MACRO Lens for Canon 40D

<p>G'day everybody,<br>

I've been searching for an answer to "what is a good start macro lens" all over the net, I'm bombarded with all sorts of information.<br>

I plan to take shots of flowers, coins and mostly not moving things.<br>

What would you recommend for starters (i'm on a budget at the moment)?<br>

Would a 2.8 give a shallower DOF compared to a 5.6 for example?<br>

Thank you all in advance.</p>

 

<blockquote>

<p>I plan to take shots of flowers, coins and mostly not moving things.<br />What would you recommend for starters (i'm on a budget at the moment)?</p>

</blockquote>

<p>60/2.8 EF-S if you can, Sigma 50/2.8 if you can't. 50/2.5 is also good and cheap but only reaches 1:2.</p>

<blockquote>

<p><br />Would a 2.8 give a shallower DOF compared to a 5.6 for example?</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Of course.</p>

<p>Happy shooting,<br>

Yakim.</p>

<p>60/2.8 EF-S is currently $392.00 (B&H Photo) would probably be the ideal lens for a crop body.</p>

<p>Various grades of used 50/2.5 Compact Macros and 100 macros are available from KEH.com.</p>

<p>100mm may be a bit long when shooting coins, but a nice narrow field of view for photographing flowers.</p>

<p> </p>

<p>Yes, f2.8 would give a shallower depth of field than f5.6. If you don't have a concise understanding of depth of field and how it relates to aperture, then use this free calculator: http://www.dofmaster.com/dofjs.html</p>

<p>I agree with Yakim and Kerry about the EF-S 60mm f/2.8 macro. I shoot with a 50D and have both that lens and one of the Canon 100mm macros. If you are going to be shooting things that don't run away from you, the 60mm is in many ways a very good choice. It is a superb lens optically and has a very solid build. It's a bargain for the price. On a 40D, it is a nice length for portraits as well. It is short and light, which along with the shorter focal length makes it easy to hand hold. The majority of my flower shots here http://dkoretz.smugmug.com/Nature/Flowers-and-mushrooms/5909118_XvfSg/1/369072619_CvhGA were taken with that lens.</p>

<p>The 50mm is optically a good lens and is cheap, but I would avoid it if you want to do macro. It is only 1:2, not 1:1; it does not focus as well as the 60; and if I recall, it does not have full time manual focusing. The 60 also has nicer bokeh. I had a 50mm and quickly sold it to get the 60.</p>

<p>To add to Kerry's last comment: the 60 and 100 actually give you very similar (very shallow) depth of field, but the 100 gives more background blur because of the perspective (the narrow field of view that Kerry mentions.) However, if you are really close to the flower, anything substantially far away will be quite blurred with either lens. Shallow DOF is one of the challenges of macro, and one nice thing about the 60 is that it is still quite sharp even stopped down to about f/20 or so. You can see some at this aperture at the link above, so you can judge for yourself.</p>

<p>the 60 efs. shooting in live view mode with mirror locked and timed release (on a tripod) will help lessen vibrations.<br>

recommend using 10 second timer as opposed to the default 2 second. gives more time for the vibration of tripping the shutter to die. 2 seconds is enough but just barely</p>

<p>Another vote for the 60mm F2.8 Canon lens, but keep in mind that a longer macro lens will give you a better out-of-focus background at the same aperture (if that's important to you). Shooting macro at 2.8 will give you a great background with all macro lenses, but the DOF will be very shallow. I also have both the 60mm and 100mm Canon macro lenses, they each serve its own purpose. </p>

<p>I am planning to replace the 100mm with a Canon 180mm in the future, to be able to shoot bugs at higher apertures (f8, f11..) and still have the background that I get from my 60mm at 2.8.</p>

<p>Check the review here: http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/Canon-EF-S-60mm-f-2.8-Macro-USM-Lens-Review.aspx<br>

... see the example of background blur down the page.</p>

<p> </p>

<p>Nothing against the various 50-60mm suggestions, but even on a APS-C body, it never hurts to have a little more reach to make lighting easier, etc.</p>

