Midrange Macro Lens Options

[sean_matheny1]

<p>First time posting here, so if I've misplaced this, etc, please kindly let me know. I've tried to do some due diligence on this, but am having trouble, so I thought I'd ask. <br>

I've got the 16-35L f4 and the 70-200L 2.8 II, and would like to choose a third lens that has coverage in between these two FL ranges for my 1DSM2. I am also really interested in getting into macro, and 50mm is one of my favorite FL. <br>

There's heaps of info on the 24-70L f4 of course, but I can't find that much detail on the macro functions. Because I'm new to macro, I'm also not exactly sure what I should be looking for/scared of. Is the ~3cm/1.2" working distance from the front of the lens a real hinderance? Also, I'm assuming that this "working distance" is where you get the full 0.7x, but if I was okay with smaller size, would the lens still be able to focus farther out? From what I've read, the shallow DOF of macro requires small apertures, so I'm also assuming that the smaller F4 (compared to most prime macros) wouldn't be limiting?<br>

50mm is one of my favorite FL, and I already have 24-35 and 70mm covered very well with the other two zooms. It looks like the 24-70L F4 is weakest at 50mm, which makes me reluctant. <br>

I'm also looking at prime macros, specifically the Canon 60mm f2.8 and the Zeiss Makro Planar 50mm f2. I realize all of these aren't 1.0x, and I'm ok with that (I think!). If anyone has anything to say about these, I'm all ears as well. Thanks for any input!</p>

 

[SCL]

<p>The macro function on zoom lenses , although ok, usually isn't usually trully macro - only close, and certainly not throughout the range. A macro lens, designed for macro work is optimized to provide a flatter field and finer focusing. Much macro work is done in manual mode due to the extremely narrow range of focus at 1:1, and quite often with a focusing stage on a tripod. You really want a reasonable working distance from your subject for a couple of reasons....lighting and the question of "spooking" some subjects by being too close to them. I use a variety of macro lenses I've accumulated over the years... but a favorite for versatility is the Tamron 90/2.5 SP Adaptall macro lens, which can be used on your EOS body with an adapter (about $15 on Ebay), and almost any other SLR/DSLR camera body as well. It is manual focus and only goes to 1:2 unless you use its 1:1 adapter. Another truly great manual one is the Kiron 105/2.8 which goes to 1:1. It is a true classic and much more expensive than the Tamron, and I don't know if it is available in an EOS mount, I do know it is available in the FD mount, so yyou could probably use a lensless FD-EOS adapter but you would be restricted to just macro work as it wouldn't focus to infinity. The Canon 60/2.8 you mention is a nice intermediate range macro...but insufficient for many live subjects due to the short working distance.</p>

[paddler4]

<p>Most people who do macro work consider a "true" macro lens one that can reach 1:1. No zooms can. The 24-70 f/4 reaches 0.7:1, which is close enough for a lot of macro work, depending on what you want to shoot. However, if you want to do real macro work, you can ignore the "macro" designation on most other zoom lenses.</p>

<p>Re apertures: you are right. I do a great deal of macro work, and I almost never go narrower than about f/7. For stationary things, I use the sweet spot of the lens and focus stacking. For bugs, I go narrower than the sweet spot, usually to f/13, to get a reasonable depth of field.</p>

<p>All true macro lenses I have used also have infinity focus, as long as you don't add extension tubes. The 24-70 of course does, if you switch it out of macro mode. However, because of the very wide range of focusing distances, they are often relatively slow-focusing. </p>

<p>Working distance is very small with all lenses at macro magnification. when you look at stats, be sure to distinguish between "minimum focusing distance" (object to sensor) and "minimum working distance" (object to front of lens). For this reason, people shooting bugs often avoid short-focal-length macro lenses. Greater focal length gives you more working distance. If you want to do bugs, I'd advise you to forget the 50-60mm range. Most people use something close to 100mm, a 150mm, or a 180mm. I've done lots of bugs with a 60mm, and it is very hard. I now always use a 100mm. 150 and 180 give you more room, but they are heavier and therefore harder to manage in field macro work, and some of them are more expensive.</p>

