new lens on a budget?

[craveprints]

<p>hello all! i am currently in the market for some new equipment, and would love to start a macro nature portfolio (flowers, inscets, ect..). so i am on a budget and new to macro and was wondering if anyone knew of some good lenses to start with. cheers! -amanda</p>

[craig_meddaugh]

<p>What mount? What level of automation are you looking for? What budget? </p>

<p>In general, any of the prime "macro" lenses made in the last 40-50 years are quite good optically and you just need to pick one with the focal length and features that you want/can afford. We could narrow it down if you give us some more information. </p>

[geoffs1]

<p>Perhaps the biggest "bang for the buck" would be a 50mm f/1.8 and a set of 3rd-party (ex. Kenko) extension tubes. In most systems that wouldn't cost more than a couple of hundred dollars.</p>

[craveprints]

<p>i have a canon eos 40d, and my budget is less than 500... hopefully more in the 100-200 area, but can go up to 500 if i skimp in other areas... and i was looking into buying an ef 50mm f1.8, or a sigma 18-50 f3.5-5.6..... would one of those work with extension tubes?

<h1 ></h1>

</p>

<h1></h1>

[steven_f1]

<p>Canon EFS 60mm F2.8, $435. Or Tamron 90mm F2.8, $460. There is also a Canon 50mm macro but it doesn't go to 1:1 magnification unless you buy a 1:1 converter which pushes the total to $560. Canon has three other macros 100mm F2.8 and 100mm F2.8 L IS but they are both well over your budget. Not sure what sigma has that goes to 1:1 magnification.</p>

<p>1:1 magnification means that the lens can project an image onto the sensor that is the same size a the subject. For insects you probably want a 1:1 macro. Although I have not tried it I doubt a 50mm F1.8 plus Kinko extension tubes will go to 1:1.</p>

[steven_f1]

<p>Canon EFS 60mm F2.8, $435. Or Tamron 90mm F2.8, $460. There is also a Canon 50mm macro but it doesn't go to 1:1 magnification unless you buy a 1:1 converter which pushes the total to $560. Canon has three other macros 100mm F2.8, 100mm F2.8 L IS, and 180mm F3.5 but they are all well over your budget. Not sure what sigma has that goes to 1:1 magnification.</p>

<p>1:1 magnification means that the lens can project an image onto the sensor that is the same size a the subject. For insects you probably want a 1:1 macro. Although I have not tried it I doubt a 50mm F1.8 plus Kinko extension tubes will go to 1:1.</p>

[dale_maribao]

<p>Tamron 90mm and Tokina 100mm have very positive reviews if you want something for bugs, insects, flowers, etc. I've also seen their sample photos on the web and they're amazing. But I eventually settled with the Sigma 150mm macro since it offered more working distance. I took it to San Diego Botanical Gardens the other day and my pictures were amazing. You can check some of the pics here: <a href="../photodb/folder?folder_id=956249">http://www.photo.net/photodb/folder?folder_id=956249</a><br>

Best of luck Amanda.</p>

[gary_c4]

<p>If you are prepared to look at second hand there are a lot of Canon EF 100mm F2.8 around at the moment following the release of the L IS version. It is a very good lense and I have no doubt you can find them in the region of 300 to 500, good luck.</p>

[2Oceans]

<p>Amanda, You might try KEH or the used departments at Adorama or B&H for a Canon,Tamron, Sigma or Tokina 100mm 1:1 macro. All three of these companies are professional and will take the lens back if you decide against keeping it.<br />You can ussually find a good third party lens for $200 to $350 and the image quality from these lenses is often outstanding and considered respectable. They also make fine portrait lenses. Extension tubes work best with fixed focal length lenses but I have used them on a good quality telephoto zoom with some satisfaction. Photozone.de can give you the skinny on some of the lenses you might be interested in. John Shaw’s “Close ups in Nature” is a classic you can buy used for $5 on Amazon and is a good guide for macro. Good hunting. Andy</p>

