Macro Lens Questions - spending more money already.

[DavoMrMac]

OK, such a short time after getting my 20d and I am wanting more.

I would like a good Macro lens, and am torn between three.

Use is mainly for flowers, insects, but I would also like to take some more abstract shots that need great detail.

Anyone have any experiences good or bad with these (maybe not the Canon as it is so new, but if anyone has one already, I would love to hear about it).

The list;
Canon EF-S 60mm F2.8 USM Macro
Sigma AF 105mm f/2.8 EX DG Macro
Tamron SP AF 90mm f/2.8 Di Macro

I am wondering if I need two, say the Canon and the Sigma, to give me two different working distances?
Or down the middle with the Tamron?
Or the Sigma or Tamron due to their digitally influenced design?

Help me :lol:

[jbradc]

What about the Canon 100mm F2.8 Macro? It will give you more working distance than the Canon 60mm and it is not EF-S so if you ever get a camera with a larger sensor you can still use this lens.

[DavoMrMac]

Good point. That should've been in my original selection, I guess I was just looking at the 60mm because it was new (but this does not mean better).

Do you have any experience of the Tamron and Sigma, as I do not want to rule them out, having heard good things especially about the Tamron lenses.

Nothing in it price-wise, just want to make the right decision.

[jbradc]

I have never used the Tamron or Sigma, I did used to own the Canon 100mm 2.8 (when I shot film) In hind sight I wish I had not sold it, but I will replace it one day. Anyway the Canon is great and I have read the Tamron is also very good. I would say you will be pleased with either one however if it were my money I would get the Canon.

[MarkoPolo]

I LOVE my Canon 100mmf2.8 macro. Great lens, works well on smaller sensor type camera. I use mine on a digital rebel and 10D and it works great.

[DaveG]

OK, such a short time after getting my 20d and I am wanting more.

I would like a good Macro lens, and am torn between three.

Use is mainly for flowers, insects, but I would also like to take some more abstract shots that need great detail.

Anyone have any experiences good or bad with these (maybe not the Canon as it is so new, but if anyone has one already, I would love to hear about it).

The list;
Canon EF-S 60mm F2.8 USM Macro
Sigma AF 105mm f/2.8 EX DG Macro
Tamron SP AF 90mm f/2.8 Di Macro

I am wondering if I need two, say the Canon and the Sigma, to give me two different working distances?
Or down the middle with the Tamron?
Or the Sigma or Tamron due to their digitally influenced design?

Help me :lol:



I've got the older non USM 100 mm macro. I was able to pick it up used and for a very good price. For macro the lack of a quick AF is not important to me since I have that focal length covered at the same f2.8 aperture with my 70-200.

This is the macro lens that I'd recommend. It gives you lots of room to work with, doesn't require a extension tube to get to 1:1 reproduction, has a nicer perspective than a shorter lens and is a nice general use lens too.

[nitsch]

Good plan to get a macro lens, I bought one recently and its seriously addictive!! :)

I bought the Sigma 105 EX DG to go on my 300D and I'm over the moon with it. You'll sometimes hear negative remarks about slow/noisy AF for the Sigma, but I always manually focus when doing macro shots so its not been an issue for me. I can't fault the image quality, its a fantastic lens and I can highly recommend it.

[DavoMrMac]

Thanks everyone for your comments.

[GyRob]

I fit a times 4 closeup filter to a 85mm f1.8 works a treat,also i bought a vivitar 6000af ringflash £56 from 7dayshop.com you have to blank off a few contacs on it for the 20d to fire it as its not digital ringflash but its a great unit for that price gives f22 at around 10 inches you just need the largest pin to make contact i glued the others in :) it works great as the trigger voltage is well below the 20d dont know about other cameras though.
Rob.

[J Rabin]

FWIW here are my opinions as an avid macro amateur:
1. ALL macro lenses from all brands are sharp and flat field with floating focus.
2. I once owned the Sigma and took it back in 24 hrs because the barrel extends toward the subject when focusing (slowly and noisily). Disliked it terribly. Never again will I try and save $100 bucks.
3. The Canon 100mm f/2.8 is the sharpest lens in my kit. Love it. I use it from 1:1 to medium portrait to sports action. The RING USM focus motor makes macro autofocus do-able (sometimes! but at least better than competitors). The Canon 100 f/2.8 USM macro has the best compromise of focal length/working distance for majority of macro uses.
4. I eagerly await the Canon 60mm f/2.8 macro for many reasons BECAUSE: a) though the 60mm will have less working distance-it has GREATER DOF at equal f/stops than the 100mm because of shorter focal length; b) it has a fast RING USM which has been missing from Canon's other 50 mm macro and standard lenses; c) it will have a circular aperture. I have said on this forum before that all my Canon lenses with circular apertures result in more beautiful ,creamier textured transition to out-of-focus bokeh areas than my non-circular aperture lenses; and d) it is small light and portable in the field; e) it 60mm makes a nice portrait focal length with just enough telephoto compression of face features.
5. Never under estimate how much light one needs for macro photography.
6. If I wanted to own juat ONE macro lens, I'd likely start with the 100mm because the new 60mm will only work on EF-S mounts like the Rebel and 20D. If you never intend to shoot slides, or never intend to upgrade to expensive bodies, this may not be an issue.
7. Many of my Nkon macro colleagues have used Nikon's 60mm micro Nikkor for years. One of the best in Nikon's line. Now we Canon users finally have a comparable lens.

Hope this helps. Jack

[Dante King]

Really love my tamron sp90mm 2.8. Read a bunch on how it stacked up to the canon 100mm before getting it. My determination and some reviewers was that it was 90 percent of the canon 100mm for much less $$$. So far I am quite pleased with it.

[radar-eclipse]

100mm 2.8 Macro Canon - sharp, sharp, sharp. Did I mention sharp?

[Jon]

Don't get the 60 mm Canon. There's one simple reason. Working Distance. For "normal" (where the subject's over 10x the focal length away from you) there's a real benefit to using the shorter lens, so you don't have to back up as far. If you're in the macro world, working around 1:2 and 1:1, being able to get closer to your subject means that you're going to be shoving the lens in its' nose. And it isn't going to stay around after that. The 60 mm macro, at 1:1 will give you 120 mm working distance. The 100 mm will give you 200 mm working distance. That's over 3 inches more separation, for a total of 8". You'll find it easier to get precise framing and good focussing while you rock gently back and forth with all that extra distance, too.