Macro Lenses

I am looking into buying a macro lens.<BR>

My options:<BR><BR>

Canon EF 100mm F/2.8 Macro<BR>

Tamron Sp 90 2.5 Macro <BR>

Tokina 100mm F/2.8 Macro<BR>

Sigma 105mm f/2.8 EX DG AF Telephoto Macro<BR><BR>

 

Does anyone know where I can find some sort of comparison between these lenses?

<BR>Or has anyone had personal experience that would lead them to favor one over

the other?

I am leaning towards the Tamron for now as it gives 1:1 life size images without the need for extension tubes... It is also my favorite because I found a used one for under $200.

They are all by reputation at least - good quality lenses that will go 1:1 without extension tubes. I would tend to prefer the Canon for it's internal focusing and USM motor. I find it very handy to move autofocus to the * button and be able to AF or MF without moving any switches on the lens.

Ray - any of these will be good. That is essentially the same list of lenses that I chose from about 2 months ago. I bought the Sigma 105mm only because it was the best deal at KEH.com.

Here are some comparisons:http://www.photozone.de/8Reviews/index.html

I forgot to mention that if you are going to use this lens primarily for macro, it is widely accepted that manual focus on a tripod is the preferred method. Therefore whether or not you have Canon's USM focus is a non-issue. Here is another review: http://www.nnplus.de/macro/Macro100E.html

Macro lenses are all inherently sharp. Those listed are all supposed to be great... the Tamron has a great reputation for the off brand lenses.

 

The Canon 100 Macro USM is a real joy to work with... I am not sure if you are looking at the USM or not. It doesn't extend when focusing which is a bonus for close up work. The USM is also pretty fast and makes auto-focusing during everyday shooting possible... it is by no means a speed demon (like a 100 f2 or 70-200) but it is definitely usable.

 

Good luck!

 

 

aaron

Not that it helps, but macro lenses are generally all good. The current Canon 100/2.8 macro has the advantage of a ring USM and IF. If you`re shopping used, note that there was also an older Canon 100/2.8 macro lens that used a regular micro motor for focus actuation (no FTM). The older lens was different optically, but nevertheless very sharp and capable of 1:1 ratio w/o accessories.

I went with the Canon because it's a great lens and I don't have to worry about compatibility issues. The price is even lower than some of those 3rd party lenses to boot.

Canon 100 mm macro is a great lens but the tripod collar is optional extra (so you'll have to add that to the price when comparing with the other lens) and it is a pain to use. The ability to manual overide the focus at any time is a real bonus.

A tripod collar for the Canon 100mm macro is completely unecessary.

I only use the tripod collar when I need to switch between portrait and landscape orientations frequently, otherwise I leave it off.

Ray: I've used most of them and put my notes here (right-click download):

 

http://postit.rutgers.edu/uploads/Macro%5FWork%5FDistance.pdf

 

Always boils down to working distance vs. price, and whether you can afford internal focus.

I have no knowledge of the Tokina, any of the others should be very good (and I suspect the Tokina is very good, but don't have experience or reports from photogs I know in person with it).

 

The Canon will have no future compatibility issues, and the newer USM version of the Canon has a built-in mounting ring for the Canon macro flashes if you ever get one. The Canon doesn't change length, as Ray mentioned.

 

Personally, I'd go with the Canon, but any should be a good choice (with minor reservations about the Tokina as I mentioned initially).

>> it is widely accepted that manual focus on a tripod is the preferred method.

 

That is because most lenses do not focus well in macro mode. The 100/2.8 USM does that pretty well. For a macro novice like myself that is a great bonus. See these pictures: All handheld, all in AF mode and - to make this truly unusual - all at f/2.8. http://d-spot.co.il/forum/index.php?showtopic=83660

 

BTW, I tried a friend's 105/2.8 and it was simply impossible to have AF in macro mode.

 

>> A tripod collar for the Canon 100mm macro is completely unecessary.

 

 

I agree. Even with longer and heavier lenses like the 200/2.8 and 70-200/4 I found it unnecessary.

 

 

Happy shooting,

Yakim.

