Decent macro lense

[Wrench]

i'm looking for a decent macro for close ups. Flowers, bugs, models, etc.. Can you guys reccomend a decent lense for this? Should I go with a fixed length like a 100mm or a zoom? I tried the Canon 100mm at Ritz today and liked it a lot but I don't want to be tied down to a fixed length. Will something like a 28-135 sacrifice too much quality to be worth while?Unfortunately most of the local stores shelves are mostly empty from the holidays so I can't try too much stuff out. I was looking at this sigma on B&H.

http://www.bhphotovideo.com/bnh/controller/home?O=productlist&A=details&Q=&sku=200345&is=REG

Or this I found on ebay

http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=3864269234&fromMakeTrack=true

[Citizensmith]

One thing you need to watch out for with a lot of the consumer zooms that offer macro is it isn't really macro. The term gets used as a marketing phrase when it just means the lens focuses closer than average, and they don't offer anything like the enlargement potential of a decent macro. The best macro lenses out there are the Canon 100 f/2.8, 50 f/2.5 and Tamron 90 f/2.8.

Its hard to say whether ot not you'd find the 100 limiting. Depends on what else is in your bag. If its your only lens its very limiting. If you are sitting it next to a standard zoom of some kind it'll be a great lens for macro or portrait work.

[Wrench]

well right now i've got a 28/80, 28/210, 18/55, 50 1.8. I'm looking for a longer lense for motorsports and nature photography ( 100-300 or 200-400 ) and also a lense for close up shots like bugs and my fish. What should I look for in a "True Macro" and not something marketed as a macro? Thx.

[tim]

I have the Canon 100mm F2.8 Macro, it's a great lens. If you want things bigger or smaller, you just get closer or further away.

Like Citizensmith said, lots of lenses have "macro" written on them, but very few do a good job. My Tamron 28-75 and Sigma 70-300 both have macro in their names, but neither do a good job.

Look for a 1:1 ratio, and you'll almost certianly have to get a fixed length lens.

[donlavange]

Go with the Canon 100 F2.8. It is a great lens and is more usable for both macro and general photography than you might think.

[Scottes]

The Tamron 90mm Macro and the Signma 105mm Macro are both very nice, and a little cheaper than the Canon. If you can swing the extra few bucks get the Canon, but either of the others will do extremely well.

[Wrench]

What's the average price for each of them? The Canon was $450 at a local shop today, they didn't have the Tamron or Sigma. I think I found them for around 3-350 on ebay. What's a good price? Thx.

[tim]

Look at http://bhphotovideo.com

[edsarkiss]

another vote for the tamron 90/2.8 or the canon 100/2.8 macros. these are both excellent lenses, and allow you to get true 1:1 macro. the sigma is noticably less sharp than the canon or tamron so i don't recommend it. the tamron actually tests sharper than the canon in the comparisons i've seen.

the canon does have USM focusing and better build quality at a higher price (about 15-20% more). a toss-up if you ask me. i've owned the tamron for 5 years or so and love it.

[C.S.I.]

I have the Sigma 105 EX DG.......great lens, great glass..... make sure that your ready for the Macro plunge.......it gets costly.....I myself was intrigued with bugs, flowers, etc....I still am....but macro work takes alot of time, and patients....Like I said, I love the 105, but Im buynig Kenko tubes right now as I speak to get a lil closer :( Good luck!

Regards,
Bill

[c0ntr0lz]

wrench, a friend bought me the sigma 28-80 Macro lens and i really like. it's great for macros.
here:
http://ctrlzproduction.com/images/brendas%5Fapt/
those are some that my girlfriend and i took of her place with the Sigma.
the pix are unedited too.
need to go lighten up a few of them

[tim]

Real macro lenses will let you get closer... this is a crop of a shot of a bug who's body was about an inch long, done with the 100mm Macro. It's not quite straight out of the camera, but I only spent about 2 minutes on it.

[tim]

Oh here's a couple more (http://www.mrwild.co.nz/ExperimentalGallery/Macro/TinyBugOnPaua/index.html). They're bugs on a paua shell, the bugs themselves were somewhere between 0.3mm and 0.5mm long.

