Macro Lens

[digitalfilm]

Looking for a macro lens that will also double as an occasional standard lens.

Does anybody have any views on the Canon f2.5 50mm macro lens?

[PacAce]

The only thing about the 50 f/2.5 macro is that with a magnification of 1:2, it doesn't quite give you a 1:1 magnification, if that's important to you.

[Pyromaniac]

I've had mine for almost a year now and love it. Have done some great macro shots with it and also use it for portraits. The macro magnifacation is only 1:2 but that is fine for me. It functions as a normal lens very well, all the shots I've taken with it are pretty sharp (excluding the occasional user error). I posted some pic's I took with it in another thread http://photography-on-the.net/forum/showthread.php?t=52817

[DaveG]

Looking for a macro lens that will also double as an occasional standard lens.

Does anybody have any views on the Canon f2.5 50mm macro lens?

I had a 55mm Nikkor macro lens for about 20 years and loved it. But I don't think that a 50/55 would be all that useful now. I used the 55 for two dimensional copying; prints, maps, art and so forth. Well a $90 flatbed scanner will do a better job - a LOT better job - than a macro lens and a digital camera for this kind of work. If the object is too big for the flatbed scanner then you really don't need a macro lens do you?

I do need a macro lens, and that is to take pictures of three dimensional objects, almost aways outside. My current macro lens is the Canon 100 f2.8. It's the non USM version and I got got it for a relatively small amount of money. It's primary advantage over a 50mm macro is that it allows a greater space between me and the subject/object. With that greater separation I have room to use reflectors to help light the scene, and to keep me and my shadow out of it!

Interestingly enough the Canon 100mm macro will do 1:1 without an extension tube and the 50 will not. If you need to use 1:1 with the 50 you have two choices. You can use a conventional extention tube which shouldn't cost all that much, but you'll lose your infinity focus while that extension tube is mounted. And that can be a pain in the butt. Or you can use the special Canon extension tube that gives you 1:1 and won't cost you infinity focus. Of course this device has glass elements in it and is fairly expensive. In fact if you buy the 50 macro AND the fancy extension tube you are at the 100 macro's price point, but without the focal length!

In any case I'd be more inclined to buy a 50 for speed (f1.4) and to buy a macro with a longer focal length. And that's what I did.

[Olegis]

I bought the Canon 100mm f/2.8 Macro (the USM version) and never looked back - the lens is very sharp and contrasty, the AF is fast and quiet and the build quality is excellent. There are cheaper possibilities - the Sigma 105mm f/2.8 Macro or the excellent Tamron 90mm f/2.8 Macro, you can find them both for about $100 cheaper than Canon 100mm. The Tamron is a little bit shorter (90mm vs. 100mm), but it offers some amazing optical performance, may be even better than the Canon's.

[jylitalo]

Looking for a macro lens that will also double as an occasional standard lens.

Does anybody have any views on the Canon f2.5 50mm macro lens?
100/2.8 is definately most popular choice on this forum for macro lens, but I personally went for 50/2.5, because I use it for taking pictures about plants and other small static objects, where I can go very close to target without scaring target. If you plan to shoot insects, butterflies, etc., 50mm might not be right choice for you.
One thing that you probably have to take under consideration is what is sensor size in your camera. In full frame camera, I might have been wondering whether or not 1:2 is enough for me, but on 20D its good enough.
Price, weight and physical size differences between 100mm and 50mm macros were advantages for 50mm macro (two last ones come into game, when you calculate how much stuff you can carry on hiking trip).
In my gear collection 50/2.5 replaced 50/1.8. I might someday get 50/1.4 to go along with 50/2.5, but there are lot of other lenses before that in my 'would be nice to have' list, i.e. 35/2, 85/1.8, ... :)
Time will so, which ones will get moved from 'nice to have' list into 'must have'.

P.S. How do you people support your macro lens on hiking trips? I don't like idea of carrying 3kg tripod+head combination with me on those trips, when you have to carry food, stove, tent, sleeping bag, etc. with you and where you wonder what items should/could be left home on next trip and which items could be replaced with lighter items.

[tim]

I love my Canon 100mm USM macro, it's a great lens. If I had to choose between the 50mm and the 180mm, i'd definitely go longer not shorter. I'm going to look for extension tubes or magnifying filters some time soon too.

[DaveG]

100/2.8 is definately most popular choice on this forum for macro lens, but I personally went for 50/2.5, because I use it for taking pictures about plants and other small static objects, where I can go very close to target without scaring target. If you plan to shoot insects, butterflies, etc., 50mm might not be right choice for you.
One thing that you probably have to take under consideration is what is sensor size in your camera. In full frame camera, I might have been wondering whether or not 1:2 is enough for me, but on 20D its good enough.
Price, weight and physical size differences between 100mm and 50mm macros were advantages for 50mm macro (two last ones come into game, when you calculate how much stuff you can carry on hiking trip).
In my gear collection 50/2.5 replaced 50/1.8. I might someday get 50/1.4 to go along with 50/2.5, but there are lot of other lenses before that in my 'would be nice to have' list, i.e. 35/2, 85/1.8, ... :)
Time will so, which ones will get moved from 'nice to have' list into 'must have'.