<p>I don't know the Zeiss lens, but the EF-S 60mm is a true 1:1 lens and a very good one. However, does your camera accept EF-S lenses?</p>

<p>Again, a lot of this depends on what you shoot. I started with a Canon 50mm 'compact macro,' which is sharp and cheap but only 1:2, and I realized very quickly that 1:2 was not going to cut it for me. For bugs, I often go more than 1:1. For flowers, it all depends on whether you want whole flowers, close-ups of anthers, etc. </p>

[mark_pierlot]

<p>Don't forget about Sigma's macro primes. They're sharper and less expensive than their Canon EF counterparts. And they go to 1:1 without extension tubes.</p>

<p>I have the Sigma 70/2.8 EX DG Macro, and it's a stellar lens, with superb resolution and contrast. They also have 50mm and 105mm macros. You might want to check out the reviews at photozone.de.</p>

<h1 id="title" > </h1>

[paddler4]

<blockquote>

<p>Don't forget about Sigma's macro primes. They're sharper and less expensive than their Canon EF counterparts. And they go to 1:1 without extension tubes.</p>

 

</blockquote>

<p>I've never compared the Canon macros to the Sigmas, but all canon macro lenses other than the EF 50mm compact macro go to 1:1 without extension tubes.</p>

[Robin Smith]

<p>Love the Zeiss 50mm Makro-Planar. A stellar lens in every respect for both standard and macro. I haven't got it because it is manual focusing and I don't really do macro, but it is a lovely lens. Agree with what others say though, for insects 50mm is probably not long enough and you may need closer to 1:1. Many people like the 50mm Canon f2.5 macro too.</p>

<p>There are myriads of 90mm-10mm macros available, pretty well all of them are good (2 x 100mm Canons, 90mm Tamron/Tokina, 100mm Zeiss, 150mm Sigma etc etc.) but then these would be overlapping with your 70-200mm.</p>

[sean_matheny1]

<p>Thanks for all the responses-- there's a lot of really great info here.<br>

Dan M.: You're exactly right that the 60mm is an EF-S and won't work on my 1DS-- I completely overlooked that.<br>

Mark: that Sigma 50mm 2.8mm looks sharp (and cheap!)... thanks.<br>

I think I'm looking at a prime for this now. There's just too much compromise in the 24-70L F4's macro functions, from what I've read and heard.<br>

I don't have a real desire to photograph bugs. I have flowers/plants and still life in mind. If the lens is sharp enough, can I just crop from 0.5x to 1.0x? I know anything you can do in-camera is usually preferable to post, but is this realistic? As in, if I go with something less than 1:1, should I make sure it's as sharp (and flat, etc) as possible in anticipation of doing more cropping? </p>

[bobatkins]

<p>Canon have an often overlooked EF50/2.5 macro. Goes to 1/2 lifesize and has full frame coverage. It's inexpensive too (under $300).</p>

[paddler4]

<blockquote>

<p>If the lens is sharp enough, can I just crop from 0.5x to 1.0x? I know anything you can do in-camera is usually preferable to post, but is this realistic?</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Yes, you can, but you will get a lot less detail in the image. That may not matter if you are just posting online, but it can if you are printing, particularly if you decide to print large. Keep in mind that if you crop by a factor of 2 in both directions, you are reducing the amount of data by 75%, not 50%. </p>

<p>This is one reason that I generally shoot bugs with a crop sensor camera. At minimum working distance, the image on the sensor is the same size regardless of the size of the sensor, and higher pixel density means more pixels on the subject. For flowers, I am usually less concerned about maximizing magnification, and I usually use a FF. </p>

