Canon 100 mm macro vs Vivitar, Tamron and Canon 70-200 2.8

[cagan_sekercioglu]

I am considering getting a macro lens for my Canon EOS A2. I cannot really afford the new 180mm Macro, so I am thinking about 100mm 2.8. However, i heard a lot of good things about Vivitar 100 3.5 macro and also about Tamron 100 macro. How does the image quality compare and more importantly, would a non-Canon lens have problems with a Canon extension tube and 1.4X TC? Since the price is an issue and I have a 70-200 2.8, would it be better to use this with a close-up lens (or a 50mm 1.4 with an extension tube), albeit with less magnification? Also, my focus will be outdoor insect photography. Thanks.

[howard_creech]

Cagan, one of my regular workshop students bought the Vivitar 100/3.5 and I have seen some of the slides she shot with it, they are very good indeed. I don't know anything about potential compatibility problems with your Canon system (I use Nikon and the woman who bought the Vivitar uses Minolta Manual) but for the price, the Vivitar wins hands down. I have also seen two reviews of this lens which support this view. I do a lot of insect macro photography (mostly butterflies/moths and Dragonflies) if you want to contact me directly, I will be happy to share my 20 plus years of experience with you. There are a couple of techniques that I use which conflict with traditional methods (however they produce results which are equal to anything you have seen published)Whatever you decide, I believe you would be happy with the Vivitar, it is one of those rare "too good to be true" deals. Good luck and good shooting....Howard

[steve_thompson1]

The question here is convenience. The macro lens would be my first choice. Being able to focus from infinity to lifesize is handy. If you go the macro lens route also consider Sigma. I have the 180 f2.8 and am happy with it. Sigma also makes a 180 f5.6 and 105 f2.8.

 

<p>

 

The Close up Diopters work well and you don't lose light like with Extension tubes and tele-converters. Diopters are slower to use. I have used the Nikon 5T and 6T close up lens ( diopters)with sharp results. They have 62mm threads. I think Canon makes diopters in larger sizes which I think will be necessary for your 70-200 2.8.

[dick_ginkowski]

A Canon 500D closeup lens (77mm) will run you around $140. Worth it.

For $69 you can buy a Kenko 25mm ext. tube. Also worth it.

 

<p>

 

Both will work with the 70-200 f/2.8 L. I know. I have theM!

 

<p>

 

gOOD LUCK!

[edward_c._nemergut]

I have essentially the same set up as you do--that is, an A2e and the 70-200/2.8. (I also own an Elan IIe and a few other odd lenses). I was faced with a similar decision earlier this year: Sigma Macro vs. Canon Macro vs. Tamrom Macro. In the magazine "tests," all lenses seem to get good, if not great reviews. In the end, I decided to go with the Canon 100/2.8, mainly because I figured it would be worth more at resale if I ever decided to upgrade to the 180, or if Canon ever came out with a USM version of the 100.<P>

After using the lens for about two months, I can tell you that it works great: I have am very happy with it. My only complaint is that, compared to the 70-200/2.8 and the other Canon USM lenses, focusing is slow and less decisive--but I think this is less important because I find myslef switching to manual focus for most Marco work. Anyway, Good Luck--I really don't think you can lose.

[jeff_hallett]

I own the Vivitar based on a favorable write up with pics found in a

back issue of POP photo. The lens does a marvelous job and my slides are as sharp as a friends who uses the Canon 100mm Macro. If you are doing close work you will using MF anyway as someone mentioned. For

the money it does the job as well as the big boys in my opinion.

[paulo_bizarro]

My experience:

 

<p>

 

1. Canon's 100 macro gives me excellent results, not surprisingly.

2. I also use my 50 1.4 with extension tube EF 25 (bought used), also gives me great results.

[lloyd_nakatani]

With the 70-200 zoom, you get a macro system at low price, zooming

for framing without moving the tripod, a tripod collar for switching

from horizontal to vertical framing, compactness, greater working

distance, and USM (not very important for macro work). By comparison,

the 100 macro (or even the 180 macro) doesn't seem as attractive.

