True macro or not?

[Bonito]

So I am a new member here and I have been reading alot of the posts.
In the very near future I am planning on purchasing the 100mm Canon Macro lens. I love close up work, but I have been reading that I could save money by purchasing the Sigma 17-70, maybe add extension tubes and/or a teleconverter and get the same results for less money. Is this true?
I am on a tight budget, but this will be my first upgrade from my kit lens -
Rebel XTi with 18-55 kit. I do not want to sacrifice quality.
Any advice would be appreciated.
Thanks

[Colorblinded]

Without knowing how close the SIgma focuses I couldn't tell you how feasible that is, but extension tubes allow a lens to focus closer, and a teleconverter would effectively up its reproduction ratio so you could use any lens for macro essentially with the right accessories. Extension tubes are nice in that they incorporate no optics and you don't risk degrading the image.

[Pete-eos]

If your serious about macro, get the dedicate lens, in the long run you'll be happy you got the best lenses first time around.

[gasrocks]

Tight budget, do not want to sacrifice quality - strange mix of terms. Get a used Tamron 90 macro lens from KEH or eBay.

[strobe monkey]

I am also new here, and I also ordered the Canon 100 Macro (waiting for stock).
From what I've read, nothing can beat a real Macro lens.

People might also say you can consider the Tamon 90mm macro or Sigma 105mm Macro.

I used to own the Tamron which a lot of people praise, but I hated it at times when it hunts and drives my subjects away becuse of the extending front element. I managed to break it a few months ago so i wanted the Canon 100mm because the barrel does not extend and its USM too.

[gasrocks]

Strobe monkey - hope you were not using AF while doing macro (re: your "hunts" comment.)

[strobe monkey]

@gasrocks
Sometimes you just want to point and shoot when you're shooting quick insects bees. thats why I use AF at times.
But with snails, I use manual..

[Molnies]

Almost all macro photographers use manual focus, no matter if it's a snail or a fly. You just have more control that way and it's actually easier (no more hunting etc)

[MikeMcL]

I use my 100-400L and a set of tubes for macros. It works wonderfully for the most part. I use autofocus, and the pumping motion to frame and focus my object. The working distance is also variable and very convenient.

I only shoot macros for fun once in a while, and it suits me fine.

The Sigma 105mm macro and 150mm macro are both awesome lenses, as well as the canon 100mm.

The sigma 60mm is a good, budget macro at 1:1 ratio, and can be purchased very inexpensively.. though quality is good.

[DarrinMB]

Go with the Canon 100mm macro and you will not be disappointed.

[benee]

Go with the Canon 100mm macro and you will not be disappointed.

I love the Canon 100 - its more expensive than the sigma or tamron equivalents. But, its also a bit more versatile with the USM, easier to use for portraits and other times you need a medium telephoto.

[Layston]

From someone who went through this not that long ago let me reiterate what others have said. Get a real macro lens.

I bought the macro filters and hated them. These screw onto the front of the lens. I had used them in early P&S digital cams but apparently the resolution of those cams didn't show the flaws of the filters.

Macro tubes are great and don't include optics so you have not image degradation but finding the right combo to get the desired magnification can be annoying.

Here's what I suggest:
1. Figure out what you want to shoot. If it's small insects you may need a macro lens AND extension tubes. If it's objects the size of a quarter you can probably get away with a plain macro lens.
2. Figure out your working distance from target. If it's bugs you may want a longer lens like a Sigma 150 or Canon 180 to get far enough back that you don't "spook" the bugs. If it's still objects 100mm should be fine.
3. Figure out your budget. If you are only willing to spend $300 you have a very limited set to choose from (Sigma 50mm f/2.8 macro for instance). If you have $400 you can buy some pretty good glass.
4. Figure out if you are okay with used lenses. This could save you a LOT.

I ended up purchasing a used Tokina 100mm macro. It's their older model that you almost can't find any information on. It's dog slow in autofocus and hunts like a bugger, but we are talking about MACRO so who cares? It does the job for me and I got it for around $200 if memory serves.

Check Fredmiranda.com and of course the Sell forum here and be patient. Eventually somebody will want to give one up :)

[SaSi]

I have bought my close up lenses, and bought my extension tubes.

