What is the best Macro lens to get?

[aleina_vassell]

<p>Ok so I've got a Canon 100d and am looking at investing into a Macro lens. The main kind of pictures I am looking to take are of plants and flowers and maybe the odd inanimate object. The lens I am looking at is the Canon EF-S 60mm f/2.8 Macro USM Lens because it seems to be the most commonly available. However I have seen a few other Macro Lenses and was wondering if any of them would be any better. Basically I just want to know what the difference is and what would be best for me. Thanks </p>

<h1 id="pageTitle"></h1>

[mostly sports]

<p>I think your first choice is focal length. There are superb macros in 50, 60, 100, and 180.<br>

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Canon-Lenses/Canon-Macro-Lens.aspx<br>

The 50 is also a great "normal" lens, works great for stitched panoramas, is light and cheap. I have no experience with the 60, but my guess is it's very similar.<br>

Can you afford anything? I think the 100/2.8 L is a killer lens.</p>

[David_Cavan]

<p>Just going through this decision myself. I've kind of settled on the 100/2.8L as a nice compromise, at just under $900US. I can't go as high as the $1500-ish 180, although it would be nice to get that extra reach so you don't have to get as close to the subject and maybe create a problem by shading the light. I think I want a little more than the 60, although it's supposed to be just as high-quality as the 100 in what I've read.</p>

[craigd]

<p>Most macro lenses available today are good. In addition to Canon's offerings, you can also get the Tokina 100mm f/2.8, the Tamron 90mm f/2.8, and the Sigma 105mm f/2.8, all of which are good. I used to have the Tokina, which is really a superb lens. The Canons are the only ones that offer really fast, silent autofocus, but macro work is often focused manually anyway, so it doesn't matter all that much unless you plan to also use it as a general-purpose lens.</p>

[mark_pierlot]

<p>I have the Sigma 70/2.8 and the EF 100/2.8 L, and I'd have to say that the Sigma is sharper. Check out photozone's glowing review of it <a href="http://www.photozone.de/canon_eos_ff/559-sigma70ff28eosff">here</a>.</p>

[michael_elenko]

<p>I've had the Sigma 70 f2.8 for the past year. I also own seven other true macro lenses in diverse focal lengths for multiple platforms. The Sigma is excellent and affordable. For the OP's needs of flowers and plants, anything between 50-70mm is very functional because enough of the subject should be able to be fit into the frame. </p>

<p>One more requirement the OP needs to figure out is whether the goal is to capture closeup or true macro shots. "Macro" has become commonspeak for closeup. To me macro means you are shooting objects at 1:1 ratio. </p>

<p>ME</p>

[craig_meddaugh]

<p>Longer is generally better, so I'd suggest the Sigma 150/2.8, Sigma 180/3.5, or Tamron 180/3.5 if the Canon is beyond your budget. Otherwise, it is hard to go wrong the either flavor of the Canon 100/2.8. You just have to decide whether or not IS is worth the extra 400 bucks. </p>

[hjoseph7]

<p>I looked at several macro lenses which included the Sigma 70mm(very sharp) the Canon 60mm, a couple of long focal length macros, the Canon 100mm f2.8 IS L $eries and the older Canon 100mm f2.8 which I settled on.<br>

<br />At first after reading the reviews, I had my mind set on the Sigma for it's legendary sharpness and convenient focal length. What turned me off a little was the extending front element and the whinny noise this lens make. I figured this would scare away the same subjects(bugs) I was trying to photograph !<br>

<br />The Canon 60mm was another excellent choice, very sharp light and compact. Unfortunately, it only fits on cropped cameras. Not sure if it would make a difference, but I also wanted that exra bit of resolution that full-frame has to offer since I own a 5D.<br>

<br />Although the longer focal length macros did have their advantages such as you can stand far back from your subject, they also have disadvantages in that the longer focal length makes them harder to hand-hold. I also wanted a macro lens that I could use for copy work, or indoor close-up work without having to stand in the hallway in my apartment.<br>

<br />When the 100mm f2.8 Macro came out, the price for the older(non-L series) version fell and that's when I jumped on one from KEH in pristine condition. I'm very happy with it so far, but amybe sometime in the future, I might spring for one of those longer focal length macros (150mm, 180mm etc) if possible.</p>

[robin_sibson1]

