Cheap Macro Lens Poll

[The_Camera_Poser]

Ok Macro-masters. I lust greatly after a Sigma 150/2.8, but the budget just aint going to yield one up. So, which would you choose, mostly for bugs and small flowers, on a 30D. Handheld and tripod-mounted.

These are the only ones I can afford, so no need to recommend the canon 100 or the MPE! LOL

[canotographer]

Tamron 90/2.8

[The_Camera_Poser]

man you're fast Cano- but it's out of the price range I think

[Raikyn]

I'd go Tamron 90 as well, cheaper than the Sigma 105, just as good IQ as a Canon 100 macro.

[The_Camera_Poser]

Sigma 4 Less has the Tamron for $100 more htan the sigma- I'll look at other stores!

[ajayclicks]

my vote for the Tamron 90mm as well

[The_Camera_Poser]

the Tamron is over the $400 limit- that's my budget limit :-(

[Raikyn]

Sigma 4 Less has the Tamron for $100 more htan the sigma- I'll look at other stores!

In NZ the Tamron is $200-300 cheaper than the Sigma :confused:

[The_Camera_Poser]

I'm shopping online in the US, but I might try local shops too- I haven't had a look here.

[forsakenme720]

Why is everyone against the Sigma 105mm? The Sigma 105, Canon 100, and Tamron 90 all have virtually the same IQ. In any real world setting there would be no possible way to tell the difference. Plus the Tamron is $50 more than the Sigma at B&H with no extra benefits that I'm aware of. And yes, I'm defending my lens, but I also make a valid point I think. You couldn't go wrong with any of those and the Sigma happens to be the cheapest.

Dave

[Raikyn]

Why is everyone against the Sigma 105mm? The Sigma 105, Canon 100, and Tamron 90 all have virtually the same IQ. In any real world setting there would be no possible way to tell the difference. Plus the Tamron is $50 more than the Sigma at B&H with no extra benefits that I'm aware of. And yes, I'm defending my lens, but I also make a valid point I think. You couldn't go wrong with any of those and the Sigma happens to be the cheapest.

Dave

Not against the Sigma, just for the Tamron :D

It now seems apparent that location has a big impact on price. At a local shop online the Tamron is NZ$650 and the Sigma is $950, so in NZ the Tamron is far better value.
I do agree that the IQ's are similar.

[sai-gon-xua]

The Sigma 105, Canon 100, and Tamron 90 = ???

[forsakenme720]

Not against the Sigma, just for the Tamron :D

It now seems apparent that location has a big impact on price. At a local shop online the Tamron is NZ$650 and the Sigma is $950, so in NZ the Tamron is far better value.
I do agree that the IQ's are similar.

No worries. You can't go wrong with any of those lenses anyway. :D

[forsakenme720]

The Sigma 105, Canon 100, and Tamron 90 = ???

What's the matter?

[The_Camera_Poser]

I'm surprised the 70/2.8 doesn't get more love. It sure is sharp...

[forsakenme720]

I'm surprised the 70/2.8 doesn't get more love. It sure is sharp...

Pardon my ignorance, I'm usually on top of all the current lenses, but I don't think I've even heard of that one. Is it pretty new or is it just my brain being broken? lol

[forsakenme720]

I'm surprised the 70/2.8 doesn't get more love. It sure is sharp...

Oh, and one bad thing about the macro lenses that have a shorter focal length is that you have to get closer to the subject, meaning you're more likely to scare away bugs. That's why most people usually recommend the ones in the 100mm range.

[The_Camera_Poser]

Oh, and one bad thing about the macro lenses that have a shorter focal length is that you have to get closer to the subject, meaning you're more likely to scare away bugs. That's why most people usually recommend the ones in the 100mm range.

Well, I'd normally go for longer- thus my lusting for the 150.... but if I have to go shorter, I'd really want the best IQ. Have a look at these reviews:

http://www.slrgear.com/reviews/showproduct.php/product/964/cat/30

http://www.photozone.de/Reviews/Canon%20EOS%20Lens%20Tests/300-sigma-af-70mm-f28-ex-dg-macro-canon-review--test-report

[Jman13]

I upgraded my Sigma 105mm to the Sigma 150 that you lust after, and while the ergonomics, autofocus and reach are all better on the 150, optically they really are pretty darn close, so don't feel like you're missing out on anything optically between the two lenses.

[Mazu]

I can recommend the Tokina 100mm. It was cheaper here than the other brands and it is a good one too.

[EcoRick]

I voted for the Sigma 105 simply because I think you'd like the range when shooting bugs. I have the 60mm Canon (which is one great lens), however it's tought to get close to bugs with it's range.

[algold]

+1 on Sigma 105 and I own a Canon 60mm, but for your needs - the longer the better.

[gasrocks]

Another vote for Tamron 90.

[kvt]

B&H has a $90 rebate offer on the Tamron which actually makes it cheaper than the Sigma...

http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/330641-USA/Tamron_AF272C700_SP_90mm_f_2_8_Di.html

I'd go with the Tamron.

[forsakenme720]

B&H has a $90 rebate offer on the Tamron which actually makes it cheaper than the Sigma...

http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/330641-USA/Tamron_AF272C700_SP_90mm_f_2_8_Di.html

I'd go with the Tamron.

If you don't mind the Tamron's ugliness... yeah, I'm pulling that card - haha! Really though, you'll be happy with the Tamron or the Sigma.

[Tony-S]

Pardon my ignorance, I'm usually on top of all the current lenses, but I don't think I've even heard of that one. Is it pretty new or is it just my brain being broken? lol

It's been out for more than a year. Optically, probably the best of the choices listed. Plus, it is made of metal (unlike the Canon's heavy use of plastic), has HSM focusing and includes a hood.

Oh, and one bad thing about the macro lenses that have a shorter focal length is that you have to get closer to the subject, meaning you're more likely to scare away bugs. That's why most people usually recommend the ones in the 100mm range.

Me too. Shooting bugs, then you need WD. The 105 is the best of the list for this purpose.

[The_Camera_Poser]

Ill have a look at the Tamron 90 and the Sigma 105 when I'm next in Melbourne. Thanks all!

[Tom W]

If you're looking for 'really cheap', consider extension tubes. You probably won't get 1:1 macro, but you can certainly get a respectable close-up capability, especially if the lens with which you use the tubes already has a decent close-focus capability.

[The_Camera_Poser]

If you're looking for 'really cheap', consider extension tubes. You probably won't get 1:1 macro, but you can certainly get a respectable close-up capability, especially if the lens with which you use the tubes already has a decent close-focus capability.

Tom, I have a 100-400, a 24-105, a kit lens (sharp copy) and a nifty 50- what would you use tubes on?

[X-WoodButch]

Well, I had to go with the 60mm since I hae one! X-cellent lens. It's one of or possibly is the sharpest lens in my collection. My new 85 1.8 might be close but I think the 60mm is sharper. They both obviously have their own specialities so it might not be fair to compare them equally. Like I said, the 60mm is one super lens!! ($368.00) approx. reason for edit. messed up typing the price! :)