Which lens would you choose?

[lrbroussard]

I have a Canon 50D,
I want to take macro photography and am interested in a dedicated macro lens.
I want to take close ups of flowers, insects, small action figure toys, abstract ideas, etc, etc.

Would you recommend the :

EF 100mm f/2.8 USM macro lens
or the
Ef 50mm f/2.5 macro lens?

I presently have the 28-135mm IS Canon lens.

Thanks,
Laura

[tripsis]

I'd like to quote a review from Amazon.com, which I think would apply to you nicely:

I bought this lens around three months ago for use with my Rebel XTI/400D. It has produced some nice shots and has great clarity and bokeh for portraits and the like. However, in this area it is really only as good as the "nifty fifty" 50mm f/1.8, which you can get on here for about $90.

For me, I like to take shots of insects and other animals that tend to be skittish. For that type of work, this lens is loud and finds it tough to focus quickly, so you need to work in manual mode. By the time you get the shot, the subject has moved out of the position you were after. Also, you don't get true 1:1 macro, so the details are not as good as if you fork out the extra for the 60mm Canon f2.8 Macro USM, which has the ultra quiet focus.

A recent review I read in a prestigious magazine put this lens a distant second to the Sigma Macro 50mm f2.8 EX DG, which costs about the same as this one and offers true 1:1 macro. If I could go back and buy that one I would.
So definitely the 100 f/2.8 macro lens. You say you are interested in "a dedicated macro lens," so the 100mm is better for you by far. From what I've HEARD/read, the 50mm doesn't have quite as good IQ as the 100mm and it cannot even reach true 1:1 macro, which is essentially what macro photography is all about ;)

Furthermore, if you plan on shooting insects (which you say you are), I think you would appreciate the extra focal length on the 100mm.

So if you have the extra $200 or so to spend on the 100mm, then why not get it? If you don't, chances are you will wish that you did later on.

[NinetyEight]

Of course there is another Canon option - The 60mm EF-S.
There are also offerings from Sigma and Tamron (& Tokina??).

Personally I have the 100mm f/2.8.

[troypiggo]

Of the 2 you mentioned, the 100mm hands down. True 1:1 macro lens, much better working distance - better for insects because you're further away and less likely to scare them.

In general, macro lenses in the 100mm ballpark give a good trade-off of working distance and cost. Canon 100mm, Sigma 105mm, Tamron 90mm - all great.

[lrbroussard]

This is really helpful, thanks, and keep the info/opinions coming....
Although, from what I've seen on here, the 100mm is the way to go....
And...I go to Precision Camera and Video tomorrow to toy with it !!!

I also (keep in mind) want to take shots of inanimate objects as well.... like action toy figures and flowers.
Does the 100mm still apply?

[tonybear007]

Easily the longer lens: EF 100mm f/2.8 USM macro lens

--------------------------------------------------------------------------
EOS 3 (35mm film), EOS 40D, Canon 24-70mm f/2.8L, 70-200 f/4L, TAMRON SP AF17-50mm f/2.8
How to Avoid Common Mistakes with Your EOS 40D (http://mycanoneos40d.com)

[tripsis]

I also (keep in mind) want to take shots of inanimate objects as well.... like action toy figures and flowers.
Does the 100mm still apply?
Of course :) It also doubles as a great portrait lens, so it doesn't have to solely be used for macro photography (although that's where it shines, of course ;))

[troypiggo]

I also (keep in mind) want to take shots of inanimate objects as well.... like action toy figures and flowers.
Does the 100mm still apply?

Depends how big the toys are, and how much room you have to shoot. Keep in mind it's a fixed focal length. So to frame the shot you'll need to back up if the subject is larger. I can't answer that one. You might need to test and get a feel for what focal length works using your existing zoom lens. Heck, it might even work well enough for that sort of thing - larger toys etc typically aren't true macro and don't require a macro lens.

[lrbroussard]

Please take a look at a group endeavor of myself and 2 other friends of mine.
It's on Flickr.
We created it to express and explore our creative visions.
My photos are always Title " .....Laura"
This may give you a feel of what I'm after.....I want to take it to the next level !!!

http://flickr.com/photos/throughtheeye/

Our group is called "Through the Eye DLK" .... that's for Devin, Laura (me), and Kristin.

Thanks,
Laura

[brecklundin]

I just LOVE your fun shots of Godzilla swashing things!! neat... :D
from looking at your Flickr page...and comparing with samples in the Lens Archive thread for the 60mm macro...I would think the 60mm would be the way to go over the 50mm macro. One reason is it has AF whereas the 50mm macro doesn't. So carrying it around for portrait and city street type stuff would be a lot easier and spur of the moment.

One thing though is macro's are not blindingly fast in terms of AF. Still they aren't too slow for more static scenes. I wouldn't wanna try one for sports though, well not all the time anyway.

If you do grab one, I would suggest buying from a trusted solid seller on eBay after searching on Live.com then clicking on the eBay link so you can get the 30% cashback, which in some cases now is instant vs. the 60-days many of us have had to wait. This way if you eventually move to a FF body you can sell the EF-S 60 to fund the 100mm and still come out w/o a loss.