<p>Look at reviews of the Canon EF 100mm f/2.8 Macro USM (list ca. US$600) and the Tamron SP AF90mm F/2.8 Di 1:1 Macro (model 272) (B&H has a rebated version right now at $400) at <a href="http://www.photozone.de/Reviews/overview#canon_aps">Photozone.de</a> . I personally have the Tamron and have used it on both my APS-C bodies and 35mm sensor and find it to be "jes' swell".</p>

<p>There's a newer 100mm from Canon with IS and an L red stripe for about $1100.</p>

<p>Wow, amazing response from all of you guys.<br>

Dan, I absolutelly love the flower shots, great job. Diana thanks for the link.<br>

JMD, don't you worry mate, I'll be adding lens to my bag as I go :) <br>

The photo below was taken with an ordinary 17-85 IS USM and cropped. Doesn't look too bad but I wish I could fill the frame more.</p><div></div>

<cite>Would a 2.8 give a shallower DOF compared to a 5.6 for example?</cite>

 

<p>Disclaimer: I don't do macro work, so what I'm about to write is based on my understanding of what I've read, not personal experience.</p>

 

<p>For macro work, the problem with DOF is often that you can't get enough of it. From <a href="http://www.bobatkins.com/photography/technical/depth_of_field.html" target="_blank">http://www.bobatkins.com/photography/technical/depth_of_field.html</a>, if you're shooting at 1:1 with pretty much any macro lens (at least, anything with a focal length in the telephoto range), your depth of field at f/2.8 is about 0.3mm; at f/5.6, it's 0.6mm. Even if you stop down so far that diffraction starts to hurt sharpness, that bee is probably still not going to be entirely within your DOF. Now, you may not want the entire bee to be sharp, and that's fine, but you probably want more than 0.6mm of it to be sharp, so you'll probably not be anywhere near the lens' maximum aperture regardless of whether you have an f/2.8 lens or an f/5.6 lens.</p>

<p>I recommend a 90mm f2.5 or f2.8 manual focus macro lens. Here is an excellent one on ebay - item #320467639061. It is in Nikon mount and you can get a Nikon adapter for the 40D (with or without autofocus confirmation) for $10-25. The adapters work great - this is what I do for macro on my 10D and 20D cameras. I have a Tokina made 90mm f2.5 macro that is nothing short of amazing and I lucked out at $75 at a pawn shop. In my opinion, you are better off with a manual focus lens for true macro work as the DOF is very shallow at macro magnification so AF will focus on the wrong parts commonly. I would personally jump on that lens.<br>

Do a google search on the Panagor 90mm f2.8 to see how excellent it is. <br>

Also check for the Tamron 90mm f2.5 like item#290385183993.<br>

Photographing insects is best with a macro lens that is at least 90mm so you can have the lens further away from potentially nervous bugs and get the same 1:1 macro ratio.</p>

<p>BTW - the Vivitar 90mm f2.5 and f2.8 macro lenses (serial numbers 22, 28 or 37 as first digits on the front) are also excellent. I have the Vivitar 90mm f2.5 1:1 that is a Tokina AT-X lens and it is amazingly sharp even wide open. It makes a nice lens for portraits with 3D looking effect and nice bokeh. My lens is built like a proverbial you-know-what. It is thick metal, silky smooth movements and just plain fantastic.<br>

If you can find one there is also a Vivitar/Pheonix/Cosina/Promaster 100mm macro lens that is very good and when found very affordable. Ebay item#350289227046 is an autofocus lens and is actually quite good, but more expensive.</p>

<p>Yet another option is a Vivitar Macro-focusing 2X teleconverter (choose Olympus OM, Nikon, Pentax K, or Yashica/Contax Y/C mount, don't get the Minolta or Canon FD mount versions as they won't adapt well) and a same mount 50mm f1.4, f1.7, f1.8, f1.9 or f2.0 and an EOS to same mount adapter. I have this 2X teleconverter as well and it is also fantastic. I even use mine with the Vivitar 90mm f2.5 with great results. This will turn a standard 50mm lens into a 100mm 1:1 macro lens. ebay item#140368506280,<br>

