50mm f/1.8 or 100mm Macro

[jennifer ann]

This may be a dumb question, so bear with me as I am new to this.

I have an Rebel XTi with the kit 18-55mm lens and a 75-300.

I have heard that both of these lens are not the best and I am considering

a 100 Macro lens as my passion lies with close up of flowers and insects.

I have heard that the 50mm is a must have for a reasonable price.

My question is this, should I get both or will one work for both? I have

heard that the 100mm is great for portraits and such. I know the 50mm is not a

macro lens. Any thoughts? Thanks in advance.

[mwtphoto]

the 50mm/1.8 is a inexpensive lens that would be great for low light situation. I would keep the 18-55 though instead of the 50/1.8 and get the 100 macro and only get the 50 if you needed it for low light situations.

[akajohndoe]

I looked at the Canon EOS macro lenses and got the 90/2.8 Tilt-Shift instead.

[JohnMWright]

If you love macro images, you cannot go wrong with the 100mm macro. The quality of the lens is superb.

 

To get the full potential of the lens, you need a solid tripod. I spent a lot more on a tripod and head than I did on the 100mm macro. ;-)

 

If you find yourself needing a lens to handle lower light, then the 50mm is inexpensive.

 

Hang onto your zooms until you replace them with better zooms. They are always handy to have around.

[charles_m1]

This would depend on what you want. I have the 50/1.8. I think it is a great lens for low light photography. Also, your Rebel XTi has a 1.6 sensor, which means that using a 50/1.8 will allow you to get more of a macro effect than a full frame sensor. With that said, the 50/1.8 will not allow you to get close enough to smaller flowers and insects.

 

One won't work for both since the 50 is not macro and the 100 is not as good in low light situations. Also, keep in mind that the 100 will allow you to be farther away when photographing insects, but since I don't have a 100 macro, I can't comment on how far you have to be.

 

It seems like you are more interested in macro than in low light, so you will probably be happier getting the 100 macro.

 

Let me ask you this, have you ever felt you needed to take a picture when the lighting was bad? I do all the time, but that is because I like to take pictures of my family and many times, they are indoors. I also hate using flash. This is what prompted me to buy a 50/1.8, and that is why it is my favorite lens. If you've never felt the need to take a picture in low light, then you may want to hold off on purchasing the 50.

[m_barbu1]

The EF 50mm f/1.8 II is a good value, but you need to determine if the focal length (80mm equivalent on your camera body) would be useful to you. It doesn't matter how great a lens is -- if the focal length ends up not being useful, it won't get used.

[mike_stemberg]

The 50mm 1.8 is such good value for its cheapness and quality of image I think you should get one irrespective of any other lens you might have or want to get!

[JDMvW]

Consider the Tamron 90mm macro. It's very well reviewed here and on Photozone.de and is a little more affordable than the Canon lens. Then you can afford the 50mm f/1.8 too. ;) Your kit lens is OK for what it is, even though it's certainly not an 'L' lens. Use it for its lightness and modest wide to short telephoto effect on your camera, and you can upgrade later as you get a better idea of what else you want to do besides macro work. I too use the 50mm as a low light lens, although I also have a Nikkor 55mm f/1.2 lens (w/ and adapter) that is even better for that if you don't mind manual focusing.

[jennifer ann]

Thanks everyone! I will look into the Tamaron lens, as I am on a budget,

although I have heard to stick with Canon for Macro.

[thomasly]

Hi,

 

Go with the "Macro lens" whether it's the Canon 100mm

or Canon EF-S 60mm f/2.8 Macro USM*, or the Tamron Macro lens!

I did have the Canon 100mm 2.8 it was an Excellent Lens, that's

when I was using film..

Maybe you can ( rent a lens & try it before you buy it...)

