macro lens

[richard_pearse]

I currently use a 10d & 20d. Question, which macro lens to use?

prefer a lens with greater distance between the camera and subject.

If canon 100 or 180 any one have experience of these or is there a

better macro lens e.g. sigma etc.

[steve_dunn2]

<p>I'm not a macro guy so I can't help you from personal experience with these lenses. You can see lots of information on these two Canon lenses on this site, both in the static content and by searching the forum. Both Canon lenses are excellent. Third-party macro lenses also tend to be extremely good.</p>

[nader_sherif]

Go for the 100mm, It's a Great lens and less then half the price of the 180. I have tried both and could have bought either one and decided to go with the 100mm, which I sold because I was not using. Good luck.................

[andrew_carlson]

I have to admit I use the 50mm on my 20D and I'm very happy with it. While it isn't a full 1:1, I can use it as a standard 50mm as well. My Macro shots have been educational for me as well without the expense of the higher end Macro's.

 

Now I wonder what the 1.6x crop factor does to it? I can't complain though.

[KenPapai]

The 24-70 2.8L does great macro work; it's worked for me on a 10D very well. The details I get on my silver coins is astounding. A quick example below, a 100% crop in fact.<div></div>

[KenPapai]

One final example 100 pct. crop from the same frame:<div></div>

[grant g]

I use a 100/2.8 and I love it. 1:1 has a nice working distance of just over a foot. If you will be using it on a tripod, note that the ring mount isn't included to make a 'fair' cost comparison to the 180L. After getting the tripod mount, I realized that it's not really neccesary for me since it still balances okay with the camera (300D with BG-E1) mounted on the tripod (a cheap one too). I get up to 2:1 using and additional 68mm from a kenko set. An 11mm subject is full frame.

[shiqf]

X-Sync of 20D is 1/250 sec and 10D is 1/200. If you use 180mm, handholding becomes more difficult.

[johnb]

I cast another vote for the Canon 100mm f/2.8 macro. Great for hand held macro & portraits.<div></div>

[john_jovic]

The 100 /2.8 USM is great. I use it for portraits wide open where it is still razor sharp.

 

JJ

[sampsonphoto]

I shoot w/the 20D, and I love my updated Tamron 90mm 1:1 Macro. It is incredibly sharp, and is built very well. No, it is not an L series in build quality, but for the money saved, it is fantastic!

[tom_henkel]

This is one of my favorite lenses. Very sharp for macro and close-up work, but also a very capable short telephoto for portraits or even landscapes. I'm not sure you gain enough working distance from your subject to justify the additional cost of the 180mm L. My suggestion is go with the 100mm f2.8 Macro and use some of the money you save to buy yourself an MT-24EX and some other useful macro gear -- like a good off-center tripod (I use a Gitzo explorer) and a good focusing rail (I use a Novoflex Castel L).

[pto189]

Canon EF100mm f/2.8 Macro USM<br>

Canon EF100mm f/2.8 Macro USM<br>

Canon EF100mm f/2.8 Macro USM<br><p>

I cast three votes for this lens.

[beeman458]

I have both the Canon 100mm f/2.8 macro and Sigma's 180mm f/3.5.

 

The Sigma 180mm macro weighs in at 39.5 oz and has a minimum focusing distance of 18" compared to Canon's 100mm macro which has a minimum focusing distance of 5.9".

 

The Sigma 180mm macro is about a hundred bucks more then Canon's 100mm macro.

 

The above are the basics. Now the good stuff. The Sigma 180mm macro is a beast that will make your eyes bleed every time you look through the view finder. It makes for a great prime lense that will knock the socks off any 200mm lense out there. Well maybe not the Canon 200mm f/1.8 but then again:) The short of the story, it's a heck of a lot of lense for the money and it looks great. It's a flat out beauty of a lense to behold.

 

But! And a big but; you really do need to manually focus this puppy cause it hunts, and hunts and hunts for a focus lock:)

 

The Canon 100mm macro, is light, compact and an excellent performer but not like that of the Sigma 180mm macro. I have both for a reason. They both make for great primes. They both are flat of field. They both get you great shots but! Another big but. You need extension rings and the MT-24EX twin head flash as one needs lots of portable light so you can stop down to f/11 or f/16 to get some DOF. One needs lots of light to stop down that far.

 

So even though the two lenses are "da bomb," you'll need a couple of extras, including a decent tripod/ballhead combo to stabilize the lense when attached to the extension ring with the dual head flash lighting your way.

