Question about Canon Macro lenses

[JosvanEekelen]

You'd better do your homework first. The EF-S lens will not work with a 10D, the MP-E 65 mm is a lens for very special purposes. The most versatile of the bunch are the 50 and 100 mm.

[leopoldstotch]

The Ef-S 60mm f2.8 Macro will Not work with your 10D. Of that range, the 100mm f2.8 macro is probably your best option. The 180 f3.5 may be too long and expensive, but if you think it will suite you, go for it.

[gerrymorgan]

Although you're looking for a lens that is "preferably Canon brand", for a macro lens in the 60mm range that will work with your 10D, you might consider the Sigma EX 50mm or the Sigma EX 70mm (I have the 50, and I like it a lot).

[calamospiza]

I own a Canon EOS10D body with EF100-400LISU & EF28-135ISU lenses. I am

seriously considering a new macro lens to obtain super close-up images of

small things, fine detail - plants & insects, etc. I do not want to spend a

bundle as I already have a bit in my equipment plus other camera brands (Sony

& Nikon). I did a search of the Canon website and came up with the following

lenses for consideration. I am leaning towards the EF-S 60mm f/2.8 Macro

USM. The EF 50mm f/2.5 Compact Macro is apparently a very dated lens from the

80s (pre-digital?). The last one is kind of priced outside what I?d plan on

spending. I am fairly new to digital cameras as I am wondering what other

folks in this forum may think or suggest. Are there any other macro lenses,

preferably Canon brand available? Will all of these lenses work with my

EOS10D body. Thanks for any help in this matter.

 

These are the MACRO lenses that I am considering:

 

EF 50mm f/2.5 Compact Macro

 

EF-S 60mm f/2.8 Macro USM

 

MP-E 65mm f/2.8 1-5x Macro

 

EF 100mm f/2.8 Macro USM

 

EF 180mm f/3.5L Macro USM

 

David

St. Pete, FL

[lester_wareham]

I would go for the 100mm macro, ideal focal length (and thus working distance), not too heavy, focus limiter and fast USM for use as a normal tele and can take a tripod ring; very sharp nice lens, very good value.

 

Here is some macro equipment bumf to read:

http://www.zen20934.zen.co.uk/photography/Macro_Equipment.htm

[bobatkins]

Ditto. 100/2.8 Macro USM.

[walang_pangalan]

The most important thing about macro is working distance: you want as much of it as you can. So get the 180/3.5 if you can afford it.

[jimstrutz]

And if you really want to save money, look for a Vivitar/Phoenix/Cosina (all same lens) 100mm f/3.5 macro. Cheaply built, but optically pretty good. They can be had new for as low as $120, or used for half that.

[les]

As above: I would not consider anything shorter than 100mm (I own Canon 100/2.8 macro USM - and it is a great lens).

 

Very quickly you will find out that the major limitation of any macro lens is the working distance: the more of it, the better, and longer lens have more working distance available.

 

I would consider either Canon 100/2.8 macro, or a longer Sigma equivalent (150/2.8). If you want more magnification - a set of Kenko tubes + 1.4xTC will get you in the vicinity of 2:1 or above, with additional benefit of having 1.6 crop factor - which is plenty enough for most macro shots.

Like with telephoto lens (never enough of focal length), there is never enough magnification in a macro lens (and where there is, there is not enough light).

 

Your next buy will probably be one of the ring flashes...

[jcolwell]

Another vote for the EF 100/2.8 Macro USM.

[tamas_gaidosch]

The 50/2.5 is an excellent lens. I find it more convenient for plants and small things than a longer one. For easily scared insects the 100/2,8 is better though and almost as sharp the 50/2.5. Both are "pre-digital" but that does not mean much in practice anyway.

[patflynn]

It's fairly stunning that nobody has recommended the lone "L" lens on your list. The reasons for that must be price - it is 3x the cost of the 100mm - and size - it is three times bigger and heavier than the 100mm while not even extending your reach as much as twice. I was faced with the choice between the 100mm and 180 L, and wound up with the 100mm. That was the one time I failed to select an "L" when one was available, but I haven't regretted the choice. The 100 is an excellent lens and I do recommend it. However, if you go with the "L" lens then please report back about your use of it!

[trevytrev]

I'm with the 100mm/2.8 as well. One of my favorite lenses!

[andrew robertson]

Yet another vote for the 100 f/2.8. Great lens all around for any purpose.

[awindsor]

Do you have a feel for what you would like to photograph? There is small, Small, and SMALL. The MP-E goes from 1x - 5x and is good for SMALL. The 100mm and 180mm lenses got to 1x (though you can add more extension or close up lenses to extend that) and are good for Small. For small you can use extension tubes or close up lenses on a regular lens. Also check out reversing a lens for high magnification.

 

For butterflies and flowers I use my 70-200/4L + extension tubes instead of my Tamron 90mm macro lens. More working distance.

 

If you do decide to go with the macro lens (and my advice would be to get a set of extension tubes and see if they will cut it first) then I also recommend going with the Canon 100/2.8 macro since you are in the US.

[miro]

I am for Canon 100/2.8 Macro USM Great lens for macro and headshot.I thin is best choice for first macro lens.