[stemked]

<p>I would second a Tamron Adaptall 90mm f2.8 macro (manual) lens. They run in the range of about $140 and are excellent optics. I am not a digital Canon expert but I suspect all you need is the EOS adaptall to use with the lens (maybe another $30?)</p>

[JohnMWright]

<p>I bought my Canon 100mm macro for around $500. It is the best lens I own, and I have some outstanding Canon lenses. It is so good I see no point in the new IS version (I do macro from a tripod anyway). If I were going to go cheaper, I'd look at the Tamron 90mm.</p>

<p>You will have a very hard time focusing manually, so I would pass on a manual focus only lens. It is also virtually impossible to find a direct adaptall2-EOS adapter. You could get Adaptall-Nikon and Nikon to EOS, but given you budget I suggest sticking with the Canon 100mm. KEH.com is very reliable. I've bought many lenses from them over the years and never had a problem.</p>

[larry h.]

<p>Here are a couple of good options for you...</p>

<p><a href="http://www.keh.com/Product-Details/1/CE06999040813J/CE06/FE.aspx">http://www.keh.com/Product-Details/1/CE06999040813J/CE06/FE.aspx</a> Don't bother with the LN version. You will not be able to tell the dfference between the EX and new, probably. The addition of the hood makes this deal very good.</p>

<p><a href="http://www.keh.com/Product-Details/1/CE08999078879K/CE08/FE.aspx">http://www.keh.com/Product-Details/1/CE08999078879K/CE08/FE.aspx</a> The Sigma has good reviews. It won't be as good as the Canon (mostly mechanically), but it is less money. You do not really need a hood because of how deeply recessed the front lens element is.</p>

<p>If you decide that you would prefer to buy an adaptable manual focus/manual exposure macro lens for a lot less money, let me know. I have one of the legendary Vivitar 90mm/2.5 Macro Series 1 lenses (with 1:1 adapter including a tripod mount) for sale. Do a google search on this lens and you will find out how extraordinary it is. I can also supply sample shots taken with it.</p>

<p>But mostly, I am just trying to help you by saying that most macro photos are manually focused anyway. So, some people prefer the MF lenses. The thing I found most inconvenient about it was the manual aperture, not manual focus. That's just something you need to consider for yourself.</p>

[craveprints]

<p>hmm.. larry, how much would you want for the vivitar? also has anyone successfully used a mirror lens for a macro shot? i understand they sometimes make weird donut shapes in the backround but other than that how are the close ups? or would i just be better off getting a 50mm canon lens and a reverse ring/tubes (i like the idea of the canon 50mm rather than a dedicated macro because it would be good for portraits among other things and it would be the most versitile solution right?)</p>

[jkaufman]

<p>Amanda,<br>

I have been very happy shooting with Tamron lenses. While they are certainly not equals to truly "professional" glass, I think it is difficult to find a better balance of performance and cost.</p>

<p>Regards,<br>

Jason</p>

[mike_sinquefield]

<p>I will say the 50 1.8 and extension tubes works for me...I also use a 40D, and that combo (I use live view most of the time) works wonderfully!</p>

[jason_dimichele1]

<p>I would second Mike's suggestion about the Canon 50/1.8 (or a 24/28mm for serious magnification) and the extension tubes. You can buy third party extension tubes from eBay for a great price. With the extension tubes you basically get 1:1 when you have the same length of extension tubes as the focal length of your lens. For example, with a 50mm lens you would require 50mm of extension tubes. Where it gets fun is when you have 24/28mm lens with 50mm or more of extension tubes because you get 2:1 magnification, etc. Another option you have, now that Canon has released their new 100mm/2.8L macro lens is the older 100mm/2.8 lens. I have this older lens and it is incredibly sharp.<br>

</p>

[Stock-Photos]

<p>Amanda,<br>

I really love my Canon 100MM 2.8 macro. <strong>See my <a href="../photodb/folder?folder_id=143902">insect photos</a> .</strong></p>