Best Macro lens for my Canon. Which one?

[cimino55]

Hello,

 

I have a Canon 5D at the moment, but I'll be moving up to a 1DS MKII soon

enough. I'd like to know what is the best Macro lens I can get for my Canon

EOS. Is it the Canon EF 135 L, or Contax 100 Macro F2.8 Distagon? I just want

to get the best Macro lens for a trip to East Africa, Madagascar, etc.

 

Regards,

 

Adam

[jcolwell]

Did you mean to type 180L for the Canon macro ? There are many excellent macros available for Canon bodies. The best is more a matter of opinion than of fact. In my opinion, the SMC Pentax-A*ED 200mm f/4 Macro has the best reputation of any ever made & I'm prepared to shell out some big bucks next time I see one (which is very infrequently). OTOH, Leica fans will say the best available is the Leica-R Apo-Macro Elmarit-R 100/2.8. The Contax Carl Zeiss Makro-Planar T* 100mm f/2.8 is also held in very esteem, but I'm sure that the Canon 100/2.8 or 180/3.5L would provide everything that you need. I suggest that you first decide how much stand-off distance you need, and then decide which lens to get - you can't go wrong with any of the lenses mentioned here, nor with a number of alternatives including the Tamron SP and Sigma EX lines.

[cimino55]

Yes, thanks for the correction...the EF 180/3.5L is what I meant...

[catchlight]

For travel, the Canon 100/2.8 macro is smaller and lighter than the 180/3.5L macro, and is just as good optically .

 

If you choose the 100mm, be sure to get the optional hood and tripod ring. A hood and ring come standard with the 180mm macro.

[mark_chappell]

<I>If you choose the 100mm, be sure to get the optional hood and tripod ring</i><P>

 

IMO, the tripod ring probably isn't necessary unless you plan on using the lens with

extension tubes, converters, etc. It's fairly light and doesn't need additional support if used

by itself. Also, the tripod ring for the 100 macro is expensive and something of a klutz job:

bulky, awkward, and a pain to use (I have one and I regret buying it).

[steve_dunn2]

<p>I agree with the first response: you need to figure out what you'll be shooting and how much working distance you need. Every one of Canon's macro lenses is a top-notch performer, as is generally true of macro lenses from other manufacturers as well. If you're shooting things that will notice a lens coming close to them and scurry away, for instance, a 100mm macro lens, even if it happens to be the best lens in the entire world, might not be as useful as a 180mm macro lens, since the latter will let you keep the lens a bit farther away from the critters and you'll be less likely to scare them.</p>

[mendel_leisk]

I'm a broken record linking this:

 

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/Canon-EF-100mm-f-2.8-USM-Macro-Lens-Review.aspx

 

site. He's very thorough in his assesment of Canon equipement. The link compares 3 Canon macros: the 60, 100 and 180. The 60's for crop bodies only, but he goes into some depth comparing the 100 and 180.

[john_baker4]

All depends on what you are looking to take, you will possibly find that 1:1 is enough, but if you need bigger you can always add some extension tubes. I would really love the MPE but cannot justify the cost. I found this to be quite an interesting review of the various options - www.nnplus.de/macro/Macro100E.html

 

I was in the same predicament started looking at the 100 Canon and ended up getting the Tamron 180. I was swayed by the quality and the extra working distance, I must admit that I have been rather pleased with it. Recent shot...

[jcolwell]

I agree with Brent's suggestion to get both the hood and tripod ring. The ring is kind of klutzy, but it allows you to rotate between vertical and horizontal views (i.e. portrait and landscape) without gettings the sideways offset that you get from the typical tripod head.

[jcolwell]

P.S. nice bee, John.

[cimino55]

Yeah, that is a pretty nice looking bee...

[john_bellenis]

Another vote for the Canon 100 f2.8 Macro (and yea, I sprung the extra for the hood, but

didn't like the tripod collar).

 

I don't do much macro work, but when I do I am always impressed with the optical quality of

this lens - EXTREMELY sharp, quick focusing, great color and bokeh - a real bargain. The one

thing to be aware of is the light fall off between infinity focus and closest focus (in the order

of 2+ stops). No problem with auto exposure, but something to be aware of anyway -

especially regarding depth of field if in Tv mode, etc.

[pbizarro]

"IMO, the tripod ring probably isn't necessary unless you plan on using the lens with extension tubes, converters, etc."

 

If you want to turn the camera on its side to shoot vertical format, and you do not want to change your framing, then the tripod ring is very helpful.

 

The 180 macro is heavy and very good. The 100 macro is light and very good. the choice will depend on how far away you need to be from your subjects. Get John Shaw's "Closeups in Nature" book and read it, you will learn a lot...

[john_baker4]

Thanks for the comments on the bee, re the hood and tripod mount. I find the tripod mount invaluable; I do a lot of flash work with my macro and occasionally on longer shoots fit the lens into a stroboframe bracket, which is then attached to a monopod. The tripod ring allows the camera to rotate in the bracket without any problem, I can then brace everything together and still bob in and out to get focus, it works for me. Hood is essential on the Tamron as the front element is not recessed ? here is a photo of the kit in action.

[john_baker4]

Not sure what happened there, here is my macro kit?

[tom_matus1]

John,

 

Where did you get that cone for yoru flash? I can't seem to find one..

 

Thank you,

 

Tom

 

PS.... Great Bee

[lester_wareham]

I would normally suggest the 100mm macro for general macro work for flowers, insects and small animals.

 

As noted the 180mm macro is quite a bit heavier and larger and most people tend to use this on a tripod. The extra working distance can be useful for very jumpy or poisonous subjects; however if you only need up to about 0.5X you can manage with a 200 or 300mm plus a stack of tubes if such subjects are only occasional.

 

Something that might be relevant is if the 180mm is "weather sealed" if you are going into a harsh environment - some pls advise the OP if this lens is.

 

I think along with subject and working distance you need to also consider what else you have/are taking that the macro lens can double for.

[steve_dunn2]

<p>None of Canon's macro lenses are sealed. Canon only started sealing its new L lenses around 1999, and the 180 dates from before then - I'm too lazy to look it up but I believe it was in the lineup by the early 1990s.</p>

[john_baker4]

Hi Tom ? sorry for the delay in responding, this was an old Gary Fong Lightsphere II which I found second-hand in a camera shop. It is great for what it is designed for, but it is a joy when used with macro, it scatters the light enough to give a good coverage. I tend to use programme and -3 exposure compensation and let the flash take the strain, most of the time I use 1/250 at f20 and it delivers stunning results... Here is another one, with the flash.

[w_t1]

I like the 100mm ef macro. Lately I've been using an older 200 f4 FD macro on my eos bodies via an adapter, it's a pretty sweet setup. I couldnt afford the 200 f4 when it was selling new 15 years ago when I was poorer, thanks to the digital revolution I now have one for very little.

[freelance]

I bought the Canon 100mm f/2.8 Macro USM and it is enough for me. You have a picture (full size) of a piece of cloth (armchair) and of a 50 euros bank note and crops of it at

 

I also have a balcony iron picture made at about 3 meters or more with the same lens.