? about a macro lens

[Jacque1263]

I am fascinated with macro photography and would like to try my hand at it, but don't want to go into debt doing it. What lens would you suggest for a beginner? I was thinking of the canon 100mm macro, but wondered about the clarity of the independent lens manufacturers and if there was one by sigma or tamron that might be better. I have a 300d camera.
TIA
Jacque

[SDK^]

A cheap alternative would be a Canon 50mm F1.8 and (Kenco) extension tubes.

[wolf]

The Sigma 105 macro comes close to the Canon 100 macro in image quality. It is built like a tank and has a little slower AF and is $100 cheaper than the Canon.

[steven]

Depending on what lenses you currently have you could also look into getting some extension tubes.
They are a cheep way to try macro without having to buy new lens.

[ron chappel]

You're in luck Jacque ,macro is one of those things that can be done very well on an absolute shoestring budget if one is inclined!

Note that most of the following options can be used mixed together if you want.
In aproximate order from cheapest to dearest ,the options are:

a) Using a cheap old manual focus lens reversed (you buy a cheap little adapter ring for this).This gives a great high quality close up ability but magnification is not very adjustable

b) Using a zoom lens the same way.This way you can get variable magnification.

Modern EOS lenses are actually difficult to use for these first two options because they make aperture selection difficult or imposible.
However if you want to put up with the annoyances,the 18-55 kit lens makes an awsome high magnification macro lens when reversed! The magnification is very strong though-maybe more than most would want.A normal 28-80 or similar zoom would be most usefull

c)Using a 50mm (?) lens reversed on the front of another lens.I havent had much experience with this at all.I think it gives strong magnification?

d) Extension tubes. These simply hold your lens further from the camera so that it can focus so much closer. Image quality is good but they naturally lose some light

e) Magnifying add on lenses.Also known as diopters,these simply screw onto the front of your lens.They don't lose light like extension tubes but can be an optical compromise.The cheapest are not good but anything from the mid priced ones upwards are very good to excellent

f) True macro lenses.
The cheapest option is the pheonix/samyang/vivitar 100/3.5 i think.It's pretty good
The 'bad' point is that the better macro lenses have trully awsome image quality-even when used for normal subjects.Do you want a good macro lens that is also ok for normal stuff ..or do you want a *stunningly* sharp all round lens? Such is the temptation of having to choose a macro lens :):)
There are several 50mm macro lenses.The canon only gives 1:2 magnification i think.
The sigma 50mm macro gives 1:1 mag (i think..?) and is very highly regarded
Sigma's 105/2.8 EX macro is next.It is NOT as sharp as the canon as i can personally testify to,but it is a very good lens overall.
Tamron's 90 mm macro is said by some to be as good as the canon.It is expensive in the USA but less so elsewhere so that could be a factor for you
At the top of the tree there is the canon 100/2.8 macro.A stunner of a lens.Nuff said :)

[kb244]

I think the sigma 105 is a bit more than 100$ cheaper than the canon 100mm macro. The Sigma 105 when I got it was bout 370$ , the Sigma 50mm Macro is about 230$ or so, both of them 1:1 lifesize macro capable.

[wolf]

You're right the Canon 100 macro at B&H is $469.95, the Sigma 105 macro at B&H is $369.00 A difference of $100.95 http://photography-on-the.net/forum/images/icons/icon12.gif

[Olegis]

I'm happy with my Canon 100mm f/2.8 Macro lens. I decided to buy it over the other (Sigma 105mm and Tamron 90mm) mainly because of the possible future compatibility issues and the USM - this lens is very fun to use as a regular (not macro) lens. You can see some latest macro samples from it here (http://photography-on-the.net/forum/showthread.php?t=59936) and here (http://photography-on-the.net/forum/showthread.php?t=59844). Non-macro samples can be found here (http://www.pbase.com/olegis/ein_hemed).

Hope it helps.

[pierrot]

The Canon 100mm f/2.8 Macro is really excellent, one generally consider it deserves a L rating.

[Arsonist lolol]

Yeah I'm going with Olegis and Pierrots' opinions. I chose the 100mm f/2.8 as well, mainly because I was scared of compatibility issues and I just love Canon stuff :) It's extremely fast, and it handles some portraits as well hehe.

[Andy_T]

Also take a look at this tutorial (http://www.photo.net/learn/macro/).

Best regards,
Andy

[RichieHatch]

I have the Sigma 105 2.8 and really like it. Very sharp, well built, lovely out of focus quality, metal hood.... 2 things that let it down (but dont bother me that much):

Autofocus is slow (I normally manual focus anyway)
The push/pull auto/manual focus is a bit weird.

Have a look here for samples from it:

http://www.pbase.com/richiehatch/macro

Most if not all where with this lens.

Dont hesitate to buy this lens, but if you have the extra cash go for the Canon, purely for the better autofocus (if that matters)

Richie

[RichieHatch]

Oh yeah...