 

Best

[lester_wareham]

The 100mm macro is an excellent lens and a must if you are into macros. You might find this overview of Canon macro equipment of interest http://www.zen20934.zen.co.uk/photography/Macro_Equipment.htm

 

The 100mm macro can do an excellent portrait although it is possibly too sharp. On a crop camera you have to get mack quite a way even for just a head shot, so a 50mm is a good idea in that respect. The 50/1.4 has better bokeh, (micro) USM AF and FTMF compared to the 50/1.8 but is quite a bit more expensive.

 

Interestingly the 100mm macro was the first lens after the kit lens I got when I converted from film to DSLR.

[JDMvW]

Any 90-100mm macro will make a good portrait lens, although it's the equivalent of a 150-160mm tele on a crop (APS-C) camera. It's great for people with big noses, or if you are trying to keep your distance from the guy holding the axe, for example. If you are not of the "every wrinkle and wart on the old unshaven guy" school of portraiture, it's always possible to put a 'diffuser' filter on the camera, or heck, even use a piece of nylon stocking and a rubber band.

The 50mm, on the other hand, is a superb portrait lens--the equivalent of the 'traditional' portrait lens of 75-105mm on a full-frame camera. It, too, is sharp, but as I say....

[mark u]

Macro lenses that are also useful as portrait lenses on a 1.6 crop camera include the Canon 50mm f/2.5 (although this only goes to half life size without the additional life size converter) and 60mm f/2.8 EF-S, and Sigma 50mm and 70mm f/2.8. The Tamron 90mm f/2.8 is already on the long side for a portrait lens (you begin to need a large studio!), but it offers increased macro working distance, even compared with the longer Canon 100mm f/2.8 macro by the time you allow for the hood and the fact that the Canon's internal focus makes it a 70+mm lens at life size.

 

There really are no bad macro lens choices. For flowers often half life size is plenty of magnification (especially on a crop sensor), and longer focal lengths can become unhelpful for much the same reason as they do with a portrait lens. For insects, longer focal length can help with more skittish subjects.

 

These reviews are worth reading because they discuss aspects that are often left out of lens reviews, and they also illustrate that any of these lenses is optically pretty good (and much better than anything you own right now):

 

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

 

You can find some more reviews here:

 

http://www.photozone.de/canon-eos

[hjoseph7]

They both perform different functions so I would get both. An extra $80 shouldnt hurt much on top of the $500. Get them online and you'll save on taxes.

[JAPster]

I had a professional photographer tell me its good to have a 50mm F1.4 for wedding shots. The lens you mention is close to that. My opinion is the 50mm f1.8 would be a good 'normal' lens to keep on hand. You can use it for group shots, family shots, good just to have on hand. The macro lens is a different type, as you know. So they would complement, not compete, with each other.

[bueh]

You know, you can adapt older manual focus lenses in Nikon, Pentax-K etc mounts to your camera. This is a great way to get excellent gear for macro photography, as there are many wonderful macro lenses (e.g., the stellar Tokina AT-X 90mm f/2.5 macro) that are pretty inexpensive nowadays. You don't need the EF 100mm f/2.8 macro for close-ups and the like, but if you get the USM version, it is a very versatile (but rather expensive) lens for other applications. For inexpensive macro fun you could also try a reverse adapter or extension tubes with the EF 50mm prime.

[tasmania photoart]

I have both. Each is good for its respective uses. In fact I rate the 100 macro as my best Canon lens - probably because the others are zooms - 24-105, 70-300, 10-22. If your bent is toward macro get the 100.

http://tasmaniaphotoart.blogspot.com/

[jimstrutz]

I find using a 100mm lens inconvenient for portraits when using a crop frame camera like the XTi. It has the field of view that a 160mm lens does on a film camera, so you have to get back too far to see anything but their nose (slight exaggeration). I think you need both.

[obakesan]

you know, if you don't want to spend a lot of money, a good compact with Manual focus and reasonable Macro will deliver excellent macro for not a lot of money.