<p>If you are going to shoot something like flowers in the wild, without control over the background, another thing to consider is that background blur (this is not the same as DOF) increases with focal length. To see this explained, go to <a href="http://toothwalker.org/optics/dof.html"><strong>this posting</strong></a> and page down to the section on background blur. This doesn't matter if you are shooting indoors and can set up a plain background. </p>

 

[SCL]

<p>FWIW when shooting wildflowers in the wild I often go either very early or vary late in the day, and try to get sunshine on the flowers against a dark shadowed background...or sometimes I take a piece of black craft paper to position behin a flower. The contrast really helps bring out the details.</p>

[james_elwing]

<p>I use the EF 50/2.5 macro. Because I use it mainly for copying, I don't run into the 1/2 lifesize issue very often, and didn't see it as a limitation as all the 50 macros I had used before for film cameras had the same limitation, and required an extension tube for closer work.</p>

[ed_avis2]

<p>The Zeiss 50/2 is a great all-round lens and perhaps cheaper to buy in its original ZE form now that a facelifted 'Milvus' version is sold. Sigma's 50/2.8 macro lens has been around a long time (so used ones are cheap) and is also very good both for macro and for general purpose photography. If you want to get subjective the Sigma is more 'scientific' in rendering style while the Zeiss has its characteristic 'pop'... but I think the difference is noted less in macro work than in medium-distance photography. You'll need to stop down a lot for macro so the one f-stop difference in max aperture is neither here nor there.</p>

[sean_matheny1]

<p>I thought I'd update, since so many of you took the time to be helpful. I rented both the Zeiss 50mm f/2 MP, and also the Canon 24-70 f/4L for about 10 days while on vacation, and shot about 500 photos on each. The Zeiss was a fantastic lens-- the OOF rendering was really beautiful, and it was a tad sharper (to my eyes and with my sensor) than the Canon. Skin tones were richer, I noticed. I might be run out of town for saying this, but I was actually a little underwhelmed with the Zeiss. The wide aperture is of course fairly useless in macro work. I got some nice shallow DOF portraits with it, but the long throw and very dampened action of the focus ring meant a lot of missed opportunities and a lot that were just OOF enough to be discards. In fairness, I didn't have a MF focus screen and was still learning technique (although I learned on a Canon AE-1). And, I don't think the Zeiss was ever really designed as a walkround, general purpose 50mm; I just read of fans who use it as such and I was expecting more. It is a phenomenal lens, don't get me wrong.<br>

I have to admit that the Canon really surprised me. I really couldn't fault the sharpness across the frame and at all focal lengths (though weakest at 50mm as reviewers claim, but still hard to notice). The OOF rendering was surprisingly excellent. OOF balls were rendered very nicely and there were very little busy/"vibrating" shots. I even tried to reproduce the focus shift at 70mm and MFD with a tripod and yardstick, and found it very difficult to notice. <br>

For my uses, I think the .7x mag macro is just fine. At some point I'll look at a proper macro lens, but for a walkaround, I was pleasantly surprised how useful I found the macro mode to be for close ups. I found a lot of situations (bored, visiting relatives) where I didn't have a dramatic panorama, or fantastic subject matter. In those cases, the macro mode worked wonderfully to stoop down and get a closer look at flowers, bugs, etc. I think I enjoyed it that much more because I didn't have to switch lenses every time I saw something-- it really complemented the 24-70mm range for me, usage-wise. <br>

In an ideal world, I'd have both, but I chose the Canon in the end. Of course they're apples and oranges, so no slight to either. I rented both from LensRentals.com (I'm only plugging because I had such a great experience... sorry if this is frowned upon), and I was able to buy my almost pristine condition 24-70 for US$200 cheaper than the Canon refurb site had them listed (and most rental fees even were credited from that amount). Too good to refuse, and I'm very happy. Thanks for all the advice!</p>

<p>(unscientific) Canon sample:<br>

<br />(unscientific) Zeiss sample: <br>