Macro Lenses

[Mike 289]

I use a Canon 28-80 f2.8L with my D30, but cannot get close enough for good macros of small orchids or even larger marsh orchids. What is the preferred option from the point of view of photographic quality – extension rings for my 28-80 or a macro lens, such as the Canon 50 or 100mm?

Canon make a 13/21/31mm set of extension tubes, but are there any problems using my lens with them? Their cost is less than the Canon 50mm macro lens.

Good ‘bokeh’ is desirable for plant macros, but perhaps all the above options will give that effect.

Any guidance would be very welcome.

[traveler]

Do yourself a big favor. Pick up a Canon 100mm 2.8 Macro lens and never look back. Of all the macro lenses available, it has the highest level of contrast, sharpest image and best build quality. The overall resolution and lack of distortion will exceed the results from extension lenses and other "gimmicks". It may not be the cheapest way, but it is the long term BEST way. Plan on spending about $400+. This will end up a staple regular lens in your collection. Works nice for portrait work as well.

[Hawkeye12]

hey traveler,
do you ever use close up filters with your 100mm?

[mrbobco]

bob agrees...

the 100mm/2.8 macro is a great lens...

although i've used the close up filter on my 85/1.2 L and 200/2.8L also...kinda like the 100/2.8 more (to be honest)

see if you can find one on ebay...and as traveler said...don't look back...you won't be disappointed!

bob

[traveler]

On rare occasions I use a 500D filter on my 100-400L to increase the working distance, but for no other reason. I'm not about to get 6 inches from a wasp to get a closeup of one, but wouldn't mind getting several feet away. It's different deal. I have a 500D close-up lens shot on my 100-400L at my site http://www.pbase.com/traveler in the "lens test" gallery in case you're interested to see a flower taken that way. I have a few macro's taken with the 100mm 2.8 in the "Nature" gallery which I think says it all.......

[Phil Hall]

I have used a Sigma 105 f2.8 macro for flower shots and like it very much. Its the only Sigm lense I have kept.


Phil Hall

Santa Ynez CA

[felixfoto]

I love my 50mm Macro f 2.5. It is one of the best lenses I use. It is very versatile. I like that I could get super close up to things and it is easy to hand hold at slow shutter speeds also.
I have seen beautiful results from my friend's images that uses the 100mm macro also. Try renting them both and see which one feels better.The 100mm might be better also for portraits.
Im sure you will be happy with either of them.

[Mike 289]

Thanks for the opinions – it is clear that there is little enthusiasm for extension rings, so they are ruled out. All the mentioned dedicated macro lenses get positive opinions, although maybe the Canon 100mm seems to be the leader – ‘traveler’ seems to have few doubts.

The ‘photozone’ Lens Test Guide also gives some guidance, but the sample sizes are small. Their results show the following ratings for optical quality.

Canon EF 2.8 100mm macro score 4.57 outstanding!
Sigma AF 2.8 105mm macro score 4.48 excellent
Canon EF 2.8 100mm USM macro score 4.21 very-good

Sigma AF 2.8 50mm macro EX score 4.70 outstanding!
Canon EF 2.5 50mm macro score 4.34 excellent
Sigma AF 2.8 50mm macro score 2.69 sub-average

I suspect that the camera-subject separation of the ~100mm would better suit my needs, and it would be a more useful supplement to my 28-70 f2.8L. e-Bay might be the place to watch!

Mike

[traveler]

FWIW here is a sample off my Pbase site of a flower taken with the 100mm 2.8 Macro Canon lens. I do think if you are buying for the long term it is the best way to go.


http://www.pbase.com/image/1840701.jpg

[FredT]

Traveler,

Could you describe further the "550D filter" that you use with the 100-400? How close does it let you get to your subject?

Fred

[traveler]

The 500D is a 77mm 2 element lens. It is quite high quality actually unlike so many of the closup lens attachments out there. It is heavy and about a 3/4 of an inch thick. I get about a foot to a foot and a half from a subject when doing a closeup. Here is an example done with the 100-400L and a 500D The depth of field by the way is very shallow so you typically need to stop it down a ways. You will note the very fine detail on the petals. It's a gem for sure.......

http://www.pbase.com/image/10431335/original.jpg