Trying to decide on a macro lens.

[brian_vandebyl]

<p>I recently purchased a Canon Rebel XSI, both because I wanted a higher quality camera, and for business purposes. I run a website where I sell Tungsten (these are troublesome to take pictures of) rings (ring-ninja.com). I know the site is a little amaturish, I'm not exactly a web designer, but it's been quite successful.</p>

<p>Anyway 98% of the work on the site has been with a point and shoot camera, extremely difficult to take pictures of the products this way. The XSI has been a big improvement so far, so much easier to focus. I haven't really put up many shots on the site just yet, but I've been considering getting a macro lens. I was wondering what lens would be appropriate for this application? I'm not sure which, I'm considering the Canon EF 100mm f/2.8, Canon EF-S 60mm f/2.8, or the Canon EF 50mm f/2.5. My budget isn't limitless, but it is a business expense ;)</p>

<p>I'm by no means a professional, so a lot of the numbers and terminology don't add up in my head, so I'm just looking for some opinions.</p>

<p>I've also had a ton of fun just taking pics with the camera, so I'd like to be able to use if for other things to.</p>

<p>Thanks for any help!<br />Brian</p><div></div>

[jcolwell]

<p>The EF 100/2.8 Macro USM would be a fine lens for you. Also, you might consider using "off camera" flash and a few simple reflectors to give you better lighting control.</p>

[paddler4]

<p>The EF-S 60mm f/2.8 is a superb lens. It is considerably better than the 50mm and focuses closer (1:1 rather than 1:2). For your purposes, I'm not sure what you would gain by spending more for the 100mm (which has about the same reach on a full-frame camera as the 60mm has on yours). I use the 60 and intend to buy one of the 100s, but only because I photograph bugs, and it is easier not to scare them off if you stay farther away. If you want to look, I have a lot of flower and bug macros taken with the 60mm at my website, http://dkoretz.smugmug.com. The site will show you which lens was used, but all were done either with the 50 or the 60. The few really magnified ones were done with the 60mm with Kenko extension tubes.</p>

<p>I agree with James about the flash. You could start with a shoe-mounted flash and a Demb reflector to avoid harsh light, or you could use a flash bracket to get the flash farther away. All of the flash pictures on my site were done with a shoe-mounted flash and Demb.</p>

[mike_earussi1]

<p>The longer the focal length the farther away you can be from your subject for closeup shots. This increased distance is helpful for positioning your lights and will also cut down on your own reflection getting picked up by shiny objects. All of the macro lenses are sharp but I would consider the 100mm a better all around choice over the 50/60mm for this reason.</p>

[brian_vandebyl]

<p>I actually use a light tent and 3 different lights and no flash. I tried a flash but it was a disaster... I'm not too familiar with flash setups etc... and kind of thought that just using the fixed lights was the best way to go. If I don't do it in a light tent it pics up everything in the room, and the white color definately looks the best when being reflected.</p>

<p>I am leaning towards the 100mm just because I could be a bit further away, and the metal is highly reflective. I also live in a neat spot in the city, I can walk down the street to a wetlands preserve and there is a lot to photograph there - just for a hobby. I actually took one picture I thought would look pretty cool if I put it on a canvas...</p>

<p>I took this picture with no problem, but it's stainless steel with a surface that is more dull, so I could get closer and not worry, and these rings come out better, or the black ones, much less of a pain ;) </p><div></div>

[kevin_b.2]

<p>Consider the Tokina 100MM 2.8.<br>

<a href="http://www.broadwayphoto.com/cat/LensesFlashes/Lenses/2319474/Telephoto_100mm_f28_AT-X_M100_AF_Pro_D_Macro_Autofocus_Lens_f_Canon_EOS/">http://www.broadwayphoto.com/cat/LensesFlashes/Lenses/2319474/Telephoto_100mm_f28_AT-X_M100_AF_Pro_D_Macro_Autofocus_Lens_f_Canon_EOS/</a></p>

[scott_ferris]

<p>Brian,</p>

<p>The 100 makes most sense for you, as Mike says it opens your family of angles and gives you a better working distance. For the complete lowdown on lighting complicated reflective objects get the book, Light: Science and Magic http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0240808193/diyphotography-20 it will address every issue you ever have.</p>

[brian_vandebyl]

<p>Hey thanks a ton, I'm totally getting the book, and the 100mm macro.</p>

<p>Great board, w/ great responses. I'm sure I'll be spending more time here :)</p>

[brian_vandebyl]

<p>Hey thanks a ton, I'm totally getting the book, and the 100mm macro.</p>

<p>Great board, w/ great responses. I'm sure I'll be spending more time here :)</p>

[JDMvW]

<p>Another excellent lens for this camera and application is the Tamron 90mm Macro. It reviews as being optically as good as any of them (see <a href="http://www.photozone.de/canon-eos/282-tamron-af-90mm-f28-di-sp-macro-test-report--review">Photozone.de</a> ) and you save a few bucks over the Canon 100mm macro.</p>

[brendan_s]

<p>Your smaller point and shoot will typically give you more depth of field than an slr. You should investigate the depth of field available in an SLR and whether it will be deep enough for your purposes (you look like you need 3-4 cm of depth in focus)/whether you'd be happy(ier) with shallower dof.</p>

[brian_vandebyl]

<p>Hey Brendan,</p>

<p>I went with the 100mm macro, the depth of field is shallow - but I adjusted the apeture and the images turn out beautifully... very happy for the application. </p>

<p>I'd been using a point and shoot, but for these rings it's like pulling teeth getting the things to focus, detail is a pain, you have to be farther away even in wide angle, blah.</p>

[mike_connell1]

<p>I was planning to buy a macro lens this year until a friend let me borrow his extension tubes. I was so impressed with the images I was getting with the tubes and my 50mm 1.8 that I bought the tubes instead of a macro lens. I was leaning toward the Tamron 90mm macro until my experiments. Here's a sample pic with the 50mm and a 36mm tube. This is hand held, with the flash held even with the lens. There's around 2 inches of distance to work with. You'd get more with a 100mm or greater macro lens.<br>

<img src="http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2579/3958902535_1f20743e6e.jpg" alt="" width="500" height="333" /></p>