"I am leaning towards the Tamron for now as it gives 1:1 life size images without the need for extension tubes." So does the Canon. Don't know about the others, but most lenses of this type nowadays do focus from infinity to x1.

 

This is an area where, according to many users, reputable off-brand lenses concede little or nothing in IQ to the Canon version. It is on other criteria that you need to make your choice. Price, yes, and Canon isn't usually the budget choice. Handling and future-proofing are both criteria that point towards the Canon version.

 

Don't under-estimate the value of ring-USM. Not all your photography with this lens is likely to be done on a tripod at or close to x1. If you are chasing a butterfly or dragonfly, the ability to achieve approximate focus fast is invaluable, and you can then fine-tune by moving the camera, and/or using CF-4-1 or CF-4-3 to move AF to the * button.

Ray, they are all good macro lenses, they all provide up to 1:1 life size reproduction with additional tubes.

 

I recommend the Canon 100mm to you as the best as it has an internal focus non-extending design and for use as a normal lens fast USM focus with FTMF and importantly for a macro lens a focus range limiter switch.

 

This lens is probably one of the best quality per value lenses made by Canon.

 

You might find this of interest http://translate.google.com/translate?u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.nnplus.de%2Fmacro%2FMacro100.html&langpair=de%7Cen&hl=en&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&prev=%2Flanguage_tools

 

but in terms of image quality there is not much between these lenses.

 

The normal tests by the likes of photozone are irrelevant at macro distances as they test at normal distances.

Lester meant to say

 

"they are all good macro lenses, they all provide up to 1:1 life size reproduction withOUT additional tubes."

 

but this is not correct either.

 

The Tamron 90/2.5 SP is only a 1:2 lens. Moreover care must be taken as it also comes in a manual focus only adaptall version.

 

I have the newer Tamron 90 SP 2.8. It is significantly cheaper than the Canon in the UK. Buying new in the US I would have bought the Canon. The Tamron is a superb lens. Often considered to be sharper than the Canon 100 it does have an extending lens barrel. This would make me wary of hanging a ring flash off the front of the lens.

Just thought I would mention that Popular Photography did a test on a new Sigma 70mm Macro lens, and as I remember stated it was the best they had tested, seems as it even tested to be 1:.93, a bit better than 1:1.

JoeR

Alistair: Thanks for correcting my typing and my knowledge of the Tamron. It then is like the Canon 50mm which also goes only to 1:2 and needs the life size convertor (a combination tube and teleconvertor) to get to 1:1.

Thanks Joe for that piece of info.

I will explore the Sigma 70mm Macro a little more in depth :-)

Lester,

 

They came with an extension tube (no optics) to obtain 1:1 focusing but you can often find them for sale without the tube.

 

http://www.cdegroot.com/cgi-bin/photowiki/Tamron_90mm_SP_2.5_tele_macro

 

I initially read Tamron 90/2.8 like everyone else.

 

The 50mm compact macro uses a teleconvertor to increase its focal length to give a little more working room at 1:1 on a 90mm lens this is less necessary.

I have used the Canon, Sigma and Tamron.

 

All are equally good optically! maybe the Tamron is slightly sharper...(i actually have read that and seen tests too), but if you are shooting macro only then you will be using manual focus most of the time so all the lenses are equals. If you want to use the lens as a tele also, then canon's AF speed wins.

 

But only Tamron SP 90mm allows you to add a 2X teleconverter directly so that you can have a 180mm macro lens!

 

My advice, get the Tamron or the Sigma(faster AF than tamron..).

Tamron is lightweight.

 

And good thing about Tamron and Sigma is that you get lens hoods for free but you have to buy lens hood again if you get the Canon 100mm :(

 

(Even without hoods, the Tamron and Sigma, have recessed front element and you wont even need to use a UV to protect the front element. Tamron is best in this aspect).

 

You can check my macro shots made with the Sigma and Tamron. Those lenses are also my portrait lenses! and are super duper sharp.

 

Save money buy Tamron or Sigma and also a cable release.

 

 

Cheers,

 

Ujwal. (www.ujwal.com.np)