which macro should i buy

[pup]

30D will be arriving today

I love macro and Im still new to photography

60mm f/2.8 USM Macro AF ($384.95 B&H Price)
100mm f/2.8 Telephoto USM Macro AF ($469.95 B&H price)

Pros/Cons/Comparisons of the two?
Which one do I buy?
Thanks!

[tim]

I love my 100mm macro, sometimes I wish for something longer, so i'd not get the 60mm myself. The 100mm lens is EF so it works on any EOS camera, the 60mm is EF-S so it only works on 20D/30D/300D/350D. Not a big deal for most poeple.

[pup]

tim do you think EF-S will work on future generation Canons?
im hoping to keep the lens for as long as possible.
Just wondering.

[Livinthalife]

well the 30D is a new camera, and it works on that. but if you EVER moved to full frame like a 5D, your out of luck.

[pup]

Livinthalife: interesting. I will considering going with only EF then. Thanku.
But then again, by the time it's time to buy a new camera I'm guessing all the new canon's will take EF-S, no?

[Mike Bell]

It looks like Canon are committed to the smaller sensor size for a while yet - new camera (30D) and new EF-S lens (17-55) just out. I wouldn't like to predict what the next 5-10 years might bring.

Choosing a macro lens is a subject that is often asked and I have researched it quite a lot. Here is my summary (previously posted):

The most popular macro lenses seem to be:

Canon EF-S 60 macro
Tamron 90mm
Canon EF 100 macro
Sigma 105 macro
Canon 150 macro
Sigma 150 macro
Canon 180 macro

All of these give the same maximum magnification 1:1 meaning the FOV is the same size as the sensor (22x15mm on a 350D, 20D, 30D etc). There are others, of course. The best thread I have read about choosing a macro lens is this one:
http://photography-on-the.net/forum/...choosing+macro (http://photography-on-the.net/forum/showthread.php?t=94767&highlight=choosing+macro)

It emphasises the effect that longer focal lengths have. Longer focal length in a macro lens does not increase magnification as you might think. It does increase working distance which can be a big plus with insects that scare easily.

Here are a few more recent threads that might interest you:
http://photography-on-the.net/forum/...ht=which+macro (http://photography-on-the.net/forum/showthread.php?t=129141&highlight=which+macro)
http://photography-on-the.net/forum/...ht=which+macro (http://photography-on-the.net/forum/showthread.php?t=130888&highlight=which+macro)
http://photography-on-the.net/forum/...choosing+macro (http://photography-on-the.net/forum/showthread.php?t=138539&highlight=choosing+macro)

If you want higher magnifications you will also need extension tubes to add to the back of your lens. Canon, Kenko and Jessops (UK) make them. They cost less than a lens.

Take your time reading and looking at posts - especially in the macro section of Photo Sharing. Decide what subjects you want to photo. Then spend a few hundred and become hooked like me! I recently bought my second macro lens!!!:lol: (see sig).

[pup]

mike: thanks for the great references. Will read up.

[pup]

After reviewing all that info you just gave me it narrows down (price-wise) to:

Sigma Zoom Super Wide Angle AF 17-70mm f/2.8-4.5 DC Macro AF ($349.95)
60mm f/2.8 USM Macro AF ($384.95)
Sigma Telephoto 105mm f/2.8 EX DG Macro Autofocus ($399)
100mm f/2.8 Telephoto USM Macro AF ($469.95)
Tamron Telephoto SP AF 90mm f/2.8 Di Macro Autofocus ($489)
Sigma Telephoto 150mm f/2.8 EX APO Macro EX DG HSM Autofocus ($599)

Prices from B&H
(and the $599 is pushin it for now... but I'd like to hear opinions about the lens)

Any other personal thoughts/experiences with these?

[Mike Bell]

I would add the Sigma 105mm macro to your shortlist. It is used by some of the best macro posters in this forum - check out any post by LordV for example.

I have nothing but praise for both my macros - the 60 is probably marginally sharper but the 150 gives excellent working distance in the field. 100 or 105 is most peoples compromise solution (for working distance versus cost, not for quality) and gives fantastic results.

[pup]

Oh wow, how did I miss that.

Added it to the list above.

Will check out LordV's other's photos.

Thanks so much.

[pup]

just added

Sigma Zoom Super Wide Angle AF 17-70mm f/2.8-4.5 DC Macro AF ($349.95)

(reading good things about it here)

[Livinthalife]

usually those zoom macro lenses as you listed, those arnt usually true macro. they are usally half size, while the dedcated macros are 1:1.

[pup]

Thanku for pointing that out cuz i definately want a 1:1

Can you recommend a good lens site that will tell me if these are 1:1?
I know the 2 Canon's are but what about the others?

