Best Macro lens?

[scarolinael]

Wanting to do some Macro work in nature, I use a Canon EOS-3. What

is best true macro lens you have used and can you post an example.

Thank you.

[tommyinca]

My 2 cents, A lot depends on the type of subjects that you want to shoot. To name a few, there are 200mm, 180mm, 150mm, 135mm, 120mm, 105mm, 100mm, 90mm, 80mm, 65mm, 63mm, 60mm, 55mm, 50mm, 45mm, 35mm, 20mm, 19mm, 12.5mm and zoom true marco lenses.

 

The Canon EF100/2.8 macro is a good general purpose macro to start with. If it is too pricy, Tokina and Sigma also have good lower cost 100mm macro lens.

[andrew robertson]

I really like my 100 f/2.8 Macro USM. Canon also makes a dedicated 1x-5x macro that

won't focus to infinity, but provides much more magnification than any other macro lens not

counting bellows units.

[Two23]

What are you wanting to photo--stamps? Bugs? Flowers? Rock crystals? Moss? Ice crystals? Some subjects require a longer lens than others. By "true macro," are you talking about a lens that gives a 1:1 image? Really, there is no "best" lens most of the time. They all have trade offs.

 

 

Kent in SD

[dan_fromm2]

Best? Are you kidding? You're locked into Canon AF. What you need is "good enough" and "made to work on an EOS." Canon made a number of them, just pick the focal length that suits you best. You can't go wrong with a Canon macro lens in EOS mount. None of us can possibly know which will suit you.

 

FYI, macro lenses were made for nearly every 35 mm SLR mount system, most 6x6 and 6x7 systems, and for larger formats too. If we count the Questar and Makowski long distance microscopes, there are macro lenses around in focal lengths from 10 mm (old Zeiss, I've handled a couple) to over 1000 mm (Questar).

[frank uhlig]

The ubiquitous quest for "THE BEST" is messed up by my request to state what it is with respect to. Sorry about my fun with lots of s'ses here ...

 

Eleanor, don't you know there is no best in life, nor photography, nor cars, nor technique, ... Never was and never will be. So is life.

 

Only what you want matters. What is best for you? So answer, please.

 

And while you are explaining yourself and your uses of sad (sic) lens, what is a "true" macro lens to you?

 

One that never lies .... in a drawer and is always true to you in its glass heart, maybe?

[mike_broderick]

Choose horses for courses....Depends on what you want to photograph with it!

 

As a rule of thumb, if you want to photograph mobile subjects such as insects, a longer focal length lens, probably a 180mm is ideal. This lets you shoot from farther away, with less chance of spooking your subject. The Tamron and Sigma 180mm lenses are excellent, as is the overpriced Canon 180. Their weight is fairly significant, though.

 

If you are intimidated by the size or cost of the 180s, the lenses around 100mm are probably the next choice. And probably a good first choice if you are more interested in flowers and nonmobile subjects. The Canon 100mm, Sigma 105mm, and Tamron 90mm all have excellent reputations and will serve you well. The Vivitar 100mm (also sold under names Phoenix or Cosina) is good enough, and is quite a bit cheaper. I wouldn't choose the Vivitar unless cost was an overwhelming concern, though.

 

The various 50mm macro lenses are very sharp lenses, but are of limited use for nature macro because of short working distance between camera and subject, and because the wide field of view makes it hard to eliminate out of focus distractions behind the main subject. I use one as my 50mm prime lens, because the capability is sometimes nice in a pinch if I don't have a "real" macro lens along, but it would not be my first choice as a macro lens for nature shooting. For stamps and coins, and possibly fossils or shells, I hear that a 50 macro is pretty good.

 

It sounds like you want a pat answer...My suggestion would be that if insects are the major interest, go with the Tamron 180mm (Canon 180 would also be great if you are rich). If insects aren't the prime interest, I'd go with the Canon 100mm or Tamron 90mm.

 

Do a search of images here at photo.net, or at a site like naturescapes.net or photomacrography.net, and you'll find oodles of examples of shots with each lens. Looking for shots that are similar to what you envision, and seeing what equipment was used would probably help.

[scarolinael]

Thank you all for your answers, Mike you answered it best thank you for your indepth knowledge about macro work. I am used to shooting weddings and portraits but wanted to do macro work just for me as a fun thing to do with my camera.

[Mary Doo]

Eleanor, since you post in the Nature Forum, I assume you are referring to nature subjects such as flowers and insects.

 

I use Nikon equipment and find the 200mm micro and the 70-180mm "the best" for most situations. My Canon friends have excellent results using the 180mm macro lens. With a longer focal length, you get more working space with which to negotiate your composition. This is essential especially if you like to photograph insects, as a short short focal length would scare the little critters away. Also, be sure to get a set of extenstion rings for larger magnification. The Kenko autofocus rings work very well.

