I need advice on a macro lens

[prestons realm]

<p>I shoot in studio and out doors. I prefer a lens that can shoot in low light as well as handle studio lighting. I photograph flowers and such (no bugs) so distance isn't an issue. <br>

I'm in need of a decent macro lens that isn't going to break the bank. I don't have a large budget to work with, but would like to get up and close with my images.<br>

I use Canon, by the way. Should mention that.<br>

All advice is apprciated.<br>

R. Preston</p>

[carbon_dragon]

<p>Have you considered a Canon close-up lens, like a 500D? It's like a high quality magnifier you just screw on like a filter. Screw that on a regular lens, like a Canon 50/1.4 and you have a makeshift macro lens, assuming you don't need to get TOO close.</p>

[SCL]

<p>Lots of threads on this topic. I've used the following over the years: for Canon FD mount there is the incredible Kiron 105/2.8, or with an adapter you could use a Nikon 105/2.8 D Micro, the Canon FD 50/3.5 macro or the Tamron mentioned next; for Canon EOS there is the really good Tamron (Adaptall mount) 105/2.8. Since you didn't specify whether you are using older Canon gear (film) or newer gear (digital), I tried to give a range of options. The Tamron lens is generally less expensive than the others, and really quite versatile in that with the proper adapter it can be used on almost any SLR/DSLR. On a true macro level, you generally won't find much with an aperture wider than f2.8. Low light will need a tripod and cable release in most cases, or flash. A set of focusing rails can come in pretty handy as well. DOF will be extremely narrow with all these lenses as you move in, so you will probably be stopping down somewhere between f8-11.</p>

[RobertChura]

<p> I have the 100 f2.8 Canon Macro on a FF Canon 5D. Depending on your camera crop factor you could consider the less expensive 60mm. The 100 is very sharp. I can use it for portraits as well as flowers etc. You would not be dissapointed with this lens.</p>

[ben_goren]

<p>Robert,</p>

 

<p>So long as it’s a real macro lens, and not merely a lens with a flower on the barrel

indicating it focuses closer than arm’s length, you won’t go worng. I don’t think

anybody has made a true macro lens in ages that was anything short of an excellent lens.</p>

 

<p>That writ, there certainly are some macro lenses better than others, but they’re all different

grades of excellence.</p>

 

<p>Cheers,</p>

 

<p>b&</p>

[tony_leinster]

<p>Robert, assuming you are still shooting the EOS 50D I would certainly recommend the Canon 60mm macro, it's an excellent lens and at a very good price point. For a bit more reach the Tamron 90mm would also be fine for your purpose.</p>

[christopher_o.]

<p>I can second the 100mm f/2.8 for Canon - very sharp and produces excellent bokeh.</p>

[dennisgg]

<p>Add to the list:</p>

<p>Tokina AT-X 90mm f2.5 (and its equivalent Vivitar Series 1 90mm f2.5 with serial number starting with 37 - I have it in Nikon mount which I adapt to my Canon and it is amazing!)<br>

Vivitar 90mm f2.8 macro (serial number starting with 28 - which is a Komine made lens)<br>

Kiron 105mm macro<br>

Tamron 90mm f2.5 macro (adaptall or not with adapter)<br>

Pheonix 100mm f3.5 (also Vivitar 100mm f3.5 and Cosina are all the same lens - these are AF lenses)<br>

Sigma 105mm macro (make sure it will work on a Canon digital - AF lens)<br>

Lester Dine 105mm<br>

Canon 50mm f3.5 EF macro (AF)</p>

<p>Great budget options (get everything for under $75):<br>

Other options are a good 50mm lens with M42 screw mount, or other adaptable to Canon mount lens with extension tubes or the same mount. Most of the 50mm lenses are very good, if you get a M42 (Pentax screw mount) lens, the M42 extension tube sets are about $10-15 on ebay. The 50mm lenses are usually f1.4 to f2.2 so they work well in low light. Canon adapters are on ebay for cheap about $7-10 for plain, about $15-35 for ones with AF confirmation (it will light the red LED and beep when in focus). Search for EOS M42, or EOS Nikon, or EOS OM (Olympus), EOS Pentax K for the adapters. <br>

Check out ebay items (all under $40 buy-it-now):<br>

250568515353<br>

200432639270<br>

390126144533<br>

150410931062<br>

200392914137<br>

380195348528<br>

400100931710<br>

200432170021<br>

130363335848<br>

290377531437<br>

180455453076 (with Mamiya 35mm SLR for under $30)</p>

<p>Then get (lens mount adapter):</p>

<p>170428208389 (EOS to M42 adapter plain with no focus confirmation)<br>

or<br>

120472060817 (with focus confirmation)</p>

<p>Then get (extension tubes):<br>

230425308367</p>

 

[prestons realm]

<p>Thanks for all the great advice - I've been looking up prices and reading reviews all day. Basically I'm down to the following lenses.<br>

Canon Telephoto EF 100mm f/2.8 USM Macro - $529 - no IS though - but tripod ready. lol<br>

Canon EF-S 60mm f/2.8 Macro - $422<br>

Canon EF 100mm f/2.8 L Macro IS - $1000<br>

Prices are B&H - I haven't price shopped yet, but plan too once I decide on which best fits my needs. I like the IS option, however I own a really good tripod and think I can make due for a little while. Also a thought I could buy the two top lenses for the price of the IS one. But no need to have too many macro lenses? Is there a benefit from having a 100 mm and a 60 mm lens?<br>

