My Next Lens, fast and macro too?

[anshu]

I realize in this world you cant have your cake and eat it too, but damn well ill try!
Im looking to fufill my next few uncovered spots with my next lens purchase. Im fairly new to this game, and have a 350d(rebel xt) and a sigma 18-200. I really enjoy the sigma, for travel as thats why I got the camera, but its not to great for low lighting shots(min 3.5 ap at 18, 6.3 at 200). Also its min focusing distance is 1.5ft. So I want something to cover this. The budget is low as possible, Ill have to save, but asap is always nice, anwhoo im not even getting home till august 15.

My inital thought was a nifty fifty, a nice price and a low ap until I relized that the min focusing distance was the same more or less as the sigma, which kinda shocked me. That was the only thing that i really managed to find in the region, the Sigma 50mm prime which bottoms out at 2.8(decent) is a nice macro lens whose min distance is 7.4in the downside is the price is double the nifty fifty.
Everything else seems to fly past my price range, im totally ok with a 2nd hand lens(in good condition of course) but havent really looked.
Ive searched tons, but come up with everyone loving the canon 100(i love it too! just not my wallet :()
thanks for the help
cheers
Anshu

[grego]

Macro lens are not fast. Sorry.

Canon's 100 f/2.8 Macro is sharp, very good. But its not that fast, AF wise. It's brother, 100 f/2 is lightening fast though. Would go great for indoor stuff like basketball in a gym.

It's hard to meet both those needs in one lens.

[anshu]

sorry when i said fast I meant as in low ap, focusing speed isnt that big a deal to me

[mrfourcows]

you know, f/2.8 really ain't that fast. sometimes that one stop from f/1.8 (or anything larger) can really help you with keepers. scrap the macro first unless you're sure that you'll do macro. i know it's a neat thing to have a macro in your bag so that if you do happen to need it its there. but the question is: do you need it yet? is shooting macro what you do?

[anshu]

I dont know if I need it, but would love to have it. I enjoyed doing "macro" shots with the my p&s so I think id like a lens that could handle a decent closness. I dont need a macro in the sense of shooting insects and what not. Im not so sure on what my options are around that focal length and bringing in the distance from a foot and a half

[KevNJ]

I dont know if I need it, but would love to have it.

The go for it. Id recommend the Canon 100 f/2.8 as well. Can be used for macro and portait since it focuses <buzzlight year voice > to infiniti and beyonndddd </buzz light year voice>. :D So its a dual purpose lens.

[CyberDyneSystems]

f/2.8 is REALLY fast if your coming from an f/4.5-5.6 zoom..

But yes,. all the Macro primes seem to be f/2.8, so then your choice is about focal length, and price.

[anshu]

righto looks like its time to start saving. 200 bucks for the lens, not to bad. depends how badly i get hit with misc accessories or car projects along the way

*sigh*
i need a job!

cheers

[Lester Wareham]

sorry when i said fast I meant as in low ap, focusing speed isnt that big a deal to me

The f2.8 macro is not that fast but it is usefully fast, more so because it is sharp wide open. Of course the 100 f2 is excellent too but not macro.

If you have never had a macro lens you probably dont realise how versitile it is for general photography, worth thinking about.

I would say that the 100mm macro is probably one of the best value lenses Canon make, apart for kit lenses like the 50/1.8 etc.

[drbenjamin]

I just got my 100mm macro, and agree with the previous poster. It's a wonderful lens, and I've shot more portraits with it than macros. With the focus distance limit switch on, it really isn't noticably slow to focus (nice silent USM). It takes wicked sharp pictures, and if you spot something tiny you can get right up to it. It's the lens I leave on my camera on hikes, which are usually midday so f/2.8 is plenty.

D

[Pete-eos]

I just got my 100mm macro, and agree with the previous poster. It's a wonderful lens, and I've shot more portraits with it than macros. With the focus distance limit switch on, it really isn't noticably slow to focus (nice silent USM). It takes wicked sharp pictures, and if you spot something tiny you can get right up to it. It's the lens I leave on my camera on hikes, which are usually midday so f/2.8 is plenty.

D


Any chance you could post up some full size images, pretty please :D

[odvdveer]

If the canon is to expensive you can look at the tamron 90mm f2.8. I love it, nice sharp pictures, and also good for non macro work.

Olga

[anshu]

The f2.8 macro is not that fast but it is usefully fast, more so because it is sharp wide open. Of course the 100 f2 is excellent too but not macro.

If you have never had a macro lens you probably dont realise how versitile it is for general photography, worth thinking about.

I would say that the 100mm macro is probably one of the best value lenses Canon make, apart for kit lenses like the 50/1.8 etc.

Indeed, im hoping to use it for other uses aswell. Im not sure but 50mm may be a more usefull range for me as opposed to the 90. If I need the extra strech I could always bolt on the 18-200.
The price is pretty close to comparing the sigma 50 and the tamron 90. Ive read plenty of good things about both, I lean towards the sigma for some reason.
Any thoughts on the focal lengths?
cheers