[savas_kyprianides]

I use the 100mm macro and enjoy the ease of sharp pictures.

[pbizarro]

For nature macro photography, you want at least the 100mm lens. The advantage of the 180mm lens is longer working distance, which could be important. Again, it depends on what you are planning to photograph; for example, with snakes or poisonous frogs, I would go with the 180mm lens. You will probably need a dual flash too.

 

John Shaw wrote an excellent book on nature macro photography, read it, and decide later.

[chris_mills1]

I have both the 50/2.5 and the 100/2.8 USM.

 

The 50 is small, light and very sharp. It has an old autofocus drive motor that is both slow

and noisy. It is absolutely perfect for taking pictures of relatively flat artwork (paintings,

collage, illustrated manuscripts, etc) with a copy stand, where the 100 has too narrow a

field of view.

 

The 100 is not as small or as light. It is just as sharp. It has a fast, quiet USM autofocus

mechanism. The greater reach of the 100mm focal length makes taking pictures of

insects and other traditional macro subject matter much easier.

 

I use the 50 once in a while. I use the 100 all the time. Unless you plan to photograph flat

artwork with a copy stand, I'd strongly recommend the 100.

[mark u]

The 60mm EF-S macro can only be used on a 10D when mounted via a Canon extension tube compatible with EF-S lenses, which limits its minimum magnification to 1:5 at most with the EF 12 MK II tube - you lose infinity focus, although you gain a larger maximum magnification of 1.28. The 50mm f/2.5 Compact Macro only goes to half life size without adding the Life Size Converter, which turns it into a 70mm lens, but it is perhaps Canon's sharpest 50mm lens. As others have pointed out, the MP-E 65 is a highly specialised lens with a minimum magnification of lifesize, rising to 5x magnification - it requires special handling techniques, and is not recommended as your first macro lens:

 

http://www.waynesthisandthat.com/macro.html

 

For practical purposes, since many of Canon's non-macro lenses offer a fairly limited maximum magnification (and image quality at close focus is surpassed by a macro lens anyway), you may well choose to use a macro lens whenever your subject requires at least 1:10 magnification. At low magnifications (and sometimes even at 1:1), a longer focal length may give too great a working distance when you are dealing with awkward corners, but it can be useful for skittish subjects such as butterflies. A 50mm can give too short a working distance to make it easy to light the subject or avoid casting shadows when working close to 1:1 - however, it is a good choice e.g. for stamps and coins when used on a copy stand.

 

There is no reason to limit your quest to Canon's offerings: third party macro lenses produce top quality images. You may find it useful to read these reviews:

 

http://www.nnplus.de/macro/Macro100E.html

 

Other highly rated macro lenses include Sigma's 150mm f/2.8 \(full frame) and 70mm f/2.8 (reduced image circle for crop sensors only).

[lester_wareham]

Just to add some comments:

 

Patrick Flynn : "It's fairly stunning that nobody has recommended the lone "L" lens on your list."

 

The main problem with this lens for bug chasing is it's size and weight, the same can be said of the Sigma 150 and 180mm lenses. The extra working distance is often a hindrance in undergrowth. Wouldn't mind having one to go with my 100mm and MP-E but I see it as rather specialised.

 

Another problem with very long lenses for close up work is it becomes increasingly difficult to locate the subject in the frame, in practice the 100mm length is almost ideal although I sometimes use the 200 f2.8 or 300 f4 IS with tubes for dragonflies and damselflies largely filling the role I would use the 180mm for.

 

Alistair Windsor : "Do you have a feel for what you would like to photograph? There is small, Small, and SMALL. The MP-E goes from 1x - 5x and is good for SMALL."

 

The MP-E is a fantastic lens but hard to use if it is your first try at macro, largely because of the increased stalking skills for insects but also due to all the technical difficulties above 1x magnification. Get the 100mm macro first and add the MP-E later. You need both anyway as the MP-E starts in magnification terms where the 100mm ends (1x).

[j_smith6]

<i>I am seriously considering a new macro lens to obtain <b>super close-up</b> images of small things, fine detail - plants & insects, etc.</i>

 

<br>

MP-E 65mm f/2.8 1-5x Macro

<br>

OR

<br>

reversed 50mm lens on your zooms

<br>

+flash

[robin_sibson1]

As usual, a very balanced view from Mark U, which largely accords with my own experience.

 

There seems to be more of a divide than I realised in the past between photographers looking to create interesting close-up/macro pictures, and botanists/entomologists/whatever wanting to photograph their subject matter. I suspect that unless you have at least a foot in the second camp, it may prove to be quite hard work to sustain an initial enthusiasm for this kind of photography. I take photographs of plants because they are an all-consuming interest; sometimes I need to take extreme close-ups, and I have the equipment I need for that; but I never find myself looking around for opportunities to take close-ups just for the sake of doing so - I photograph at whatever scale I need to. I have the impression that much the same is true of many of the obviously more experienced contributors to threads on close-up/macro work on this forum.

[alfarmer]

I really liked the 60mm EFS macro, but switched to the 100mm when going from the 20D to the 5D. If you think you'll stick with 20D/30D/... then the 60mm EFS is the way to go, IMHO, unless you want more working distance. Then definitely the 100mm.

 

ALF