SEE: http://www.jr-worldwi.de/photo/macro3_shootout.html</p>

 

<p>I think even with stationary items that a longer lens than 50mm is better because with the distance further away, it is easier to light the object than having a lens almost on top of the item to get the 1:1 ratio. </p>

<blockquote>

<p>Nothing against the various 50-60mm suggestions, but even on a APS-C body, it never hurts to have a little more reach to make lighting easier, etc.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>

<p dir="ltr">It does. Just like the OP, I mostly "take shots of flowers, coins and mostly not moving things". I had the 100/2.8 and traded it for the 60/2.8. For this type of macro subjects longer working distance holds no advantage and in most cases can even be a handicap.</p>

 

<p dir="ltr"> </p>

<p dir="ltr"> </p>

<p dir="ltr"> </p>

<p dir="ltr">Happy shooting,</p>

<p dir="ltr">Yakim.</p>

 

<p dir="ltr"> </p>

</p>

 

<p>If you can find one, the Cosina-made Voigtländer 125mm f/2.5 SL Macro Apo-Lanthar seems well regarded and has, quite frankly, produced most of the best looking macros I've yet seen. Pictures from it have a lush luminosity that almost defies belief...</p>

My recommendation would be a macro lens of 90mm or longer. I have a 60mm macro and a 105mm macro and when taking pictures the 105mm is much better to use because the longer distance to the subject. With a 50-70mm you need to be really (too) close to a subject and they are IMHO only useable under studio conditions.

And for bugs, butterflies I do use an extension-tube (12,20 or 36mm) and a 70-300mm/4.5-5.6 (in low light a 180mm/2.8 lens), my 105mm is even too short for this use. With an 105mm the bugs/butterflies fly away when you try to make a picture, a longer lens is necessary.

<p>Two excellent lenses for flower shots are Sigma 70mm f/2.8 EX DG Macro Autofocus and Sigma 105mm f/2.8 EX DG Macro Autofocus. Both cost around $500 each. Most of the time I use these two lenses for my flower shots on 1.5 FOVCF body (Pentax K20). When shooting flowers manual focus is (much) better option. Cheers!</p>

<p>

<p>

<blockquote>

<p dir="ltr">When shooting flowers manual focus is (much) better option.</p>

</blockquote>

<p dir="ltr"> </p>

<p dir="ltr">I tried that in windy conditions and failed miserably. AI servo OTOH worked quite well. Take note that I did have ring USM and IF design to my aid (100/2.8, 60/2.8). I don't think it'll work so good with lenses that lack these.<br>

 

<p dir="ltr"> </p>

<p dir="ltr">Happy shooting,</p>

<p dir="ltr">Yakim.</p>

</p>

 

<p dir="ltr"> </p>

</p>

</p>

 

<p>I owned /used both the EFS 60 and EF 100 with my former 40D but for close-up photos I got better results with the EFS 60; it was more portable, easier, and more fun to use, and even at current prices it is a real bargain. I tended to use the EF 100 macro more often as a telephoto and eventually sold it to buy an EF 200 f2.8 L and never missed it at all. I found that closer to sunset I could get very close to bees and other insects without spooking them. The EFS due to its shorter focal was easier to maneuver around branches, leaves etc, allowing me to get closer to my subjects so the extra 40mm of the EF was no advantage at all in my type of photos.</p>

<p>No problem. Just buy the Canon 100mm f2.8 macro lens. It is an excellent pin sharp lens. You can switch the AF off and focus manually and adjust focus by moving your head backwards and forwards. I promise you it does work and you can keep a reasonable distance from the subject and use flash. I use a 580EX MkII.</p>

<p>If you go to this site - - you can see some of my macro efforts! Look at the damsel fly in the enlarged version and you can see the quality of the Canon 100mm macro plus 580EX II flash.</p>

<p>Dennis and all of you guys, thanks so much for all your input, I just need to get my bottom to work now. </p>

<p>Dennis and all of you guys, thanks so much for all your input, I just need to get my bottom to work now. </p>