MACRO FOR 5D

HI

HAVING SPENT ALL MY AVAILABLE LOOT ON A 5D,+24-70 2.8L +100-400L,

IM LOOKING TO GET A GOOD MACRO LENS.

 

WOULD LIKE THE Canon EF 180mm f/3.5L Macro USM, BUT SHORT OF SELLING

MY SILVERY HAIRED GRANDMOTHER TO ARAB SLAVE TRADERS,(or possibly my

soul to bielzibub)I CANT STRECH TO IT AT THE MOMENT.

CAN ANYONE RECOMEND AN ALTERNATIVE (OR SHOULD I KEEP SAVING)

REGARDS

ROB

Maybe a new kybd as your CAPS LOCK appears to be stuck?

Firstly type in lower case unless you want to upset everyone! Uppercase is the equivilent of shouting in a forum and will not get you the best of responses.<p>

I would suggest either opting for the EF 100 macro - an excellent lens and would make a very good portrait lens on a 5D, if you really need to max the lens/subject distance then add a 1.4 TC although the Canon 1.4 is not compatible with the 100mm macro, or alternatly look to third part suppliers such as Sigma their 180 macro is very good performer.

>>BUT SHORT OF SELLING...TO...SLAVE TRADERS<<

 

Any US corporation fits in that category...

 

You know the drill:

 

Canon EF 100m f/2.8 or 50mm f/2.5 or Tamron/Sigma equivalent. However, pricewise the Canon is actually cheaper. So, it's up to you...

Do you really need the extra working distance of a 180? The Tamron and Sigma equivalents certainly might be worth a look. Alot of people won't consider a third party lens but these seem to rate rather well.

 

If you can afford to get a bit closer (no dragonflies) the canon 100mm is an obvious choice. The Tamron 90mm seems to rate very slightly sharper though. I own the Tamron and I think I wish I'd have saved up for the canon simply for the USM and IF. Super sharp lens though.

 

Macros tend to be very sharp lenses and there is no shortage of reviews floating around. Don't assume that just because it isn't "L glass" it isn't worth considering.

I've the Canon EF 100 F/2.8 Macro, it's a wonderfull lens, very sharp, fast and very good for portraits

The Canon 180 is actually pretty expensive. There is no way I could justify its price when the Tamron 180 offers better optics at a much lower price. The other longer macro worth considering is the Sigma 150 - another very fine lens optically.

How does the lens that focuses so closely also focus at a distance good for portraits?

Savas, why Not? You can use a macro lens also like a normal lens. This is not true only for the MP-E 65 that is a macro dedicated lens.

Bye

This opens up a lot of possibilities. I heard macro lenses are ground flatter for good depth of

field. Must be huge depth for portraits also, I guess.

I own a Canon 100mm f/2.8 macro and it is an excellent lens! I use it for much more than macro photography, as it is sharp, and at f2.8 and 100 mm, a useful aperture short telephoto on my Canon 5D.

 

The 100mm f/2.8 with USM focuses fast as well, and has good contrast and great resolution. It also works effectively with a 1.4 X telextender and with the extension tubes if necessary. I would highly recommend this lens. It might be nice (on a full frame sensor body to have a longer focal length for greater working distance, but 100mm is certainly acceptable. On an APS sensor with 1.6X, it is, I think, a perfect lens.

 

Richard Mitchell, Touching Light Photography

www.touchinglightphotography.com

My have always enjoyed shooting macro. When I was shooting with the Canon FD system I owned both a third party 90mm macro and the Canon 200mm f/4 macro. I found I used the 200 98% of the time. I now own an EOS3 and a 10D. I have the EF 100mm f/2.8 macro and the Sigma 180. The 180 gets used almost exclusively. I really want the extra working distance. With a ff DSLR such as the 5D I would not recommend anything less than 150mm if you truly are going to shoot all sorts of macro (butterflies, insects, flowers, etc., etc.). The Sigma 180 that I own is very sharp, is built very well, and gives me the working distance I want. I've read reviews on the Sigma 150 that suggest it's as, if not more, sharp than the 180. I'd check it out if I were you.

Mike Stolting

You might want to try extension tubes or close-up lenses. They're relatively inexepensive and permit the use of many lenses for macro.

Savas, what do you mean by 'ground flatter for good depth of field'? Doesn't make sense; apart from possible higher-order corrections dependent on lens design, DoF is determined solely by aperture and focal length. Do you mean that macro lenses are designed to have accurately flat field, that is, the plane of focus really is a plane regardless of the focus setting? That's true, and is a requirement for copying work.

As I am sure Robin knows, for macro work depth of field is independent of focal length - it depends only on magnification and aperture (corrected for pupil magnification).

 

http://www.vanwalree.com/optics/dof.html

Also worth reading in the context of field curvature and macro lenses is:

 

http://www.vanwalree.com/optics/astigmatism.html

Robin, not that I know what I am talking about, just trying to be part of the discussion. It was

something I read in Michael Freemans' book Closeup Photography about certain lenses

having less spherical abberation due to less dramatic difference from the middle of the lens

on out.

I think I shall shut up and do more listening. <grin>

sorry bout the upper case mistake.

thanks for letting me know.

regards

rob

I have on order the Canon 100mm macro, based on the excellent reviews all over the Web, and on the advice of a photographer friend who bought the Canon 180mm macro and wished she had bought the 100mm macro instead because 180mm is too big, doesn't AF fast enough to serve as a general-use 180mm lens.