<blockquote>

<p>Longer is generally better, so I'd suggest the Sigma 150/2.8, Sigma 180/3.5, or Tamron 180/3.5 if the Canon is beyond your budget. Otherwise, it is hard to go wrong the either flavor of the Canon 100/2.8. You just have to decide whether or not IS is worth the extra 400 bucks.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Disagree. Aleina says that the main use will be for plants and flowers and inanimate objects. It is only really for live insects or other very small wildlife, and for some types of medical work, that a really long macro lens is required to give adequate working distance. For other purposes it is just a nuisance. The often-quoted myth about lighting problems is also just that – a myth – if you are using a lens as long as 100mm on FF or 60mm on 1.6-factor at ratios up to ×1 – you certainly do not need to go any longer.</p>

<p>The ideal general-purpose macro lens for 1.6-factor bodies does not yet exist – it would have a focal length in the 60mm to 70mm range, an aperture of f/2.8 (or even better f/2 for easy bright focusing), and hybrid IS. Until that comes along (don't hold your breath waiting, although apparently Canon does have a patent on a 60/2.8IS), the EF-S 60/2.8 is an excellent choice. It handles very well in use, but does have a couple of limitations to be aware of. First, it does not take a tripod ring, making work from a tripod significantly, although not cripplingly, less convenient. Secondly, it does not have a focus range limiter switch, so when used a a general-purpose lens (for which it is otherwise excellent) AF rather readily racks over the entire focus range if it cannot immediately lock on.</p>

<p>I should just add that I have a dual-format kit (5DII and 7D) and the 50/2.5+LSC, EF-S 60/2.8, and 100/2.8L IS macro lenses, the latter replacing the 100/2.8 non-IS, and botanical photography is one of my main uses for my equipment, so I have plenty of first-hand experience on which to draw.</p>

[lester_wareham]

I have some notes on macro kit here you might fid helpful

http://www.zen20934.zen.co.uk/photography/Macro_Equip

ment.htm

 

If you realy only expect to shoot flowers the 60mm is

probably a reasonable choice, if you want to work from a

tripod the a 100 or 180 is better.

 

Same goes for insect work at least a 100 is a good ideal to

allow a reasonable working distance not only to avoid

frightening the bug off but also to avoid shading the subject

with the lens.

 

The 180 is probably better for tripod work and has finer

manual focus control.

 

Conventionally I would recommend a 100mm macro lens to

start on.

 

If you are realy only planning plants then the 60 may be

better as it means you don't have to backup so far with

large flowers.

 

Personally I use the 100 classic, MP-E 65 and 180L for

different situations.

[johne37179]

<p>The best one is the one that works for you. That may be trite, but it is not meant that way. Over the years I found the medium to long focal length macros were more useful. If you have to get too close to your subject it creates practical problems of setting up a steady support and frequently you may block available light, so you compromise on where you shoot from. With the longer focal lengths you get to stand off a bit and have less of an impact on the immediate physical surroundings of the subject.</p>

[paddler4]

<p>You have gotten some contradictory advice. As someone who shoots more macro than anything else, uses a crop sensor camera, and has both the EF-S 60mm and the EF 100mm L, I'll throw in my two cents:</p>

<p>Longer is NOT necessarily better. The posters who said that the ideal focal length depends on what you are shooting are exactly right. Longer is better if you need greater working distance. For example, I find it easier to use the 100mm for bugs because you don't have to get quite as close, so they fly away less often. On the other hand, 80% of the time that I am doing flowers--including shooting flowers from a tripod--I use the 60mm, because the greater working distance of the 100mm is a pain in the neck unless you are working on a large surface and can get far enough away. (I usually shoot flowers on a granite countertop because its mass makes it much more stable than a wooden floor. If you have a concrete floor, this is not a problem, and you can move farther away.) Also, any given length of extension tubes will give you more magnification with a shorter lens than a longer lens. And also, handholding a short lens is easier, although the hybrid IS on the more expensive 100mm, the L, largely takes care of that problem.</p>

<p>I'll post two examples:</p>

<p>100mm L, 36mm tube:<br>

<img src="http://dkoretz.smugmug.com/Bugs/butterflies-damselflies/i-DscQRD3/0/L/MG7252-L.jpg" alt="" /></p>

<p>60mm, I forget what length of tube, several images stacked for greater DOF:<br>

