Canon Macro

[hfd4177]

<p>Hello all. I'm looking for some advice. I would like to start shooting macro. Currently I have a 5d MKII, a 30d, 24-70 2.8 L and a 100 400 L. My question is I don't have enough money to buy an L macro lens, so would I be better off with the 24 70 L and 100 400 with the 500d close up filter and some extension tubes or with the consumer level 100 mm or 135mm macro. Thanks in advance.</p>

[alan_green4]

close-up filters are pretty bad. used for tech applications where IQ is not an issue. if you're on a budget a canon 50 1.8 and an extension tube on the 30d would make a usable macro rig.

[hakon_soreide]

<p>If by consumer grade 100mm you mean the Canon EF 100mm Macro USM, there is certainly nothing optical keeping the lens from getting the L designation, it is possibly the sharpest non-L available, and with many macroists selling theirs to get the new IS one, one might likely be had quite cheaply second hand these days. If you're going to take a mix of macro and non-macro shots in one session, it saves a lot of fiddling to have a dedicated macro lens compared to extension tubes.</p>

[eric merrill]

<p>The Canon 500D offers surprisingly good quality for macro.</p>

[alan_bryant1]

<p>I've used the 500D and it is, as Eric said, surprisingly good. It would work better with the 100-400; extension tubes would work better with the 24-70.</p>

<p>However a real macro is even better, and you don't have to have an L to get a good one. There are lots of good ones to choose from, including the Canon 100/2.8 non-L, Tamron 90/2.8, Sigma 105/2.8 and 150/2.8.</p>

[colin carron]

<p>The Canon 100mm f2.8 Macro is now being repalced by the much higher pricesd L version which also has IS. If you can find any of the non-L lenses they represent good value as do the Sigma and Tamron lenses mentioned in the above post.</p>

[akocurek]

<p>The Canon 50mm macro is also an excellent lens.</p>

[anders_carlsson]

<p>Do we know for sure that the 100/2.8 USM macro will be <em>replaced</em> by the new L lens? I don't think it will. In any case, I think it's fair to say that the "old" -- or current, rather -- 100/2.8 USM macro is one of Canon's sharpest lenses, regardless of designation.</p>

[gabriel_l1]

<p>I <em>highly</em> doubt Canon will stop selling the older 100mm macro as it's one of their greatest buys and a very highly regarded lens. The new L macro with IS is naturally more expensive and there will be plenty of people who would only consider the non-L.</p>

[paddler4]

<p>B&H and Adorama have both restocked the "old" non-IS version recently</p>

[tapani]

<p>I'd say the choice depends on what kind of macro you have in mind - do you need long working distance or wide-angle, can you use tripod or not.<br>

The 500D closeup lens works quite well with the 100-400 - for hand-held insect shooting for example I'd say it's often better than the non-IS 100/2.8 macro. But if you plan/can use a tripod, the latter is a very good choice, still available as noted and reasonably priced. If you want wide-angle then extension tubes for the 24-70 should work fine.</p>

 

[tomwatt]

<p>After weighing in elsewhere on the forums grumping about my 100mmf/2.8 macro, I have a change of heart after a couple of great sessions with it this past week. I don't think you would feel shorted using it on your 5Dmk2 at all. It is certainly sharper than my 24-70L.</p><div></div>

[rsriram]

<p>I have and use the 100/2.8 macro it's easily the best lens in my collection. Its resolving power is extraordinary and it beats every L lens I have owned or used. I've even tried it side by side with some Leica glass and I preferred the results from the Canon :) Don't know if they're all consistently this good, but maybe I got a very very good one.</p>

[colin carron]

<p>I was mistaken to say that the Canon 100 f2.8 is to be superseded by the L version. This was based on a misreading of some product information so my post above can be disregarded. Apologies for the confusion.</p>

[robin_sibson1]

<p>Brian, there's no Canon "consumer level" 135mm macro. The 100/2.8USM macro is a lens that I have used for many years. It has outstanding image quality, better than you would expect from any zoom lens, L-series or not (perhaps with the exception of the 70~200/4IS), and its build quality, although not quite as solid as the present generation of L-series lenses, is more than adequate in practice. It will give you far better results that either close-up lenses or tubes with either of your current lenses, partly because optical quality will be better and partly because it will be far easier to get good results because it handles much more easily. On the 5DII it will serve as a typical long-focus macro, which most users seem to prefer for macro work to the 50mm focal length on FF, and on the 30D it will fill the frame to the same extent at a longer working distance, making it easier to take butterfly or other insect shots. A somewhat cheaper and significantly less bulky option would be the excellent EF-S 60/2.8, for use only on your 30D, on which it would deliver similar capabilities to the 100mm on FF, but since you have a dual-format kit it is probebly worth going for the 100mm.</p>

[scott_ferris]

<p>Brian tubes will work well on the 100-400, they do not work effectively on the 24-70, the front element to subject distance is very very short, 1 to 6 inches, it is not practical. However the tubes are cheap and like I say should be a good addition to the 100-400.</p>

[hfd4177]

<p>Thank you everyone. The 100 macro it is. :)</p>