[Alan Neilson]

If you want to get close you do need to get a marco lens I have the Tamaron, it is a nice lens, slightly noisey campared to my canon zoom, but still ok. I was looking at the Tamron, Sigma and Canon. The two main reasons I went with the Tamron was the writ-ups I had seen and that I could still use my ring flash that I had from my old manual system. as it had the right filter thread size. The others had larger filter sizes and I would not have been able to the flash.

All three lens are good and will give you 1:1 ratio life size, with the other two being slightly longer lenes you can be slightly futher away to still frame the same size, which might be use full if you are shoting bugs and so forth as live things might get a bit nervous with a lens only cm away from them.

As been said it does take a lot of practice and time, and if you get into it you will maybe want more gear, I also have extention tubes and I have also just got a macro postioning plate for use on my tripod when doing close ups of still lifes so that i can get the tripod roughly were i want it then just make fine ajustments, the plate i have gives 120mm of movement. Also being on a tipod it allows me to stop down to make the most out of the linited amount of depth of field you get when focusing close. Which ever lens you go for it will open up a new world to you, and also give you a nice portairt lens as well.

[Wrench]

Thanks for all of your help. I'm going to try to find a Canon 100 pop up on ebay. You've all been a huge help!

[Wrench]

any one with the canon 35-105? Is this one of those lenses that I was warned about where the term "macro" is used just to sell lenses or is this a true macro?

[blackviolet]

i just got back from japan and asean - and i picked up some kenko extension tubes!!!! much better than when i was using reversed lenses.

i also had a chance to play with the canon mp-e 65 (http://www.bhphotovideo.com/bnh/controller/home?O=productlist&A=details&Q=&sku=183199&is=USA)

it's manual focus, but the results were incredible.
you can see some samples on pbase (http://www.pbase.com/cameras/canon/mp_e65_28_macro)

[tim]

i just got back from japan and asean - and i picked up some kenko extension tubes!!!! much better than when i was using reversed lenses.

i also had a chance to play with the canon mp-e 65 (http://www.bhphotovideo.com/bnh/controller/home?O=productlist&A=details&Q=&sku=183199&is=USA)

it's manual focus, but the results were incredible.
you can see some samples on pbase (http://www.pbase.com/cameras/canon/mp_e65_28_macro)

Wow! What great photos!

[leo11877]

I have the Canon 100mm F2.8 Macro, it's a great lens. If you want things bigger or smaller, you just get closer or further away.

Like Citizensmith said, lots of lenses have "macro" written on them, but very few do a good job. My Tamron 28-75 and Sigma 70-300 both have macro in their names, but neither do a good job.

Look for a 1:1 ratio, and you'll almost certianly have to get a fixed length lens.What if we stick a Closeup lens like 500D or +4+2+1 lenses on top of the Sigma 70-300mm lens. Would it be as good (big) as the Canon 100mm F2.8?

Thanks
Leo.

[tim]

What if we stick a Closeup lens like 500D or +4+2+1 lenses on top of the Sigma 70-300mm lens. Would it be as good (big) as the Canon 100mm F2.8?

I don't know for sure, but I doubt it. The 100 Macro is an incredibly sharp lens, going thru all that lower quality glass couldn't help the image.

[ScottE]

I don't believe any of the zoom lenses are as sharp as a Canon 100mm, Sigma 105mm or Tamron 90mm macro lenses. If your only interest is macro, any one of those lenses would be good choices. I find that 50 mm macro lenses do not give enough working distance between the lens and the subject for most of my purposes. Sigma has a 150mm macro and Canon, Sigma and Tamron all have 180mm macro lenses. These give more working distance, but are more expensive and more bulky in the camera case.

For casual photography I often carry a Canon 28-135 IS lens and a set of Kenko extension tubes. This will allow very close-up shots, but are not quite as sharp as a true macro lenses.

I don't believe any of the affordable lenses called "macro" by their manufacturers focus any where near close enough to be used for macro photography without adding either extension tubes or a diopter lens.

[Jon]

If you stack enough lenses in front of the 70-300, you'll be able to get to 1:1 reproduction ratio. But the quality will be nowhere near as good as you'll get from a regular macro lens, and the focussing range with any particular close-up lens combination will be very limited. Zooming in combination with the close-up lens will help deal with this range problem though. At the 300 mm. end of that lens, you'd need about +3 diopters to get 1:1; at 70 mm, it's more like +14 diopters.