And oh, thanks for all the great words of wisdom. I do really appreciate it.</p>

[prestons realm]

<p>And I use a Canon 50D - I'm looking at the 7D but when ever I talk to the wife about it, she gives me bad looks. lol</p>

[mark_ethridge]

<p>I have the EF-S 60mm macro and it's an excellent lens. Very sharp. The only downside is its very close focusing distance at 1:1. Since you say distance isn't an issue, then this lens should work very well for you.</p>

[papasan]

<p>I have been using the Canon EF-S 60mm f/2.8 on my 30D and i find it quite sharp and it is fast enough for most situations. The only set back is that if you consider upgrading to a full frame camera such as the 5D at some time you cannot use this lens on it (which is what happened to me). For that reason alone i would recommend the EF 100m f/2.8 it is a bit more expensive than the EF-S 60 (but not as expensive as the EF 100f/2.8L) but you have a longer focal length which will give you the same image from a further distance, and you can use it on a full frame camera. </p>

[talmage]

<p>I don't know how much stock you put in <a href="http://books.google.com/books?id=RDy0zlRFFDsC&dq=john+shaw+closeups+in+nature&printsec=frontcover&source=bn&hl=en&ei=bllrS_jLH4qrlAe-wNTiBA&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=4&ved=0CBcQ6AEwAw">John Shaw</a> , but I recall his advice from one of his books. He advised not to buy a macro lens unless it's a focal length that you don't already have. Instead, he advised using extension tubes and a focusing rail. I have a set by Vivitar that I've used for almost 20 years. They're totally manual, of course, but they worked on my old Pentax 35mm SLRs and they still work on my Pentax DSLR.</p>

 

[prestons realm]

<p>David Talmage - I've been faking it with a 135mm lens and extension tubes and getting ok results. I don't have a dedicated macro lens, so I think it's time.<br>

At this point I will probably get the 60mm lens, however I do want that 100mm.</p>

<p>Thanks to all for the great words of wisdom. I do appreciate it. ;)</p>

[teresa_atkinson]

<p>I use a crop sensor camera (50D) and find the 100 mm f/2.8 macro (non-IS, non-L) is a great lens. You can shoot macro if you combine preferably a prime lens you already own with extension tubes, however tubes affect light, so you pretty much won't be able to shoot with tubes in low light (without adding a light source).<br>

I might add that extension tubes work fantastically with my 100 mm macro lens (with good lighting). On a crop sensor camera, the tubes will increase the lens magnification to about 1:2.19 (or more). An approximately 1/4 x 3/8 inch object will fill the frame. <br>

Pertaining to someone's mention of John Shaw, Shaw also said that macro lenses are much more convenient than telephoto lenses with extension tubes. I agree. Low light performance is one area where macros perform better. In addition, macro lenses allow hand-holdability. Extension tubes make hand-held shots more difficult Macro lenses give a better image in live view mode (one of the more useful purposes for live-view is tripod mounted manually focused macro because you can zoom into the image and check focus). Except at the closest distances, macro lenses allow reliable auto focus. And clarity is higher with macro lenses, rather than tubes with general telephoto lenses because macro lenses are optimized for closeup photography. Note where I don't agree with Shaw: My macro lens gives less than stellar peformance when used as a telephoto lens. Focus is slow and colors aren't the best at longer range. As far as I'm concerned, a 100mm macro does not replace 100mm telephoto so there's little overlapping functionality in owning both.</p>

[teresa_atkinson]

<p>I use a crop sensor camera (50D) and find the 100 mm f/2.8 macro (non-IS, non-L) is a great lens. You can shoot macro if you combine preferably a prime lens you already own with extension tubes, however tubes affect light, so you pretty much won't be able to shoot with tubes in low light (without adding a light source).<br>

I might add that extension tubes work fantastically with my 100 mm macro lens (with good lighting). On a crop sensor camera, the tubes will increase the lens magnification to about 1:2.19 (or more). An approximately 1/4 x 3/8 inch object will fill the frame. <br>

Pertaining to someone's mention of John Shaw, Shaw also said that macro lenses are much more convenient than telephoto lenses with extension tubes. I agree. Low light performance is one area where macros perform better. In addition, macro lenses allow hand-holdability. Extension tubes make hand-held shots more difficult Macro lenses give a better image in live view mode (one of the more useful purposes for live-view is tripod mounted manually focused macro because you can zoom into the image and check focus). Except at the closest distances, macro lenses allow reliable auto focus. And clarity is higher with macro lenses, rather than tubes with general telephoto lenses because macro lenses are optimized for closeup photography. Note where I don't agree with Shaw: My macro lens gives less than stellar peformance when used as a telephoto lens. Focus is slow and colors aren't the best. As far as I'm concerned, a 100mm macro does not replace 100mm telephoto so there's little overlapping functionality in owning both.<br>

Oh, the benefit of owning both a 60 and 100mm lens: The 60 is more hand-holdable because of the shorter focal length. The 100mm gives better working distance. But if I were only getting one, I'd get the 100....which I did....</p>