[Livinthalife]

well if you check each companies reputative website, they will give you all then info.

heres a example, for that 1770 macro you were talking about
http://www.sigmaphoto.com/lenses/lenses_all_details.asp?id=3315&navigator=6
its 1:2.3 not 1:1

now that i think about it, i dont think any zooms are 1:1

[sqjaw]

Pup

be advised Adorama has the EF-S 60mm @384.00+shipping and the 100mm lls 40.00 mfg rebate 429.95+shipping

have you thought above checking P.O.T.N. and fredmiranda.com for used marco lens

just a thought and please do not sell the EF-S 60MM short on the 20D and 30D and the rebels its a 96mm lens with 1.6 factor

[rohnb]

would it be not advisable to use extension tubes with a 180mm macro (Sigma, since the Canon is out of my reach) because of the increased weight over the shorter macros?

I have to admit to really liking what can be done with the background with a 180mm lens, and the increased working distance must be a huge plus, but as my skills increase I hope to go beyond 1:1.

thank you

[pup]

ok heres a stupid question...

andy, that link u gave for the 17-70 says the camera is 1:2.3
again im new to this
is 1:2.3 "worse" than 1:1
what ratio will I find maximum results
can u tell me how that works

because to me sounds like a 1:2.3 is taking ONE image and having it magnifed to 2.3
... isnt that better than 1:1 ratio? am I wrong? pls help important.

[Mike Bell]

ok heres a stupid question...

andy, that link u gave for the 17-70 says the camera is 1:2.3
again im new to this
is 1:2.3 "worse" than 1:1
what ratio will I find maximum results
can u tell me how that works

because to me sounds like a 1:2.3 is taking ONE image and having it magnifed to 2.3
... isnt that better than 1:1 ratio? am I wrong? pls help important.

Magnifications are quoted in a rather non-intuitive way. 2:1 is more magnification than 1:1 and 1:1 is more than 1:2 etc

I tend to think in terms of the FOV :

1:1 means the FOV is 22x15mm - big spider fills the shot
2:1 means the FOV is 11x7.5mm - small spider or a fly
1:2 means the FOV is 44x30mm - you need a butterfly to fill this

Get the idea?

[liza]

I just purchased the Canon 100mm macro from the Fred Miranda Buy and Sell board and am very happy with it. It's simply wonderful. Here's a link to my Smugmug pics that I took using the lens first time out.
http://emphotography.smugmug.com/gallery/1318814

[Mike Bell]

would it be not advisable to use extension tubes with a 180mm macro (Sigma, since the Canon is out of my reach) because of the increased weight over the shorter macros?

I have to admit to really liking what can be done with the background with a 180mm lens, and the increased working distance must be a huge plus, but as my skills increase I hope to go beyond 1:1.

thank you

I have the Sigma 150 and I do use extension tubes with it but not as often as I do with my EF-S 60. Why?

1. Because the 150 is big already and the more tubes I put on the bigger and harder to handhold the thing becomes. Adding 21mm or 31mm is OK and I do that for photographing smaller flies.
2. Adding tubes to a big long lens adds much less extra magnification effect than adding them to a small short lens like the 60. I can get 2.6:1 by adding a full set (65mm) of tubes to the EF-S 60 but adding the same 65mm to the Sigma 150 only gets me to 2:1. I measured this by photographing rulers. I imagine that you would find it very hard to get decent shots above about 1.7:1 with tubes on a 180.

Buy a set and try. I'm sure you will use one or two at least.

[steved110]

Mike, do extension tubes allow full auto metering/ aperture setting? I'm tempted to get a set of Jessops ones, but not too sure how they work in practice! I'm not too worried about retaining autofocus but if I lost control of the aperture i'd struggle.

[Mike Bell]

Mike, do extension tubes allow full auto metering/ aperture setting? I'm tempted to get a set of Jessops ones, but not too sure how they work in practice! I'm not too worried about retaining autofocus but if I lost control of the aperture i'd struggle.

I have used Jessops extension tubes on both my macro lenses for a while now. I only failed to get aperture control once - and that was with 3 tubes on. I just twisted them a bit and control was re-established for the next shot. I once got an Err 99 message but again I just refitted them and it went away. Others have reported this occasionally. I wouldn't worry. It's just that there are a lot of connection points to align with 3 tubes!

The leaflet that comes with the Jessops tubes warns you that AF is only guaranteed to work with one tube on. In fact I have found AF to still work most of the time with more tubes, but it is a bit hit-and-miss. As you rightly say, most macro is manual focus anyway, so who cares?

BTW Jessops tubes do work with EF-S lenses, unlike Kenko tubes which allegedly require some unofficial modification with a sharp knife and a steady hand!