Affordable macro lens for EOS 5D?

[simongallery]

<p>Just looking for an affordable macro lens for my EOS 5D, both model and where to pick up online?</p>

<p>-Thanks</p>

[dominic_lupico]

<p>You have either a $2K or $3.5K camera, what do you consider affordable. Any of Canon's 4 or 5 macros are great choices, depending on your shooting needs. I'd look for one of those, used if need be.</p>

[steve_torelli]

<p>There are a lot of very good macro lenses available for whatever body you're using. Afford ability wise, the Canon 100 2.8 or the Tamron 90 2.8 are both excellent lenses that I have personal experience with. Further up the price scale is the Canon 100 2.8IS and 180 3.5 glass.<br>

Like many, I found the 180 to be slow focusing and a little heavy for macro work, but of course it gives you the longest distance. The 100 IS has the advantage of stabilization but is more expensive than its non IS cousin.<br>

I recently purchased the Sigma 105 2.8 OS based on reviews from Photozone and others and am extremely happy with it. It's less money than the Canon 100 2.8IS and a little more than the Canon non IS with a hood that Canon will be happy to sell you separately. Sigma includes the hood.<br>

I'm sure others will site their favorites.<br>

Good Luck</p>

[carbon_dragon]

Here's a really cheap Canon option. A 500D Canon close up filter. High quality, small, and comparitively cheap. Not really

a macro lens, but it's what I started off using in the old days. It's 72mm and you buy step up rings for the lenses you want

to use it on.

[JDMvW]

<p>I have a Tamron 90mm macro f/2.8 and consider it to be excellent, although I might have got the 180mm Tamron macro if I had been shooting on a 5D at that time.<br>

AF is not a primary concern, since it's difficult (given the very shallow depth-of-field in this kind of work) to get the automatic focus to choose what YOU want in focus.<br>

Stabilization is very nice if you are shooting hand-held, but for so much of this kind of work, you probably have the rig on a support of some kind.<br>

In fact, the use of MF makes the use of adapted macro lenses like some of the Micro Nikkor lenses hardly less convenient than using the Canon lenses. The old 105mm micro Nikkor (with an extension tube to go to 1:1) is a nice MF, manual aperture alternative that is quite inexpensive in the non-AI versions.</p>

[hjoseph7]

<p>I would say the original Canon USM 100mm f2.8 they go for about half the price of the version II on the Used market. </p>

[lester_wareham]

Yes canon 100mm f2.8 usm, plenty sharp and afordable.

[PuppyDigs]

<p>The less expensive but extremely sharp and distortion free macro optics are 50mm primes like the EF 50 2.5 CM and Sigma 50 2.8 EX. Not any good for critters but perfect for copying art work and small products. The 50 2.5 goes to 1:2 whereas the Sigma is 1:1. However, realize 1:1 on a 50mm optic leaves only about a 10mm clearance above your subject so not very practical closer than 1:2. I have both the EF 100 2.8 USM and 50 2.5 CM and use the 50 most of the time. Why? it's so small and light it never leaves my bag and works better in tight spaces (the 100mm leaves me pressed against the wall half the time).</p>

 

<blockquote>

<p>You have either a $2K or $3.5K camera, what do you consider affordable.</p>

 

</blockquote>

<p>Well, the 5D is long discontinued and sells used for $700 or $800.</p>

[yakim_peled1]

<ul>

<li>First and foremost:<em><strong> Have you searched?</strong> </em>Thousands of similar threads exist. </li>

<li>How affordable is affordable to you?</li>

<li>What will be your typical macro subjects?</li>

<li>Will you be doing other shots with it?</li>

<li>What is your other gear?</li>

<li>Is AF important?If not, plenty of old lenses exist.</li>

<li>Is 1:1 capability important?</li>

<li>Is good BQ important?</li>

</ul>

<p>BTW, if the answer to the last two questions is 'No' then consider the Cosina 100/3.5 (also marketed by other names e.g. Vivitar). A used one should cost ~60-80$.</p>

<p>Last, don't ask about IQ. All macro lenses have superb IQ, even this Cosina.</p>

<p>Happy shooting,<br>

Yakim.</p>

[alan_bessler]

<p>Go online to <a href="mailto:B@H">B@H</a> Photo and pick any one of the Canon macro's you can afford,,,</p>

[William Michael]

<p>I use my EF 100 F/2.8 Macro often on my 5D. I also have the EF50/2.5, which is less expensive, but if one buys the Life Size Converter which allows 1:1 the cost would be about the same, I expect.</p>

<p>The 100/2.8 is a versatile “all round” macro lens <a href="../photo/12352953&size=lg">for general macro requirements allowing</a>: a comfortable shooting distance for many Subjects; good balance; capacity to shoot hand held in many circumstances; and a Focal Length to make <a href="../photo/13011934&size=lg">a useful combination with Extension tubes and / or a tele-extender.</a> </p>

<p>Also, on a 5D the EF 100F/2.8 Macro is also a very good, reasonably fast (aperture) 100mm Prime, quite suitable for a range of shooting scenarios, <a href="../photo/10738709&size=lg">including a useful Portrait Lens</a>.</p>

<p>If I were buying a ‘general use’ Macro Lens now, I would buy the EF100F/2.8L IS Macro: but as you specifically mentioned budget, the EF 100F/2.8 Macro is at a very affordable price point at this time, for a new purchase: even without IS, when being used on a 5D the lens is <a href="../photo/10163233&size=lg">well balanced enough to hand hold at slower shutter speeds</a> – with a bit of dedication to practice.</p>

<p>I suggest you consider purchasing the Tripod Ring Mount and Lens Hood; both are especially useful. Less expensive third party options are available.</p>

<p>The question is general in nature and limited of information: I suggest you consider how this new purchase will fit into the total lens cache. </p>

<p>WW </p>

 

[david_wu6]

<p>The most affortable option is to get a 50mm f1.8 ($90) and a reverse adaptor ring ($10). Not for routine use, but it's fun.</p>

[Lou_Meluso]

<p>I got a very good, inexpensive Quantaray (Sigma) 50mm f/2.8 Macro for Canon EOS on eBay for $75usd. Not super fast AF focusing but darn good optics and goes all the way to 1:1. Not as well built as my Canon EF 50mm f/2.5 Macro but equal optically.</p>

[mark_pierlot]

<p>My macro lens of choice is the Sigma 70/2.8. I had the Canon EF 100/2.8 L IS, and it wasn't nearly as sharp.</p>

<p>And if you need a little more reach, Sigma's 105/2.8 macro is reportedly almost as good as the 70/2.8.</p>

[jpk]

<p>What about extension tubes? Work with many different lenses, affordable (less than 50$), don't influence the lens quality.<br>

The only disadvantage is that sometimes AF doesn't work, but I never use AF shooting macro... :-)<br>

Regards.</p>

[ed_avis2]

<p>FWIW, a 50mm macro lens such as the Sigma 50/2.8 can be used to photograph bugs that crawl along the ground - just probably not ones that fly away. It's also an excellent lens for general purpose photography. If you already have a 50mm lens then you might want a longer focal length like 90mm (still pretty cheap) for macro - but if not, getting a 50mm macro lens is the obvious choice, killing two birds with one stone.</p>

[s._prior]

<p>If you want affordable try used. The highly rated Tamron 90 f/2.8 macro goes for around $300 which is a good buy. The Canon 50 f/2.8 lens with life-size adapter can be bought for a little cheaper.</p>