Newbie XneedsX wants marcro lens for casual use

[Meanderthal]

I would much appreciate advice on macro gear. I have been reading this forum and Steve’s diligently, but continue to be undecided. My need is not “true” macro, to the extent of eyes of insects. I photograph common things of beauty, mostly flowers, on very casual basis, meandering along woodland trails and meadows with a dog, carrying a single lens on an XSi. For choice of lenses I have Canon 50mm f1.4, Tokina 12-24 f4, Tamron 17-50 f2.8 and Canon 70-200 f4 IS USM. I usually carry a monopod or nothing else, although I do own a tripod of modest quality. I don’t carry the camera in inclement weather. I think long term (still 30 years to go, with reasonable luck :)) and total cost.

I print images extremely rarely. They are viewed on a PC, emailed to family and friends, and made into DVD slide shows for TV, for the pleasure of nursing home residents whom I visit with my therapy dog.

My four choices seem to be:

1. Canon 100mm f2.8 macro – multi-purpose and durable, $640 at B&H. Does not come with hood. Overlaps somewhat with current gear.

2. Tamron 90mm f2.8 macro – similar to the Canon but slower, noisier AF, perhaps not quite as durable. $460, hood included.

3. Set of Kenko tubes – inexpensive, awkward to put on / remove when target changes from butterfly to squirrel to dog. I’m not interested in “try tubes first and see if I like macro”.

4. Be grateful with what I already have :cry:.

Samples of recent luck are shown below. Both are heavily cropped, and Photoshopped with “artistic license”.

Many thanks in advance,

Peter

407883

407885

[John_B]

Meanderthal,
Either a Canon 100mm f/2.8 (or the new 100L) or the EF-S 60mm f/2.8 should be great upgrade for you in my opinion. Both will offer an excellent macro true life size ability but also offer a great standard sharp telephoto lens.
I personally have the 100mm and its an excellent 100mm telephoto with good AF.
So I go with your choice #1 :)

[Meanderthal]

Thank you for your encouragement, John_B. My Canon 70-200 is a marvelous companion on the trails, and I need to convince myself that the Canon 100mm macro will make a substantial contribution to my image output. I seem to lean to this macro lens emotionally but need rational support for spending the extra $$$. "Rational thinking gives weight to the emotions" - Peter K'ung Fu (a.k.a. Meanderthal) :).

p.s. Apologies for the typo in the subject line. I proofread the message later but couldn't edit the subject line.

Peter

[andrewcollier]

I have a Sigma 105 macro, which is very good. I have seen reports that the Tamron 90mm is superb, with superb IQ, extremely sharp, only fault was it may be too sharp to use as a portrait lens.

[Meanderthal]

Thank you, Andrew. Yes, the choice in the 100mm macro is dizzying. Sigma, Tamron, Canon - also Tokina. I have the Tokina 12-24 and it seems very well put together and serves me well. This is the reach range I want, should I be able to justify the expense at all. The choice between the four is most interesting, since all are technically more than adequate for my modest macro needs (in my user description I should have added that I'm a satisficer, not a maximiser). Usefulness on the trail when it's the only lens I'm carrying seems the deciding factor - besides cost and durability.

Peter

[LowSpark420]

What are the major differences between the Canon 100mm f/2.8 Macro non-IS and the Sigma 105mm Macro?

[wildland]

I have a Sigma 105 macro, which is very good. I have seen reports that the Tamron 90mm is superb, with superb IQ, extremely sharp, only fault was it may be too sharp to use as a portrait lens.

I will back this up - the Tamron 90mm offers superb IQ with reports of loud/slow focusing (I've owned it in Pentax mount, so I can't comment on the Canon mount version). Keep in mind that the Tamron is only $400 after rebate and has a six year warranty (in the US). I plan on getting one eventually for my Canon, but I've got to get somewhere that carries them to try out the focus first. The only optical problem of note with the tamron is that flare can destroy the image if you are shooting nearly into the sun (or whatever super-bright light source). I've only run into this trying to shoot a landscape with the sun just out of frame (on APS-C, so the sun was likely directly impinging on the front element). For normal shooting, it's a complete non-issue.

[emilysium]

I'm confused by what you mean when you say that you're a "satisficer." I assume that you've determined that you need a certain item to a certain degree, and you're seeking the most cost effective way of satisfying that need.

However, I can't say that there is any real need for photography. The world and all its inhabitants will persist even if photography were to disappear tomorrow, albeit much less colorfully. And because you don't rely on photography as your primary income, there is even less of an actual need; you'll continue to subsist without it.

The issue here is not one of need, but one of want. You want that Canon lens; you want it more than that Tamron lens. Anyone can debate all day the merits of either, and few would be wrong. One is probably a little better, a little faster, perhaps a little more reliable; the other is a bit less expensive, it has a longer warranty. Of course you're confused, with all those variables.

