Macro lens for Canon EOS 400D

I recently aquired a Canon EOS 400D. I'm looking to get a Macro lens for

photographing insects,plants and flowers etc. Any suggestions as to which lens

would be best to get me started,and do you have any other tips/ideas/purchases

that might be helpful?

 

Thanks for all responses.

<p> First and foremost you need to decide which focal length are you after. That will be determined from the working distance you need, the weight you are willing to carry and the price you are willing to pay. </p>

<p> If you do not know exactly then I'd suggest the 100/2.8 USM which has a very nice balance of features. It has got more working distance than any 50/60mm lens, it is lighter and cheaper than any 150/180mm lens and it is the only one in it's group (90/100/105mm lenses) which offers you <a href="http://photonotes.org/articles/beginner-faq/lenses.html#rearinternal">IF</a> (for better balance) and <a href="http://photonotes.org/articles/beginner-faq/lenses.html#lensmotor">ring USM</a> (when you use it as a <a href="http://photonotes.org/articles/beginner-faq/lenses.html#macroportrait">portrait lens</a>). It's also the only one which guarantees you that you will not suffer - ever - any <a href="http://photonotes.org/articles/beginner-faq/lenses.html#compatibilitythirdparty">future incompatibility problems</a>. This is less an issue with Tamron but a major advantage over Sigma, at least old Sigma (if you plan to buy used). New Sigma lenses are fine in that regard.</p>

 

<P>Last but not least, it will work properly on all EOS bodies, unlike the <a href="http://photonotes.org/articles/beginner-faq/lenses.html#efs">EF-S</a> <a href="http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/Canon-EF-S-60mm-f-2.8-Macro-USM-Lens-Review.aspx">60/2.8</a>. </P>

 

<P> <a href="http://www.photozone.de/Reviews/overview">One</a> and <a href="http://photonotes.org/articles/beginner-faq/lenses.html#closeup">two</a> final links. :-) </P>

 

<P> Happy shooting , <br>

Yakim. </P>

Or, if you're a cheapskate like me, get a Vivitar 100/f3.5.

 

Looks like a dog's dinner, photographs like a good'un. Works on every EOS I've ever owned,

including my current 40D. How good?

Tamron 90mm (be sure you get the latest digital version) is a good compromise, its optics have been said to be as good or better than the Canon 100mm

 

(see http://www.photozone.de/Reviews/Canon%20EOS%20Lens%20Tests/45-canon-eos-aps-c/282-tamron-af-90mm-f28-di-sp-macro-test-report--review/

 

)

Rod, if you've recently acquired a 400D then I guess issues about useability on FF are not a concern in the short term, and if they became a concern then you'd have no difficulty in selling the 60/2.8 leaving a modest cost-of-ownership for the period for which you had used it, so the most likely choices within the Canon range are the 60/2.8 and 100/2.8. I use both of them, for rather different purposes, and the 100 does duty on both 1.6-factor and FF bodies. If you want to photograph insects, presumably you have butterflies, moths and dragonflies in mind initially, and the longer working distance of the 100 is a help for that, although even on 1.6-factor a longer lens is often better - it depends on how good your stalking technique becomes. For botanical work the 60 is preferable - anything longer can actually be inconvenient. The 100 is moderately big and heavy, whereas the 60 is light and compact. There's also the question of how either of these lenses would fit into the rest of your outfit. The good news is that either choice will give you results of excellent quality.

I reiterate the advice of looking beyond the single lens purchase: do not look at one lens in isolation.

 

In this case do not just look at your `macro work` but also how the new purchase fits in the kit as a whole and how it will address your long term strategy (even if that long term is two days).

 

For example:

 

Aside from the `will I want a FF camera later so should I not get the EF-S60`, also think:

 

`well I have a normal zoom, but it is a bit slow, and only goes to 55mm, and I would like to do portrait work outside . . . and I a bit of compression in my portraits . . . Hmm the 100F2.8 macro can double as a portrait lens, and also reasonable short telephoto for my daughter?s netball games.

 

 

Alternatively: I am not moving to FF the APS-C format offers a lot for me, and the EF-S60 can double as a portrait lens, I do not like really tight and compressed portraits . . . etc and really I am more into flowers than bugs, and if I do any bugs I will be using the macro on a stand for my (dead) butterfly collection . . . the EF-S 60 is obvious.

 

So my advice is a blank sheet of white paper on one side list what you have (and the options for purchase: on the other side list EVERYTHING you want to do: and then start drawing lines to which can achieve what.

 

Personally, in the macro area I am a `generalist` so I have decided the EF100f2.8 Macro is best for me, but I will get flexibility from having a kit based on a two body format.

 

WW

Canon 100 f2.8 USM macro. No need to look any further.

 

(Ps I also have the 50/2.5 CM macro but do not use it much for lack of working distance. It makes a nice general 50 mm lens, however.)

I really think that 100mm and even 90mm is too long to double as a portrait lens on a 1.6 crop camera. If you want a lens to do double duty, then I'd look at the Canon 50mm f/2.5, Sigma 50mm f/2.8, Canon 60mm f/2.8 EF-S, or Sigma 70mm f/2.8. All will do life size (although the Canon 50mm f/2.5 only goes to half life size without the additional life size converter), and all except the EF-S are good for full frame too. If you really want to shoot insects that move with any rapidity, you may be looking for other solutions altogether (the 300mm f/4, 1.4x TC and extension tubes comes to mind for butterflies).

 

I would suggest you consider getting a 430EX flash and off camera shoe cord: much macro shooting is done at narrow apertures that require a lot of light and high effective shutter speeds because camera shake is greatly magnified compared with normal shooting - and flash solves these problems. The OCSC gives you flexibility in positioning your lighting for macro work. You have the advantage that you can use the flash further away from the subject than when using a macro ring flash, and so lighting will not be subject to extreme inverse square falloff and thus seem more natural.

If you want to shoot insects you'll need a focal lenght of around 100mm or more, so the canon 100mm or the Tamron 90mm are probably your best bets depends on what features are a priority. Size, weight, USM, price. Both a said to be excellent. I ended up with the canon 100mm, at times I wish I had the 90mm for travel though.

I have Canon 100mm USM macro, and I can tell that this is excellent lens for macro purpose. on 400D you will get good working distance, the USM works great (althouh for some shots you may need manual focus) and the lens can also be used for portraits / zoo photography which is a bonus.

I use a Sigma 70mm f2.8 DG Macro EX.

Works on APS-C (doubling as an ideal portrait lens) and FF. Gives full 1:1 on FF, 1:1 x 1.6 crop on APS-C camera.

 

Very sharp, gets excellent reviews, picked up a few awards last year.

I had the chance to compare it against the Canon f2.5 50mm before purchase, the Sigma is in my opinion better.

 

It's not a fast focuser, but then it is a macro lens...

The front element extends during focusing (an advantage of the Canon 100mm is that it is an IF lens)

 

The price is right, the construction good, so at least have a look.

For working distance with insects traded with hand-hold-ability in ambient light you want something around 100mm focal length, also you need a real macro lens with life size reproduction without attachments.

 

There are a number of options from Sigma etc, all seem to have good IQ, but the Canon 100mm f2.8 macro USM is such good value I would go with that. The internal focus (non-extending) design and full time manual focus are amongst the significant features of this lens.