An argument could be made that the Sigma 150mm macro is the sharpest tool in the drawer in that class of true macro lenses. I also gives you some range but the trade off is to get the subject to fill the frame you will need to back away so ya need a bigger room to work in...

I found there are just so many variable to consider, I just pulled the trigger on the best lens at the best price I could find simply because there really is no bad choice.

I also use this resource to help evaluate lens decisions:

http://www.slrgear.com/reviews/showcat.php/cat/10

Of course if you REALLY wanna get into macro by jumping in feet first...the MP-E 65mm is the ONLY way to go...just ask LordV and the rest of the 'pros'...that lens is, well, almost orgasmic! No, not almost...it IS...but, I think it might not go down below 1:1 like the other lenses do...it's just a pure dedicated macro.

[macro junkie]

go with canon 60mm macro lens. ;) i have used 60mm and 105mm.i prefer using my 60mm any day.

[brecklundin]

macro junkie:

I did some reading and discovered the Sigma 70mm macro. Never knew it even existed. The reviews are not too conclusive, most of the cons seem to be in terms of a noisy and SLOW AF. Have you had any experience...

I only ask because it might be an option for the OP also. Well, that and I have come to know I could use something in that 60mm range for product shots. :-?

[macro junkie]

60mm is best for me..i didnt like the extra working distance that come with the sigma 105mm..also the canon one has inner focusing,the sigma one doesn't.

[lrbroussard]

Another question... would investing in an expansion tube go hand in hand with purchasing the 100mm?
I noticed some talk about that, and I hadn't even considered it 'till now.

if so..... any certain type of tube in mind I should ask about?

Thanks for all that have responded to my original question....** I also was wondering if anyone else maybe has a photostream on Flickr they could recommend where a 100mm Canon lens is primarily used?**

Thanks,
.......... Laura
http://flickr.com/photos/throughtheeye/

[John_B]

lrbroussard,
Another vote for the Canon 100mm f/2.8 lens ;)
Its also the hands down winner for being the most used, seen here -=TOP TEN=- Which macro lens do you use? (http://photography-on-the.net/forum/showthread.php?t=160960)

For extension tubes I recommend the Kenko set, it has 3 tubes which combined give 68mm of extension. With 68mm extension with the Canon 100mm f/2.8 lens you can get 2:1 macro 2 times life size (for almost the same cost as 1 Canon extension tube). Which can be seen here Macro Variations (http://photography-on-the.net/forum/showthread.php?t=578274)

However if you venture to using extension tubes with the macro lens, I strongly suggest you at least get an extension cord and external flash. As lighting the subject becomes more difficult with more magnification.

[lcpete]

Of the 2 you mentioned, the 100mm hands down. True 1:1 macro lens, much better working distance - better for insects because you're further away and less likely to scare them.

In general, macro lenses in the 100mm ballpark give a good trade-off of working distance and cost. Canon 100mm, Sigma 105mm, Tamron 90mm - all great.
completely agree 100mm is perfect for allround macrowork :D

[alduin]

Definitely the 100mm. The farther away from your subject you can be, especially around potentially skittish subjects like insects, the better.

[lrbroussard]

However if you venture to using extension tubes with the macro lens, I strongly suggest you at least get an extension cord and external flash. As lighting the subject becomes more difficult with more magnification.

So, would a Canon Speedlite 220EX (I own one of those) be enough of an external flash to use w/extension tubes?

Thanks,
Laura

[John_B]

lrbroussard,
If your flash works with your camera now, then it will work fine for macro (even an $18 Kodak flash can work well ;) ), just get an extension cord (Canon calls it the "Off-Camera Shoe Cord (http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/498744-REG/Canon_1950B001_OC_E3_Off_Camera_Shoe.html)") for it and you can move the flash closer to the subject. The extension cord is really more needed because using tubes brings you closer to the subject which makes it harder for light from flash to reach subject.

When using the 100mm without extension tubes, the flash should work well mounted in the hot shoe but an extension cord gives more light options :)

[lrbroussard]

Thanks John_B !!!!

[Ook]

Another vote for the 100mm. It's an incredible lens.

If you haven't done much macro before, you'll probably want to get the hang of using it bare before you start with tubes. Like has been mentioned, you have to work on lighting and being able to deal with the narrow DOF you'll be getting at f/11. There's a lot of physical technique involved.

[lrbroussard]

Thank you, Ook,
you are right, being that I'm new to this whole world of macro... I should spend the priority of my time getting used to my new 50D and the 100mm lens first, before dabbling with extension tubes, etc.

It all began with a Rebel 2000, 10 yrs or so ago (all film, you know),
and now, I am so enamored with the capabilities of my EOS 50D, that a 100mm lens should give me plenty to work with and explore, before getting into extension tubes, etc.
Take a look at my collaborative efforts with my Flickr group (myself, and 2 of my friends) "Through the Eye".
My shots are titles ending with "....... Laura".

Opinions on your views will be soooo very welcomed and informative!!
Thanks,
Laura
http://flickr.com/photos/throughtheeye/

[winkles]

Another vote for the 100mm. The extr working distance is just too useful.