Macro Lens - Canon 50D

<p>I am trying to round out my bag-o-lenses and feel that I have two lenses to go. This query is regarding a macro lens for my 50D. I am considering the Canon 100 2.8 USM, Sigma 150 2.8 HSM and 180 2.8 HSM, the Tokina 100 2.8 (though this lens is pretty loud in AF).<br>

I am by no means an expert or even a highly experienced photographer and I feel that a macro lens will realistically get limited usage, but would be fun to have for a variety of images. I find some macro photography facinating.<br>

Truth be told, based on the limited usage, I am more apt to spend in the sub $500 range versus going overboard on a lens that I am likely to use on such a limited basis. If I find that I love the macro shooting and do it a lot and feel I need a better lens, I can always upgrade down the road. At the same time, I don't want to buy something that is going to be disappointing from the start.<br>

What are your experienced and expert opinions and why? Thanks much in advance.</p>

<p>If you don't see yourself upgrading to full-frame anytime soon, the Canon EF-S 60mm Macro is very sharp, very well built, and very affordable.<br>

The shorter focal length vs the 100mm macro means you have to work a little closer, but I find the 90mm equivalent focal length just right for other uses as well.<br>

<Chas><br /></p>

<p>A Macro lens merely makes life a little easier and if it is a very occasional activity then there are other ways, considerably cheaper, of getting the result such as extension tubes and close-up lens. They are the tried and true if old fashioned ways, and not quite so convienient way to get just as good results. With extension tubes you need to already have a lens with aperture control on the lens to be able to use the cheapest though perfectly adequate non-automatic tubes which I bought for A$30 on Ebay for EOS mounting. Though I guess if you have a macro lens its convienience is likely to encourage you to do more :-) My preferance would be to go for a longer focal length, at least the 90mm, depth of field is not a consideration, with the longer the focal length the further back you are so you get the same DoF for a given sized image on the sensor. The basic principle here is it is not how close you get but rather how tight a framing you achieve.</p>

Consider the Tamron 90/2.8, a great all-around macro lens. Most macro work has to be done with manual focus, so the USM feature of Canon might not be worth the extra money, although the 100/2.8 is a great lens. If you have an APS-C partial-frame DSLR, I suspect 150-180mm is too long and heavy. Aha, that Tokina is a new product, and seems good! You can compare it to the Tamron by reading the photozone.de reviews for Nikon.

<p>Thanks to both for providing comments so quickly to my question. I feel that a focal length of at least 100 (I guess 90 is okay) would be better for flexibility and provide for more space between the subject matter and myself (in the case of living objects and placement of a tripod). I am hesitant to take the "tried and true" approach as I believe the likely potential is for me to walk past too many opportunties, ignore them due to the added effort and be left with a bunch of accessories in my bag that in the end cost more than a macro lens (ie. they cost more in the sense they never get used). I like the idea of being able to shoot regular (ie. non-macro) with the 100/150/180 lenses one second and take a macro shot the next (even if it isn't to the full 1:1 ratio). I have an 85 mm 1.8 that I like to shoot with</p>

<p>I do greatly appreciate the suggestions to save money, in both matters. I have read the pro reviews on the Sigma 150, Canon 180 L and the Canon 100. Now I just need to make up my mind and try to determine if I am missing any obvious equivalent lens that is a fair amount cheaper, but offers similar performance and operations.</p>

<p>Bill, thanks, I will check out those reviews tonight. Thanks for that heads up.</p>

<p>Well, based on some on-line and professional reviews that I have read, I went with the Sigma 150 2.8 HSM lens. I had the chance to play around with it at the store (their display model). Brought the new one home and am finding that the focus is pretty slow and is not locking in very well. I am limited with macro shooting, so I will play around a bit with the various focus settings on the lens and offer more feedback. I went with this lens as I like the longer length and the tripod ring in hopes that I can keep a longer distance from the shooting subject. More comments to follow after some real shooting.</p>