buying guide for macro lens vs regular prime lens

[neeraj_sappal]

<p>I have started SLR photography recently. I am interested in buying a lens which can really bring out good close up pictures of baby and family. I tried regular 18-55mm and it did have some good results with closeup but mostly with flowers. Ofcourse, I do understand that I am novice photographer. I am thinking to buy a prime lens 50mm f/1.8 or 50mm f/1.4 or macro lens 60mm f/2.8. I wanted to get an opinion from the experts on how these lens differ especially prime regular vs prime macro for close up photography and also for their recommendation. I do understand that 50mm f/1.8 is cheapest and is the most sold lens. But I am willing to shell out around 300-400 bucks. If you have any other recommendation, then please share it.</p>

 

[bueh]

<p>Do you want macro or close up? The EF 50mm does not give you a better magnification than your kit zoom (actually less, I think), although it has other advantages.</p>

<p>Cheap AF macro lens alternatives:</p>

<ul>

<li>any manual focus prime + reverse adapter ring</li>

<li>adapted M42 extension tubes + good M42 standard or macro lens</li>

<li>adapted manual focus macro lens (i.e., Tokina AT-X 90mm f/2.5)</li>

</ul>

[JDMvW]

<p>People often, as you do, say they want "macro", but if what you are photographing is people and flowers and the like, you really need a "close focus" lens. Ironically, while these are not true <em>macro</em> (1:1 image to object size ratio), the lens you want will probably be labelled as a "macro zoom". Good examples are the EF-S 17-85mm IS and the EF 24-105mm IS L lenses.</p>

<p>Here's the 17-85mm IS at its closest focus distance of 0.35m (1.2 ft)</p><div></div>

[arie_vandervelden1]

<p>http://www.photo.net/canon-eos-digital-camera-forum/00THK2</p>

[JDMvW]

<p>Drat, sorry for double post</p>

[tommyinca]

<p>Here is my 2 cents worth.<br>

EF50/1.8 and EF1.4 yield very similar result. My experience with both is the f1.4 version perform a bit better but f1.8 is still very good. You will like the result of both. I didn't have the f1.4 for long, but I have a feeling it will last 3X longer then the broken RIP f1.8 I once had. If your aim is to have close up picture, the non-macro 50 won't let you focus closer then 1.5 feet. You will need to add a +1 close up filter and that will give you about 3 to 4 inches closer before you need to switch to a +2 filter. If you are going to do a lot of that then a macro lens like the 60/2.8 EFS will let you focus to 6.5 inches without the need of adding any gadget. Plus it also yield higher resolution at these close distants. A 2nd option for what you what to do is the older EF50/2.5 compact macro. You save about $150 compared to the EFS 60 but it yield only half the magnification as the 60 macro. But that is still miles :-) better then a standard non-macro 50/1.4 or 50/1.8 in the close up department. If what you after is soft background portrait then the 50/1.4 is the best of these 50s in that department (the top dog is the lot more expensive f1.2L 50). </p>

[chad_hoelzel1]

<p>I guess there are a few details you have to consider. How much close up you want and how far from the subject you want to be to get that. I have a 15 month old. The only good way of getting close ups of her is when I'm not in her face so she looks more natural. I use the EF 100mm f2.8 macro for that. Gives me good working distance with my 40d and awesome background bokeh (blur). With that focal length you can easily be about 10 feet away to get a tightly cropped head shot. I also have the 50mm f1.8 and 85mm f1.8. Again good portrait lenses but it sort of depends on the working distance you have or want.</p>

[andrew robertson]

<p>Get some extension tubes. A set of 3 Kenko tubes goes for about $100 (last time I checked) and you can stack or combine them easily. Even if you decide to invest in a real macro lens at a later date, the extension tubes can be combined with it to produce even more magnification.</p>