-$1700 total...Easy to shoot Nikon lenses on Canon bodies...and usually with macro you do not need AF</p>

<p>http://www.fredmiranda.com/forum/topic/1212241/0?keyword=Nikon,70-180#11548160</p>

<p>http://www.photo.net/canon-eos-digital-camera-forum/00ZjCl</p>

<p>http://matthewduclos.wordpress.com/2010/07/27/fotodiox-nikon-g-canon-eos-mount-adaptor/</p>

 

<p>If you want to go handheld then consider the Sigma 150mm f/2.8 OS or for more reach Sigma 180mm f/2.8 OS. Both of these are highly rated and can produce good results handheld.</p>

<p>The Canon 100 f/2.8 macro lens is extremely sharp and quite a bargain compard to L version. I prefer using this lens when ever possible for general photography even though it's focal length is a bit long. And for macro photography it works extremely well. On an APS-C body I try to not use an aperture smaller than f/11 for maximum sharpness.</p>