Macro lens ? 50mm 100mm ??

[Ransom]

Hi all im wanting a macro lens as i really enjoy the up close an in your face photography so which lens is best for me im a bit stuck been looking at various lenses,

i dont have oodles of cash to spend but if i know what to aim for then i can aim towards it.

i have a Canon 300D and i want to get as close as possible really

now do i go for the Tamaron 90mm / sigma 105mm / canon 100mm

or the Sigma 28 or 70mm - 300mm lens that have the macro option but are cheaper?

i dont want to buy this lens then have to buy something else to get really close im wanting the one lens to do it all so help im a new at this game and the reversing attachment i put on my canon 35 - 105mm really isnt any good

ps. this will most probably be a ebay buy unless someone on here can offer me one direct.

thanks Mark.

[liza]

I have the Canon 100mm, and am very pleased with it. You can pick them up for about $400 used these days. That's what I paid for mine on Fred Miranda's Buy and Sell forum.

[volleybrad]

What is it exactly that you want to get close to? For insect/small animal work, I would recommend a macro lens with a longer focal length. Canon 100mm (minimum), Sigma 150mm f/2.8 is a good one too. This would give you good working distance.

If you're just shooting still life - coins, watches, etc...then a shorter focal length should suit you fine.

if you're really looking for MAXIMUM magnifcation, then take a look at the MP-E 65. It can magnify about 5 times higher than most macro lenses.

[LightRules]

You don't need a "macro" lens to get close-ups and "in your face shots." If you take a true macro lens such as the Canon 100mm or Sigma 150mm, getting up as close as you can will get you "in your cornea" shots. It seems from your comments you're not looking for a true "1:1" macro lens but a lens that can do close up shots of people's faces, etc. Most standard zooms can do this for you (they have reproduction ratios of about 1:3 to 1:5) with their fairly good minimum focusing distances. For your D-Reb body, definitely check out the Sigma 17-70DC that has a very nice focal range and 1:2 reproduction.

[Derrick_SA]

Well with 100mm MACRO 1:1 lens you're gonna have a nice working distance from your subject (if alive I might add) not to scare the creature away.

Most documents I've read discourages 50mm because you need to get to close.

- Derrick

[Cobra351]

The Canon 100 2.8 Macro is an awesome lens.

[mdclaros]

Go for the 100mm macro if money is not an issue.
Otherwise you can invert the lens kit and get a huge macro for $0 more.

[Ransom]

yeah im wanting up close an in your face pics of bugs / insects / flowers etc.

seems like the canon 100mm is the one to go for. any others in this range that i should consider?

and ive tried reversing a lens an its manual so most of my shots are blury and the part thats in focus is really really small so im wanting something that can do auto an then i can work better with it

[hidden forms]

the sigma 105mm macro is also a good lens, plus i you use a set of kenko ETs you can get up to 2:1. heres a links to some pics taken with the sigma- www.flickr.com/photos/gilder/sets/72057594090882654/
there is some very good advice in the Macro section, you could post there to see what advice you'd get.

[Mat Fitzsimmons]

The Sigma 150mm Macro lens is a very good macro lens, and will give you greater working distance than the Canon 100mm for 1:1. Not sure how it's price sits relative to the others, but it could be well worth looking at.

I have the Canon 100mm, but if I was buying a macro lens now, I'd have a long hard look at it.

[nadtz]

i've been doing some reading on this and it seems the tamron 90 is at least as good and possibly in some ways better than the canon 100, but I cant find anything definitive either way and the prices seem to be about the same here for both lenses. I think when Im ready I might jst do the canon unless I find some kind of info that puts something else on top between now and then.

[jay24k]

For taking pictures about 3 feet away, would you all recommend the sigma or the canon? I'm thinking of adding one to my aresnal.

[Lani Kai]

I can probably afford to upgrade from my Sigma 50mm Macro and the extra working distance would be really nice, but I'm just not willing to let go of it becauase it's such a wonderful lens. Sharpness is on par with my L primes and bokeh is better than my 300mm f/4L IS--which is what I use if I really need the distance; its macro capabilities are very respectable. All for $200.

[AmericanFirst]

Take a look at the TAmROn SP AF180mm f/3.5 Di LD Macro (http://www.tamron.com/lenses/prod/assets/pdfs/spec_sheets/180mm.pdf)

This is a macro worthy of serious consideration.

[Ransom]

ooh thx not even seen that tamron lens

[AeroSmith]

100.

The 50 doesn't have USM. Yuck.

[Doom1701e]

I have read alot about macros latley, thinking of getting one myself. From whay I have found the Canon 100 2.8 is a great macro lens and through the 15th of July in the US there is a rebate, something like $40. Not a bad deal.

[getg3]

Take a look at the TAmROn SP AF180mm f/3.5 Di LD Macro (http://www.tamron.com/lenses/prod/assets/pdfs/spec_sheets/180mm.pdf)

This is a macro worthy of serious consideration.

I am interested in getting a macro lens. Does anybody own this lens? Is it really good?

[jay24k]

That is what I'm looking for info wise. I'm confused on whether I should stick with Canon/Tamron or Sigma.

Any recommendations from the peanut gallery on one? I would like to use it beside macros if that is even possible.

[liza]

Canon has internal focusing, and I'm not sure the other ones do. Having a lens that doesn't extend may be significant if you're shooting skittish insects.

[AmericanFirst]

I spoke with several lens manufacturing engineers, just last month... and all of them agreed that TAmROn (http://www.nikonians.org/html/resources/non-nikon_articles/tamron/180-f35/180-1.html#first)'s Macro was "one of the best lenses out there." So I guess it now depends on who's using it to make it work. You can't blame the glass. ;)

This also makes a superior 180mm low-light (sub f/4) lens. How cool is that? :cool:

[LightRules]

I spoke with several lens manufacturing engineers, just last month... and all of them agreed that TAmROn (http://www.nikonians.org/html/resources/non-nikon_articles/tamron/180-f35/180-1.html#first)'s Macro was "one of the best lenses out there."

Really? I bet if you ask Canon or Sigma or Tokina lens makers, they'll say something different :lol:

[AmericanFirst]

"Opinions are like..."... well, you know the saw. Anyway... The TAmROn is on the short list of quality macros... I'll leave like that. You may do as you wish... it's just another kettle of fish.

[LightRules]

"Opinions are like..."... well, you know the saw. Anyway... The TAmROn is on the short list of quality macros... I'll leave like that. You may do as you wish... it's just another kettle of fish.

Quality macros? Frankly, they're all quite good, with the Canon and Sigma units by and far the ones of choice. Here's just the POTN poll http://photography-on-the.net/forum/showthread.php?t=160960

[Tee Why]

I've got a mint Tokina 100mm ATX PRO D macro for sale,
I'm just not into macros.
Pop PHoto tested it recently and gave rave review.
$325???
here a link to pics of the lens.
http://tomyi.smugmug.com/gallery/1701878/1/83841487
http://tomyi.smugmug.com/gallery/1701878/1/83841491