Have a look here for a review.....

http://www.orchideen-kartierung.de/Macro100E.html

I can say tough that i dont 100% agree with some of the things said in this review

Richie

[nitsch]

I can second Richie's opinion. I have just bought the Sigma 105mm EX in the newer DG flavour... it is awesome. I only got it on Saturday so I'm still just playing about with it but I am very impressed by how sharp it is.

The autofocus is slow but there is a switch to limit the focusing range which makes it more than acceptable, but who uses autofocus for macro anyway?

I have had no compatibility problems with it at all on my 300D and would highly recommend it to everyone!

Go for it!

Nick

[kb244]

You're right the Canon 100 macro at B&H is $469.95, the Sigma 105 macro at B&H is $369.00 A difference of $100.95 http://photography-on-the.net/forum/images/icons/icon12.gif

hrm odd, didnt know the Canon 100 macro was that cheap? Originally I thought you were talking bout the 100mm non-macro which is a lil cheaper than 469$, but when I was purchasing the Sigma 105, the Canon 100mm Macor went for over 600$.

[Jacque1263]

Thank you to everyone that responded - you are the best!! Also, thanks for sharing the photos, they are all fabulous. I am still leaning towards the Canon 100mm macro and have a bonus check coming in 2 weeks and will make my decision then. I am also going to check out the pawn shops and see what I can find since I do live in a metropolitain area.
Jacque

[Windup]

Jacque,

Check out the Sigma 28-80mm Macro
Picked up mine on ebay for $36 and although I don't do alot of Macro work. I like the results.

Here is the lens:
http://www.bhphotovideo.com/bnh/controller/home?O=productlist&A=details&Q=&sku=359641&is=DEMO

Here a couple of my shots with it:
http://silentharmonies.com/CRW_5764b.jpg
http://silentharmonies.com/CRW_5676.jpg

[schmoelzel]

Hello Jacque:

If you get the Canon, you can be assured that you are getting a QUALITY piece of glass. Many here agree that the L designation deserves to be on this lens. Really great build quality, superb colour, contrast, and bokeh. I really like this lens and I haven't even used it that much for macro work!! But it does focus incredibly close to the subject and fairly fast. In low light it does tend to hunt a bit for AF (on my DRebel) but not enough to bother me........here is a recent picture taken with this great lens (a portrait by the way!)

http://theteahaus.netfirms.com/Canon/nfpicturepro/albums/userpics/10001/100F2.8%20Macro-A.jpg

[tim]

Jacque,

Check out the Sigma 28-80mm Macro
Picked up mine on ebay for $36 and although I don't do alot of Macro work. I like the results.

Here is the lens:
http://www.bhphotovideo.com/bnh/controller/home?O=productlist&A=details&Q=&sku=359641&is=DEMO

Here a couple of my shots with it:
http://silentharmonies.com/CRW_5764b.jpg
http://silentharmonies.com/CRW_5676.jpg

That's not a very powerful macro lens, and it might not be a macro lens at all, depending on your definition. It's only 1:2, whereas most macro lenses are 1:1 or better. It has a minimum focusing distance of 9 inches, whereas the Canon 100mm Macro is 6 inches. Those two factors combined, to me, make it much less useful as a macro than a dedicated macro lens. Oh, it seems the best macro lenses are fixed focal length too. It doesn't look like a bad lens though, reviews here (http://www.photographyreview.com/pscLenses/35mm,Zoom/Sigma/PRD_135988_3128crx.aspx).

[Andy_T]

Schmoelzl,

that is a sweet portrait there! Good job!!!

Best regards,
Andy

[Jacque1263]

I have to second that Schmoelzl. What a beautiful shot of the little girl and thanks for your input.
Jacque

[C.S.I.]

I have the Sigma 105, it is nothing short of a pleasure......TACK sharp......its also great for portrait work........

The only thing with macro work, is that 1:1 is not enough..... youll want to get closer ...next youll want extension tubes, macro flash rings, mini tripod.......oh yeah, then youll be reversing your old 50mm FD to the 105.......


Have fun with it :)

[Jacque1263]

It is true that I never do anything half way and I am sure this is going to cost me a bundle, but what fun I will have with it. I cannot wait for my bonus check next week!! thank you everyone for your responses.
Jacque

[Shakespeare]

(you buy a cheap little adapter ring for this).This gives a great high quality close up ability but magnification is not very adjustable

However if you want to put up with the annoyances,the 18-55 kit lens makes an awsome high magnification macro lens when reversed! The magnification is very strong though-maybe more than most would want.A normal 28-80 or similar zoom would be most usefull



Can anyone give me a link to one of these ring adapters? B+H maybe? I'd like to give it a shot on the 18-55.

S

[Phil Hall]

I have the Sigma 105 mm, it works well but is slow to focus. I have the Canon 50 mm f2.0 macro. You might want to consider the Canon 85 mm f1.8 it is very sharp and only costs $340.
Phil Hall
Santa Ynez