<img src="http://dkoretz.smugmug.com/Flowers/Flowers-and-mushrooms/i-x8NchJt/0/L/2011-07-15-190122-ZS-DMap-L.jpg" alt="" /></p>

[ed_avis2]

<p>In Internet-land, all macro lenses are great. I haven't heard of a macro lens from any well-known manufacturer that doesn't get good reviews online and positive comments on the forums. Most give 1:1 magnification - so the image of an insect on the sensor will be the same size as the insect in the real world. Some only go as far as 1:2 and you will get some people saying this isn't "true" macro; meanwhile Canon's marketing department defines macro photography as any photograph where the final print is bigger than the real object, which would allow even lesser magnifications to count as "macro" if you enlarge enough afterwards. But only a few zoom lenses with 'macro' settings take advantage of that loophole. Fix-focals will be 1:2 at least.</p>

<p>I would suggest you get the cheapest one to start with. I have the Sigma 50 and 180 mm macros which are both good. So far nobody has mentioned the Zeiss 50/2 and 100/2 'makro' lenses which are pricey but said to be lovely.</p>

[alan_bryant1]

<p>The good news is that most macro lenses are very sharp and have good image quality, so no matter what you pick you'll probably be pleased.</p>

<p>Another to consider is the Tamron 60mm f/2. It's appealing because it can also be used as a short telephoto for low light.</p>

[craig_meddaugh]

<p>Robin, the primary problem with shorter focal length macro lenses is that their increased field of view makes it harder to control the background. Longer macros allow you more control over the background, a longer working distance (which can be a PIA, but I generally find it easier to move backwards than forwards), and more flexibility with your lighting (though I don't disagree that providing high quality lighting with shorter lenses is difficult, it is just easier with longer lenses). Additionally, the shorter macro lenses lack a tripod collar that makes them a bit more difficult to handle in the field.</p>

<p>I certainly think that wide to normal macros have their place, but for typical macro shooting, 90-100mm would be the minimum focal length I would recommend, especially for someone new to macrophotography.</p>

[JDMvW]

<p>Just a step back.</p>

<p>If your desired shots are not like those Dan M shows, you really don't need a true "macro" (usually defined as a lens that reproduces the image on the sensor at the exact size of the object being photographed [to wit, 1:1]).</p>

<p>A mere "close focus" lens is plenty good for ordinary plant pictures of whole flowers. Zoom lenses that have a "Macro" label on them are almost always just "close focus". Examples include the EF-S 15-85mm IS and the EF 24-105mm IS L lenses that do focus down to less than half a meter (about a foot and a half).</p>

<p>Here, for example, is a tulip of no particular aesthetic value, but showing how close you can get with the 24-105mm at 105mm focal length.</p><div></div>

[JDMvW]

<p>Of course, if you do want butterfly tongues, then a good, real (1:1) Macro is great. They are also usually very sharp lenses for just ordinary work like portraiture (if your subjects don't mind every wrinkle and pimple showing).<br>

The longer the Macro, the greater distance from the subject for the same magnification. An advantage with those mobile subjects like the butterfly tongue.</p>

<p>That's why many prefer a 90mm or longer Macro. You should at least consider the excellent Tamron 90mm f/2.8 Macro lens. It's not only good, but also cheaper than many alternatives (see a review at http://www.photozone.de/canon-eos/282-tamron-af-90mm-f28-di-sp-macro-test-report--review )</p>

 

[kerry_grim]

I have the 50 Compact Macro and the 100 2.8L macro lens which I use on a 40D.

 

Comments with the 50: light, easy to carry. Occasionaly I use it to fill the space between the 17-40 and 70-200 for landscape.

 

50 compact macro:

Good for photos of say, a trail sign.

Good for inantimate objects.

Not good for narrow angle, background not blurry enough.

 

100 2.8 L IS macro:

Good working distance for snakes, especially important with rattlesnakes

Good narrow angle of view, good blurry background if open up the aperture

And addition to macro and closeup, an excellent telephoto lens.

My first and only lens with IS and I can say it is great and worth the extra cost, especially since I don't always want to carry a tripod in the field.

 

180 macro lens. I do not own and have not used, but occasionally the extra working distance would be benefical in approaching butterflies, frogs, etc. I would love to have this lens but it is big, expensvie and for flowers, I think the 100 macro IS or no IS would be better.

