Macro lens for 300D

[morpheus]

Hi all,
I'm searching a macro lens for my EOS 300D but to be honest I'm confused with lots of lens on comercial sites.
Could you help me to choose one ? and why the fixed focal is better than the variable focal ?
Thanks in advance

[FlipsidE]

My lens recommendation would be the Canon 100mm Macro.

FlipsidE

[morpheus]

My lens recommendation would be the Canon 100mm Macro.

FlipsidE

is this the Canon 100mm/ F2.8??

[FlipsidE]

Yes, it's this one (http://www.bhphotovideo.com/bnh/controller/home?O=productlist&A=details&Q=&sku=194451&is=USA)

FlipsidE

[Jon]

and why the fixed focal is better than the variable focal ?
In general, zoom lenses aren't quite as sharp as fixed focal length lenses. It's also much more difficult to design them to maintain a flat field across the wide focussing range needed for a macro lens.

Most of the zoom lenses you see with "macro" aren't truly macro lenses. They may get down to 1/4 life-size at one focal length (and be about 1/10 or so at the other end of their zoom range). There are exceptions to this (Vivitar hads a tack-sharp 90-180 Series 1 zoom which reached 1/2 lifesize, but that was 20+ years ago), but very few; none I can recall for Canon EF mount.

I'd go with the 100 Canon (or maybe the Sigma or Tamron if cost is an issue). It'll give you reasonable working distance at life-size.

[morpheus]

Yes, it's this one (http://www.bhphotovideo.com/bnh/controller/home?O=productlist&A=details&Q=&sku=194451&is=USA)

FlipsidE

Are there any ones cheaper???

[FlipsidE]

The post above your last mentions a couple of third party lens manufacturers that have macro lenses made for Canon EOS cameras. They usually are less expensive, also. But, in this case, the third party brands may not be a sharp as the Canon.

FlipsidE

[Olegis]

in this case, the third party brands may not be a sharp as the Canon.

There is very few things to complain about with Sigma and Tamron macro lenses - AF motor speed and loudness, build quality etc, but it sure isn't the sharpness. About all the macro lenses - Canon, Sigma, Tamron - are VERY similar in their optical quality, in any case you'll have a very hard time trying to find any noticable difference.

The considerations should be - compatibility to future bodies, build quality, AF speed (if one plans to use the lens on occasional shooting) and focal length. The optical quality is just about the same - excellent.

morpheus, here (http://photography-on-the.net/forum/showthread.php?t=43330) you can find a discussion about choosing a macro lens. I went with Canon 100mm f/2.8 (mainly because of the name and the USM AF) - and I love this lens.

[Headcase650]

If money is an issue. The El-Cheapo macro is a 50mm 1.8 and some close up filters. The lense is extreamy sharp to begin with and has a minimum focus distance if 18 inches, throw on a +2 close up filter and you may be able to cut that in half. I have seen a few picks using this method and they dont look to bad. If there is any distortion at the edges just crop it out.

[commando]

The 50mm macro is half the price of the 100mm macro lens. Other brands will probably be even cheaper.

I've just read about some of these lenses in the "world of eos III" book my girlfriend just bought me. The issues to consider are how close you can get to the subject without disturbing it, and the ratio that the lens produces. 1:1 means something 10mm long will create a 10mm long image on the sensor inside the camera. 1:2 means a 10mm long thing will be 5mm in the camera.

I'm new to this, but I think that's all reasonably accurate.

[TammieO]

I've used the Canon 50mm macro, 100mm macro with and without USM. The 100mm macro with the USM was my choice. It's even light enough to handhold.

Tammie

[Jesper]

If you just want to try out macro, there are cheaper solutions than buying an expensive macro lens.
Look at this tutorial: http://www.photo.net/learn/macro/

The Canon EF 100mm f/2.8 Macro USM is a great, sharp lens. It's not only very good for macro shots, also for non-macro subjects it's very good.

[morpheus]

If you just want to try out macro, there are cheaper solutions than buying an expensive macro lens.
Look at this tutorial: http://www.photo.net/learn/macro/

The Canon EF 100mm f/2.8 Macro USM is a great, sharp lens. It's not only very good for macro shots, also for non-macro subjects it's very good.

thank you for your help. But is the 50mm. F2.8 Macro good enough ? I have an attrative offer for this

[Olegis]

The Canon EF 50mm Macro is f/2.5 lens and offers only 1:2 magnification, while the 100mm offers 1:1 magnification. There is an adapter that will allow you to get down to 1:1 with 50mm, but it means - more money to spend.

Another thing for you to consider - with 50mm macro lens the working distance is very short, which may get in your way to shoot nervous bugs and stuff. 100mm offers longer distance and the 180mm L macro offers even longer dostance - it's all up to your needs.

[C.S.I.]

No, the 50 DEFINITELY is not good enough......... I bought the Sigma 105 2.8, and I still need a set of Kenko extension tubes to do what I need to do (EXTREME close ups of bugs + flowers).
I got the 105 Sigma for 369$ at B + H, and am planning on getting the set of 3 Kenko extension tubse soon for 129$.
Good Luck.......