P.S. How do you people support your macro lens on hiking trips? I don't like idea of carrying 3kg tripod+head combination with me on those trips, when you have to carry food, stove, tent, sleeping bag, etc. with you and where you wonder what items should/could be left home on next trip and which items could be replaced with lighter items.

I guess it comes down to personal preference with the focal length of a macro lens, as to any bit of gear I suppose. But a tripod ALWAYS goes with me when I'm doing this kind of shooting.

I know what it's like to hump a heavy tripod into the woods, and to me it's a price I must pay. The images MUST be sharp or they have no use at all. They become the shot that got a way as a little softness ruins the whole image.

I don't want to get into the "I can hand hold my camera down to X shutterspeeds and I have 16x20's to prove it ..." garbage. Hey it might be true at 1/30 of a second, but what if you want to use 1/4?

A tripod frees me of high ISO's and wide open lenses. It lets me be comtemplative and allows very subtle changes in focus while maintaining the exact same composition. I want to be able to carefully focus on the subject and make sure that the limited depth of field focus is exactly where I want it, and I can't do this hand held. I also get to use as low an ISO and small aperture as I want - or as the wind conditions allow.

As I've written before when I don't use tripod there's a little voice in my head that says, "You don't care about this, do you?" And I hate that little voice. I'd leave all the camera gear home before I set off without a tripod, since the work wouldn't nearly good enough to reach professional standards, at least mine.

At a certain point you are either doing this stuff for money and then it has to be the best it can be. With pro work don't tell me about the pain, just show me the pictures. Or it's for fun. And if it's for fun and you''ve spent all this money on gear, it strikes me that "It's good enough." is something unacceptable. Why bother to have good gear without the follow though? So figure out a way to bring a tripod.

[tim]

I tend to take a lot of macro pictures of insects, some of them move quickly and often. Do people use tripods for shots like that? It seems to me it'd be very difficult to keep up with an insect if you're using a tripod - especially my rather cheap tripod.

[Wrench]

When I asked this question a month or so ago, I was suggested the Canon 100mm 2.8 and the Tamron 90mm. I have since shot with both, and I would go with the Canon 100mm. The autofocus us smooth, quiet and fast and the color and clarity is phenomenal for a lense in this price range. I took a bunch of motorsports shots with a 1.4x TC and a tripod and are the best shots I've taken. My local camera shop has it in stock for $440, and I've come across a few on ebay but not good enough deals yet to warrant taking the risk of buying a used lense sight unseen.

[Adam Hicks]

While the 100 2.8 Macro is the hands on favorite, the lens reviews for the 50mm 2.5 Macro show it as being a fair amount sharper than the 50mm 1.4 that everyone loves so much... so I'm not gonna knock it!

http://www.photozone.de/2Equipment/easytxt.htm#F50

[Jon]

The main issue with the 50 as opposed to the 100 (within the 1:2 - infinity range) is the reduced working distance of the 50 for any given magnification. If you're shooting something that can't run away, the 50 may well do the job, but for skittish subjects, every little bit of working distance helps. (It also makes it easier to keep from bringing along your own shadow across the subject!)

[mdr]

Have you thought of a monopod. Quite a bit more stability than handheld, but very mobile. I have a viewfinder trekking pole, i.e. like a Leki walking stick, but with a monopod head on the top. It's pretty sturdy and only costs me £24 which is about $45.

[jylitalo]

Have you thought of a monopod. Quite a bit more stability than handheld, but very mobile. I have a viewfinder trekking pole, i.e. like a Leki walking stick, but with a monopod head on the top. It's pretty sturdy and only costs me £24 which is about $45.
I have Komperdell Guide, which in similar fashion as Leki's walking sticks, has camera screw hidden below its top. During my last 7 day hiking trip, I noticed that stick always ended upto my left hand (even if I had started with stick on right hand) and after the hike, I could feel it on my feet as well, where one foot had taken more load than another. As a result, I wanted to get more balanced solution and went for poles.

One solution, which could have been used to avoid my current problem would have been to buy identical copy of my current stick, but sticks design usually assumes that you only have one stick in use. This makes minor difference to sticks weights (poles are lighter than pair of one-hand sticks) and bigger difference in the way how handels has been shaped, since poles are taking advantages about all the knowledge that has been learned from crosscountry skiing in last couple decades.

Since I now have poles and stick, one interesting solution would be to attach small head to stick and tieing them (=poles and stick) all up and using that as some sort of tripod without center column.

Another solution that I've been thinking, would be to carry take stick along as monopod and use it as backup in case one of the poles break down (or as an alternative, buy real monopod, which could take more weight but would be heavier as well).

Third choice would be to go with beanbag, i.e. http://www.thepod.ca/
Beanbags downside would that its slow to setup, no chance to shoot potraits, no quick release mechanism. However, once you get it setup, I would expect it to be more stable than what you can do with monopod. Also if one wants to push his/her luck, one can take the filling out and hope that there will be sand or someother filling for it by the next time its needed for taking pictures. With fillings, beanbag weights more or less same as stick.

All solutions seems to have their limitations, so I probably just have to make my mind between those choices and accept their limitations.