 

Here are some examples using my Nikkor 200mm micro lens.

 

Mary<div></div>

[Mary Doo]

Another...<div></div>

[Mary Doo]

This one has no insects. The 200mm focal length works well with most maco subjects, with or without insects.<div></div>

[scarolinael]

Thanks Mary this is what I am looking for. Those pics are beautiful, you do very nice work!

[Two23]

Now that we have at least some idea of what you want to do, I suggest you also look at something like the Canon 500D macro "filter". This is a two element diopter that screws onto a long lens like a filter and gives very decent close focus quality for not a lot of money. I use one on my Nikon 80-200mm f2.8 and it does a great job. I sometimes use it on my Nikon 80-400mm when I need more distance.

 

Kent in SD

[les_barstow]

I'll second Kent's "alternative" suggestion. I attach a Canon 500D to my Nikon 80-400 for a lot of my macro shots. The 20-inch focal distance is good for bugs and other small wildlife that might hide from anything closer.

[scarolinael]

Ok I have a Sigma 28-105 so for macro work would this filter your talking about work on this lens? I got out my 600 pqage B&H catalog out and have been looking at all the differant macro lens they have, and also found the filter you mentioned. I appreciate all your help so far. Like I said I am used to doing weddings and portraits but just wanted to do some macro work for my personal amusement. So will that filter give me good pics of say flowers? Or should I go ahead and buy a new lens? Can anyone post a flower or bug they shot with just this filter on a lens and please post lens you used. Thanks

[les_barstow]

The 500D shines towards the 300mm+ end of the spectrum. Diopters produce magnification in conjunction with your regular lens, and smaller lenses produce less magnification, depending on the minimum focal distance of your lens (see <a href="http://ca.geocities.com/lokejul/jlcalc.htm">Julian's Lens Calculator</a> for specifics...).

<p>

Canon makes a 250D that might fit your lens situation better, but you might do just as well with a 200mm macro lens. Anyone care to comment on the 250D as an optic?

[scarolinael]

I am leaning toward the Sigma 105mmF2.8 EX Macro any comments on this lens?

[mlfly1]

For $70 difference, I'd sure pick the Canon 100. I know, I know - the $40 lenshood is also part of the price. Pretty expensive plastic! Anyway, I'd rather save a couple of months for the lenshood rather than not have the Canon 100 macro.

 

If I were buying a longer macro, it's a totally different story. But in the 100 mm range the price is so close as to give the Canon lens the nod. IMHO.

[oliver_dugayo]

for more details what is best visit this site.

<br>

 

_____________________<br>

Oliver Dugayo<br>

<a href="http://photography.qj.net">http://photography.qj.net</a>

[Two23]

The Canon 250D is the one recommended for shorter lenses. I don't know why it wouldn't be as good as the 500D. Nikon makes the 4T and 5T which are essentially the same thing. A macro lens is great if you really need a 1:1 image size (life size) image, but for the flower shots Mary posted above the 250D type deals would work just as well for less money. If you want a very inexpensive true macro lens, check out the Vivitar 100mm. It's a real value for the price. I have one and like the image quality. Mostly though, I use the 500D. I'm not a true macro enthusiast, but sometimes I need close focus ability for shots of mushrooms, moss, etc.

 

 

Kent in SD

[scarolinael]

Thanks for all your knowledge everyone on macro, I just ordered my new lens from B&H, I went with the Sigma 105mmF2.8. I have other Sigma optics and have been happy with them. But thank's for all your input and thank you Mary for the great pics you posted.

[alf_beharie]

Anything 50mm or over fitted to a macro bellows does the job nicely.

M42 lenses and bellows are cheap as chips and can work supprisingly well.

Here is an extreme close up of a Bees eye taken with a Pentacon 50mm f1.8, fitted to a cheapo Russian made M42 bellows:

http://sigmasd10.fotopic.net/p18228845.html

(click on the pic to see it full size)

The lens cost �6, the bellows cost about �10 and the Bee cost nothing!

 

Regards

 

Alf.

[Mary Doo]

Eleanor, glad you like my macro images. Good luck with your Sigma 105mm. It should do fine on flowers and maybe even some insects if they are not too skittish. The best time to get close would be early mornings when their limbs are still cold and lethargic and dew drops still hang on to the flowers/leaves/twigs and their wings -- then you should be able to get close and compose and shoot to your heart's content for stunning results. For best sharpness, try to align the film plane as parallel to your subject as possble. Do use a reflector to cast some light on your subject. It makes a world of difference.

 

Good luck,

Mary

[scarolinael]

Thanks Mary for all your help, I did order the extension tubes too. Now I have to sit and wait patiently till it gets here. We have so much in bloom here right now, springs comes early to the South. I will have plenty to keep me busy.