In the end I bought a 100/2.8 macro and it changed the way I viewed macro. If you love macro, you will love a dedicated macro lens.

If the 100/2.8 seems too much, try an EF-S 60/2.8 or a Sigma 70/2.8 dedicated macro lenses. Both these alternatives are excellent lenses and the difference with the longer focal length 100/2.8 is they need to focus closer to get to 1:1 reproduction.

An additional difference, where the 100/2.8 will leave you happy is the fact that the front element of the lens does NOT rotate. If you ever decide on a dedicated macro ring flash, the non-rotating front element is a blessing.

Don't get fooled by the claims of point and shoot cameras that advertise macro as focus ability to 1cm. This is not macro, it's inflexible.

A true macro lens will be able to produce 1:1 size on the sensor from adequate distances, the more the better.

The best thing would be a 300mm/2.8 macro lens with a min. focus distance of 1.5 meter. I wish...

And as you are on a tight budget, buy once.

[RPCrowe]

Tight budget, do not want to sacrifice quality - strange mix of terms. Get a used Tamron 90 macro lens from KEH or eBay.

If you get the 90mm f/2.8 Tamron SP AF Macro lens (which is the one before the presently issued alphabet soup 90mm f/2.8 Tamron Macro AF SP Di) you will have a super macro lens which is also great for head and shoulders portraits because of its wonderful bokeh.

I got mine for less that $125 shipped in minty condition from an eBay seller. With some careful shopping and patience, you should get one from $125-$200.

By the way, the extra Di designation is "supposed to mean" that it is optimized for digital. My non-Di model gives me "L" quality IQ on my 30D.

The flash bracket is a Siegelite which is often available on eBay for under $25 and usually less.

[nadtz]

I love the Canon 100 - its more expensive than the sigma or tamron equivalents. But, its also a bit more versatile with the USM, easier to use for portraits and other times you need a medium telephoto.

How is it easier to use "for portraits and other times you need a medium telephoto."? The focal lengths are similar, the Tamron focuses quickly and accurately with the focus limiter on when you aren't using macro, and though its not USM it does focus quietly. After using both the Tamron and the Canon I couldnt see spending more on the canongiven the prices, features and output (for my use of course, ymmv).

[Don Powell]

If you are on a limited budget, read carefully RPCrowe's post. I use the same Tamron SP AF macro f2.8 lens ( the privious lens before the DI one ) and I also get great results with it.

I have also used it for portraits, and because the front element is so recessed, it is very resistant to flare problems when shooting toward the sun or using edge lighting in studio type lighting.

It would be worth it for you to search for it at KEH, ebay, or whatever. It will cost much less than other macro lenses, and give the same great IQ. I can't imagine that the Tamron DI model is better IQ. How do you improve on GREAT?

[Don Powell]

Bonito, I may need to apologize. I made it sound like you could just go out and buy the used Tamron lens. I just did a cursory search and I could not find one. All the ones that I found were the DI model for a lot more money. Sorry, but you might find one, if you are patient.

[Canon Soldier]

Almost all macro photographers use manual focus, no matter if it's a snail or a fly. You just have more control that way and it's actually easier (no more hunting etc)

seems like it would be harder to me at least. With manual u aren't guaranteed perfect focus unless you spend a lot of time on it and your subject is still. AF is usually accurate for me, not that i do macro though..

[tonylong]

seems like it would be harder to me at least. With manual u aren't guaranteed perfect focus unless you spend a lot of time on it and your subject is still. AF is usually accurate for me, not that i do macro though..

When shooting at macro distances, AF is not very reliable.

The Live View feature is a real plus for macro shooting -- being able to zoom in to 10x and adjust focusing is nice. But, out DSLRs need to keep up with the technology and give us LCDs that will twist and turn!

[versedmb]

I had the Sigma 17-70 and although it won't do true 1:1 macro, it gave me decent results.
But it you plan to do real macro, get a macro lens. I shoot mostly flowers, so the Canon 60 macro works for me, but if you plan on shooting bugs, I would get at least a 100mm lens - you'll need the working distance.



Here's one from the Sigma 17-70....
http://brownphotography.smugmug.com/photos/271548898_nReBh-L.jpg

[Bonito]

Thanks everyone! I originally wanted the Canon 100, and I think I will stick with it!