 

I bought the Canon 100mm macro first and then the Sigma 180mm macro second cause I wasn't fully happy with the performance of the 100mm macro. That's not to say that the 100mm macro wasn't a performing lense, just that it didn't work all the time for me and I found myself wanting more. Now I have both of the lenses, the twin head macro flash w/NiCd battery pack, the adapter ring for the 180mm macro, tripod/ballhead (top of the line ballhead) combo and shutter release:) I'm seriously considering the need to upgrade my ballhead. Even though it's an excellent ballhead, there's a bit of lense droop when I set the lense on a subject and this need to reposition the lense can be a pain in the patootie.

 

Hope the above helps.

[tracktikz]

i'm in the same situation... deciding on the tamron 90mm and canon 100mm... leaning more towards the tamron cuz of the price and heard great things about tamron macros~ ^^

[mark u]

Choice of macro focal length is mostly about your needed working distance (and secondarily about the angle of view of the background). Macro depth of field is completely unrelated to focal length - instead it depends primarily on aperture and magnification (M), and secondarily on the lens' pupil magnification ratio (P) - see here:

 

http://www.vanwalree.com/optics/dofderivation.html#eq12

 

Pupil magnification ratios can vary significantly with chosen magnification and between lenses. (Time I compiled some data on this!).

 

Having got these preliminaries out of the way, it's safe to say that any of the Canon/Tamron/Sigma macro lenses are probably better than any other lens you have in your bag optically, so your choice is among very fine lenses. Since you are contemplating the Canon 180 f/3.5L I assume that budget is not a constraint (although the advice about flash, tripods etc. given above may eat into your budget if you hadn't considered that aspect). Even so, among the longer focal lengths, both the Tamron 180 f/3.5 Di and the new Sigma 150mm f/2.8 seem to outscore the Canon 180 optically. It's worth taking a look at this comparative review of macro lenses:

 

http://orchideen-kartierung.de/Macro100E.html

 

Bear in mind that since that review was done, there has been a new version of both the Tamron 90 (f/2.8 Di) and Sigma 105 (f/2.8 EX DG), both of which show significant improvements optically over their predecessors (particularly the Sigma which now competes effectively with the Canon thanks to its new optical design), and that the Sigma 150 is also new and very worthy of consideration. Given the strength of the third party competition from these newer lenses, I'd find it very hard to justify buying the Canon versions unless you place a large premium on build over optics.

[maxasst]

I'm looking for a macro lens too, but with general utility and flexibility in mind. I primarily use film, but will get a digital camera with the smaller sensor (d30 or d60). Would the Canon Macro 50mm lens be "flat field" no matter what the distance the subject is to the camera? For example, if I use the lens on a film camera, taking a picture of 3 rows of children (class picture), will the focus be more even across the whole image compared to the 50mm 1.8 mkI that I currently have?

[beeman458]

The short answer.... notta-by-much.

 

In order to get decent edge-to-edge sharpness, you'll have to step up to either a very expensive 35mm f/1.4L or an 85mm f/1.8 and stop either of the lenses down to f/4.0 ~ f/5.6.

 

The 50mm macro will do you great on a 1.6x crop sensor but the edges will be a bit soft in the case of film.

 

The 70-200mm f/4.0L is sweet at 70mm f/4.0 and dynamite at f/5.6 ~ f/8.0 for film purposes.

 

Surprise, surprise, you might find that you'll also be better served, at a 50mm FL, by Canon's 24-70mm f/2.8L but you'll also be paying a pretty penny for the privilege.

 

You can ask around or Google Sigma or Tamron offerings, as in this case I'm only familiar with Canon's offerings. Both Sigma and Tamron have excellent macro offerings.

[shiqf]

One thing I don't understand is that Tamron 90mm macro is more expensive than Canon 100mm macro, if without the rebate.

[yakim_peled1]

<P> If I were in the market for a dedicated macro lens, I'd get the <a href="http://www.orchideen-kartierung.de/Macro100E.html">Tamron 180/3.5</a> for it's build and optical quality, for it's long working distance, for it's reasonable price (only 200$ more than the Canon 100/2.8 macro USM), for it's IF and for <a href="http://photonotes.org/articles/beginner-faq/lenses.html#compatibilitythirdparty">Tamron's excellent compatibility reputation</a>. HTH.</P>

 

<P> Happy shooting , <br>

Yakim. </P>

[rob_ewart]

What about the EF-S 60mm macro, which, with crop factor, acts as a 100mm...quite a bit cheaper than the 100. Only catch is that it would only fit to the 20D.

 

I concede however that a greater working distance would be nicer. I find the 100 a little close most of the time. If you can, the 180 is marvellous, but much more expensive.