<P>

I've got a coolpix 5000 which focuses to 2cm and in combination with the swivel allows very good macro. It might able to meet your needs, SLR's aren't perfect for everything.

<P>

All of <A HREF="http://www.photo.net/photodb/folder?folder_id=768854" target="_blank"><B>these shots</B></A><br>

<IMG SRC="http://d6d2h4gfvy8t8.cloudfront.net/6460211-sm.jpg" ALT="?" BORDER=0>

<IMG SRC="http://d6d2h4gfvy8t8.cloudfront.net/6460210-sm.jpg" ALT="?" BORDER=0><br>

<IMG SRC="http://d6d2h4gfvy8t8.cloudfront.net/6459846-sm.jpg" ALT="?" BORDER=0>

<IMG SRC="http://d6d2h4gfvy8t8.cloudfront.net/6459836-sm.jpg" ALT="?" BORDER=0><br>

were taken with a compact, try searching on others work here to see that compacts can be good

[obakesan]

ohh ... and none of the macro shots in my portfolio made use of a tripod, it would have been impossible to get the shot if I had!

[jennifer ann]

Thanks Again for all the great suggestions!

I am not too interested in Portrait photography, much more interested in Macro and Landscape/Wildlife, still the choices are mind boggling!

Does any one have link to explain exactly what a "crop camera" refers to? This is confusing me a bit.

Thanks again for all the great suggestions, this is a great place to get answers to questions and review on products.

[bueh]

The de facto standard for camera equipment is 35mm format or "full-frame" digital cameras with the same sensor size as a 35mm film negative. So for all the various film and digital format, everyone translates the angle-of-view (the focal length) into the 35mm equivalent.

 

Since the XTi has a sensor that is roughly about APS-C film format, therefore smaller than 35mm film, the usual focus lengths of lenses are translated into the equivalent. A 100mm lens has a smaller angle-of-view when attached to the XTi (or any other digital Rebel), so it is a 135 format 160mm angle-of-view. The crop factor 1.6, so a 20mm lens, which would be a superwide on a full-frame or film body, becomes a moderate wide angle because the apparent angle-of-view equals an 32mm lens on a full-frame or film body.

[obakesan]

Jen

<P>

I have 4 (maybe 5) cameras, none cost more than $1000 (<A HREF="http://cjeastwd.blogspot.com/2008/03/experiments-in-6x9-cameras.html" target="_blank">the latest</A> cost me $50),

I think that trying to get one camera to do well at all your photography is like trying

to make a hammer your only tool.

<P>

So, if you kept your existing DSLR and lens, and lashed out $200 on a camera like my coolpix

5000 you'd have something in the kit which didn't weigh as much as a specialist lens

nor bring with it the problems.

<P>

I find on hikes and trips that I'm more likely to have the CP5000 with me, than lugging

around my other (larger = heavier) cameras.

<P>

I've put my general thoughts on this at my web pages:<BR>

<A HREF="http://home.people.net.au/~cjeastwd/digital/CP20D10D/CPvsDSLR.html" target="_blank"><B>compact cameras vs dslr</B></A><br>

<A HREF="http://home.people.net.au/~cjeastwd/digital/thoughts.htm" target="_blank"><B>general thoughts on digital</B></A>

<P>

don't be afraid of buying more cameras ;-)

[jennifer ann]

Chris,

I actually have a Kodak Z740 - 5 mega pixel that zooms out to 380mm.

Great little camera, it is all I had for a while until I got my Rebel.

I have actually thought of bringing them both along on my excursions, but I always bring the newer camera so I can get practice in and learn all the ins and outs of it. Great Idea!

[jimstrutz]

I usually travel with a superzoom point & shoot, and a DSLR. Being small and light weight, there are lots of things the point & shoot is better suited for. As long as you have a reasonable amount of light, and aren't being super critical, they can take the place of a normal and long lens and a macro. This keeps the weight of my DSLR kit to a minimum. I prefer superzooms with real image stabilization though - far more versatile.