canon macro

[tracktikz]

i'm debating on which macro lense to get: canon 100 or canon 50.

what do you think is better overall? i know for sure i'm not getting

the tamron 90 because it's so loud... what do you think of the new

tamron 28-200 macro? is this one loud too?

 

thanks!

[pok_hon_wally_yu]

What's your main subject with the macro lens? (especially if the noise of the lens bothers you so much). I have the non-USM 100. It's not as quiet as the USM one. However, I almost never shoot macro with AF...

 

BTW, they are very different lenses. The 50 only goes to half size unless you are using the life-size converter. The 100 does go to life size without accessory. The 50 has a very shot working distance and it works okay with still macro when things are within your control. The 100 will give you a more comfortable shooting distance.

[jimstrutz]

The Tamron 28-300 is not a true macro lens. The image quality when focusing close is not nearly up to the standards of a true macro lens. This is pretty standard with zoom lenses claiming to be "macro."

[johnb]

Albert I recommend the 100mm f/2.8 macro.<br>

It will give you more room to work with macro subjects<br>

<br>

<center><br><A href="http://www.photo.net/photo/3234429" title="Click to Open Photo Spec page" target="_blank"><img src="http://d6d2h4gfvy8t8.cloudfront.net/3234429-lg.jpg" border=0 alt="Click to see Photo Specs" style="WIDTH: 500px; HEIGHT: 333px"><br>

Taken with Canon<br>

EF 100mm f/2.8 macro<br>

</A></center>

[panos_voudouris]

When you say loud, what do you mean? Compared to what? I have the Tamron 90 and the 17-35 and they are both loud compared to USM lenses but the 17-35 is a lot quieter than the Canon 50/1.8 while the Tamron 90 is slightly louder than the 50/1.8 if you have the focusing ring engaged in AF and about the same if the ring is disengaged.

 

Besides, for macro you will have to use MF, so noise will not really matter.

 

As far as I am concerned, the only macro lenses worth considering in the 100mm region are the Tamron and the Canon 100. The 50 is only 1:2 while the superzoom is something I wouldn't buy for any purpose.

[thomas_munch]

I've owned the 50/2.5 macro for about a year, and I just purchased the 100/2.8. The 50/2.5 is very sharp and compact, but as others state, it doesn't allow 1:1. The 100/2.8 is larger and heavier (the hood, sold separately, makes the lens even longer), but it focuses to 1:1, the USM is very nice, and the lens doesn't change length when focusing (the internal focus of this lens is a very strong point for my uses).

 

 

I've used a number of ~100mm macros and I think the Canon might be the nicest handling I've come across...I haven't had enough time to come to a conclusion regarding image quality, but from my brief experience, the 100/2.8 meets all the hype.

 

 

--tom

[yakim_peled1]

Noise bothers you? Then you need USM. The 100 has USM. The 50 does not. Then again, in macro range you are mostly manual focusing anyway. Also consider the fact that 50mm and 100mm lens give very different FoV.

 

Happy shooting,

Yakim.

[grant g]

100/2.8

 

My only complaints about the lens are that the hood and tripod ring are not included. But that's typical of Canon and anything that's non-L.

 

I think AF is pretty important to me on a macro lens. I hand hold when shooting insects. AF works really well, and better when used with an EX series flash with the focus assist.

[steve santikarn]

get the 100 f2.8. Forget the tripod ring, it's a waste of time. There's not enough room on the lens for it and it gets in the way if you try to manual focus. Lens hood can block the flash and doesn't work with the ring flash.

[mark_chappell]

There have been a slew of threads about macro lenses here, in 'Nature', and over in the

Nikon forum of late. Take a look at some of those if you like. <P>

 

I'd strongly recommend the current (USM) version of the Canon 100/2.8. It's a very sharp,

easy to handle lens -- doesn't change length as it focuses; essentially silent. But

depending on your subject you may want to go longer. For insects and other wary

subjects, the 180 Tamron or Sigma (or Canon if you've got the budget) would be

better.<P>

 

<I>My only complaints about the lens are that the hood and tripod ring are not

included.</I><P>

Are you sure about the hood being optional? Mine came with one. I agree that the tripod

mount is a waste of money and weight most of the time. The lens is sufficiently light and

compact to be safely and solidly used with the camera body attached to a tripod.