 

My thoughts are a 60 macro would be fine for flowers and an extremenly sharp lens for general photography and light weight and not bulky. But I would still recommend the 100 macro because of the short working distance if you get near 1:1. I would not recommend the 50 macro because you need the adapter (which is rediculously expensive) for larger than half lifesize.

 

Overall, I still recommend the 100 macro with IS. It is not cheap, but in my opinion the IS is worth every penny. If that is not affordable, a new or used 100 macro. But, the 60 is still a good choice, just not quite as good as the others.

 

Another alternative would be an extension tube or perhaps close-up lens to your existing lenses. Even pros like John Shaw have successfully used close-up lenses attached to the front of their 70-200s.

[Stock-Photos]

<p>I'm very satisfied with my Canon 100MM 2.8, but I've never tried any other macro.</p>

<p>Here'a a sample shot. No cropping was done.</p>

<p><a href="../photo/7512859&size=lg">http://www.photo.net/photo/7512859&size=lg</a></p>

[nathangardner]

<p>Do you have a 1000D or 10D? I don't believe a 100D exists and was wondering whether you added a zero or forgot one. The reason is because if you have the 10D, the 60mm won't mount on it as EF-S lenses will not fit the 10D, only the 20D and later APS-C cameras.</p>

[martin-s]

<p>As others have said, a longer focal length isn't necessarily better. I also agrre with JDM in that you might not need a true macro lens.</p>

<p>You mention plants, flowers and inanimate objects. Macro and close-up photography is a wide field. Take a look at Wide-angle Macro Photography <a href="http://www.google.is/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=wide-angle+macro+Paul+Harcourt+Davies&source=web&cd=4&ved=0CCoQFjAD&url=http%3A%2F%2Fimagesfromtheedge.com%2Fblog%2F%3Fpage_id%3D3190&ei=AAfcTv7jN5GZ8gOKzbDKBw&usg=AFQjCNErYBaDzmsegCrjKm3EH1Krqa3fDg">Part 1</a> and <a href="http://www.google.is/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=wide-angle+macro+Paul+Harcourt+Davies&source=web&cd=5&ved=0CDAQFjAE&url=http%3A%2F%2Fimagesfromtheedge.com%2Fblog%2F%3Fpage_id%3D3210&ei=AAfcTv7jN5GZ8gOKzbDKBw&usg=AFQjCNF_u_56lRkDoKQLdV96ErRVAw19-A">Part 2</a> for an interesting angle on the subject.</p>

[JohnMWright]

<p>I love doing macro photography and I've researched pretty much every macro lens made, and several no longer made. I don't think you can go wrong with any of them, there really aren't any bad ones out there. It comes down more to your tastes in focal length, and budget. </p>

<p>I'm extremely happy with my Canon 100mm f/2.8 USM macro. One of the things I like most about it is the bokeh. </p>

[nick_marzinski]

<p>Agree with the Canon 100mm f/2.8. I use the non-L macro mounted on a cropped frame (equivalent 160mm), and I love this lens. It is my first and (thus far) only macro lens, and I don't see the need for another one. For flowers this lens is tremendous. For insects, I'd prefer to get a little closer, but I can still get sharp, tight images with the 100mm. I have friends that are also happy with their 100mm f/2.8L IS lenses, but I (read: my wife) couldn't stomach the higher price. Not to mention, since most of my macro work is really controlled (tripoded camera, remote shutter), IS wasn't that important to me anyway. As others have said, depending on how close you need to get, you may be able to make do with a non-1:1 macro lens. However, if you're considering doing 1:1 macro photography, I'd also consider investing in a good tripod and a remote shutter release because of the narrow depth of field. </p>

[travvel]

<p>I agree with John, the Canon 100 f2.8 Macro works for me just great and quite affordable.</p>

[robertbody]

<p>I had a 105mm on a 1.5 crop sensor and I wanted it longer, for shadows given by the lens and spooking bugs, I wanted a 180mm/200mm, so in the future I will want a 105mm at least, probably wanting to try 180mm instead though.<br>

<img src="http://robertbody.com/arizona08/images/2008-04-11-sup-daisy-1679.jpg" alt="" /><br>

There are different kinds of photos, but 60mm is too short of a macro for me.</p>