But if there were any glaring differences between the two, you would likely know already. The most difficult decisions to make are almost always the ones whose costs and benefits only just outweigh one another. So to an extent, you can trust that it doesn't matter so much which decision you make, because there are good reasons for both. And the folks at the nursing home won't be able to tell the difference between photos taken with either lens.

I say, buy the Canon lens. I suspect, though I may be wrong, that if you quantified and integrated your happiness from t=0 to t=30 years, it would more than compensate the price difference. The money, especially over the course of 30 years, is insignificant. A few hundred dollars? Cook a few more meals at home, collect free pens instead of buying them, do whatever assuages your guilt.

If your heart says Canon, you should buy it. If you have even the slightest suspicion that you're ever going to look at your photos and wonder if they would have come out better with the other lens, no matter how silly the reasoning, then buy the Canon lens. You're less likely to regret it.

But definitely buy the macro lens. Your sample photos scream for it.

[emilysium]

Gah, that sounded way too intellectual. Here, let me rephrase:

I GOT THE KENKO TUBES AND I THINK ITS SUPER KOOL LOLZ

[Meanderthal]

emilysium,

I like you, whether you are in an intellectual mood as in the first post or mystically logical in the second. If you were in the neighborhood, I'd buy you lunch :). The lunch would set me back a fair proportion of the cost difference between the "satisfactory" lens and the lens I "want" but would nevertheless be money well spent. Therefore you answered my question spot on.

The factor that your comment brings out but is not often made explicit in these forums is the pride of ownership. Having the best equipment that budget allows will take me out more often, and encourage me to pay more attention to my technique. As a result, my clients at the nursing home will benefit. And that will please me, which is the ultimate need. Of course.

You interpret "satisficing" in the way I intended. You also address another variable, one that does not often get quantified in these forums either: lifetime cost. Assuming that macro lens X would be expected to serve 15 years and lens Y would be expected to serve 12 years, the cost differential would be c pennies per hour the lens is carried in the field, and ... yeccch.

Having some training in both accounting and statistics, I can justify any decision the client wants justified. If I am the client myself, I play with the decision for a while, do what I must, and never look back. No regrets, no quilts.

Yes, the 100mm Canon is the likely result for me, although it would be reasonable to save the cost difference for another equally irresponsible purpose. Maybe a 7D in a year or two... Just the same, I feel warm affection for all Tamron, Sigma and Tokina owners.

The tubes would not work for me. I'd be too lazy to put them on and take them off. I don't plan to do macro. I just meander in the woods without a thought in my head, keeping company with my dog, take a picture if my eye sees a potential subject. But tube owners are OK too. Life is good.

Peter

[Meanderthal]

Reflecting on my latest post: The funny thing is that I would be pleased and proud to walk the trails with any of the macro lenses mentioned in this and other threads. Wildland's Tamron 90, andrewcolliers's Sigma 105, John_B's Canon 100, or the Tokina 100. That's what makes the decision difficult. Neither spending more "to get the best" or "optimizing" with the lowest cost unit (or the points in between) is fully convincing. Fortunately the upcoming winter season and its reduced macro opportunities on the trail makes the decision non-urgent. With the advice I have been receiving gratefully I'll be able to move fast when some decisive opportunity comes along in the marketplace. Canon coming down to its not-so-distant $460US would make me jump :).

Or a Christmas present to myself...

[emilysium]

If you're so indecisive, it's not so bad to leave things to fate.

Let us know how it goes!

As for lunch, Canada is a bit far away, isn't it? I vaguely remember somebody telling us that during my years in public education.

[Meanderthal]

Not really indecisive, Emilysium. I had little trouble choosing any of my current gear. Macro is different for me, in that all of the four lenses I'm looking at fill my primary need for this lens brilliantly. I'm still not clear on the secondary uses, notably as a general purpose lens on the trails and meadows. Accurate and fast focus on the trail is useful. "Allocation of scarce resources" does enter the equation. So does Tamron's warranty, and the fact that I'm not confident in the Canadian distributor for Tokina, or happy about the distributor's pricing. What is holding me back is incompleteness of research.

Yes, Canada is a bit far from California for lunch :(. I will report on my final decision when the time comes, and on how it turns out for me. I have dug out my old tripod from the back of the closet and have dusted it properly :).

Peter

[Meanderthal]

I have decided on the set of Kenko extension tubes. Considering the feedback I received on this thread - what was said and what was not said - it became apparent that my problem was a combination of lens fever and over-all newbism. I don't need the super sharpness of a 100mm macro lens. For my use, the Canon 70-200mm USM IS is more than sufficient at 100mm. And re-reading other threads with better understanding of both the topic and myself, I now see that the Kenko tubes are a good introduction to macro.

Case closed. Comments by PM are welcomed.