The only advantage of a macro is the convenience of going from

infinity to 1:1 without accessories. The zoom + closeup will go

to 1:1.16 if you add a 2x converter (which you would probably want

anyway or already have).

[paulo_bizarro]

"By comparison, the 100 macro (or even the 180 macro) doesn't seem as attractive. The only advantage of a macro is the convenience of going from infinity to 1:1 without accessories. The zoom + closeup will go to 1:1.16 if you add a 2x converter (which you would probably want anyway or already have)."

 

<p>

 

Am I missing something here? A true macro lens will give you the best results, period. Way better than a 70-200 + 2x converter + closeup lens. The 100 macro with the ET 25 will give you 1:1.41 magnification.

[ShunCheung]

Generally speaking, yes, a true macro will give you better results for macro work because the lens is designed for that application. Moreover, IMO it is very important to have a tripod collar on a macro because it is much easier to switch between horizontal and vertical shots. Unfortunately, most 100mm macros aren't long enough to have built-in tripod collars. (Again, these are general comments, not specific to those lenses specified here.)

[lloyd_nakatani]

A 70-200 zoom + closeup lens + 2x converter sounds like a combination that should result in fuzzy pictures, but in practice, macros are shot at small apertures where the combination works well. If there's a little edge fuzziness, it usually doesn't matter in nature shots because very few macro have edge-to-edge sharpness even if we wanted it because of the extremely shallow depth of field. In short, macro is where you can expect the 2x converter to work best. That's John Shaw's opinion in "Closeup in Nature." In field work, the weight and compactness advantages are hard to beat.

[tom_applegate]

I have both the 70-200/L 2.8.and Canon's macro 100 / 2.8. Both len's are great but the macro is rated as one of the best macros on the market. I get amazingly sharp pictures. Before trading up to the new EOS Canon gear I used Nikons and the older Nikon micros were also razor sharp. The price of the Canon 100 / 2.8 is a bargain for what you're getting, I'd say, pay the difference and stay with Canon.

I love my 70-200 but when it comes to closeup, I grab the Macro 100.

[russell_greenhalgh]

I own the Vivitar 100mm Macro lens and have been very happy with the results that I have gotten with it. However, one thing to keep in mind with this lens is that to reach the 1:1 ratio you must add a matching lens attachment (screws onto the front of the lens like a filter). Without this lens attachment the Vivitar has a 1:2 ratio. For the money I think that it is a great lens, but I wouldn't want you to purchase the lens without knowing about this possible drawback. I use Nikon so I can't comment on any compatibility issues with Canon.

[paulo_bizarro]

Lloyd,

 

<p>

 

It is hard to envisage the "70-200 L + 2x converter + close-up" being more compact than the 100 macro, but I might be wrong:-)

 

<p>

 

And with all due respect, I couldn't care less for John Shaw's recommendations. I know the above combination can provide excellent results, but nothing can beat a true macro lens for macro work. And mind you, most of my favourite macro shots are taken at larger apertures, in order to isolate the subject from its surroundings. This is only effective with good bokeh lenses.

[lloyd_nakatani]

Paulo:

The 70-200 + 500D + 2X TC is not as compact as a 100 mm or even 180 mm macro lens when set up, but in terms of space in a camera bag and weight, the combination is hard to beat. You probably have a 2X or 1.4X TC anyway for telephoto work, so that's not extra space or weight, or money for that matter. The only additional space and weight is the 500D diopter, and that is certainly more compact and weighs less than a macro lens. Also the ability to zoom with a macro is a big advantage; you can easily recompose without having to move the tripod back and forth. A focusing rail allows some movement without moving the tripod, but the range is limited compared to a zoom. The 180 mm is reputely the sharpest lens that Canon makes, so the quality of the macros with that lens must be the best attainable, but everything is a compromise and the quality of macros with a 70-200/2.8L + 500D is pretty good. As far as bokeh is concerned, the combination gives you a 2.8 aperture (with no TC) for more blurring, and the 70-200/2.8L has good bokeh to begin with. I've heard that the bokeh of the 180 macro suffers from out-of-round blurs, but I don't have the macro, so can't verify whether that is true.