MP-E65mm & 100mm,,f2.8,1:1,,,,,,,,,,,,

[dicklaxt]

are the two top of the line in the "Canon" family for Macro work from what I can gather.The others are "3rd Party" Macro Lens Tamron 90mm,Sigma 105mm and Tokina 100mm are all mentioned in Macro work but I don't believe any of these three are true 1:1 Macro lens isn't that right, now if all that is true,,,,,,,,,,,, do the third party lense get you more than reversed ,stacked lens and tube setups?

Simply put the question is ,,,,What would you buy/use, the 3rd party macros or reversed & stacked lens and tubes.I won't be springing for any 1:1 lens but may jump off into the 3rd party world if it is reccommended by all you experienced shooters.I know its my decision but I really need some input.

dick

[themadman]

What do you mean by they are not true 1:1? They all claim on their website that they are, at max magnification, 1:1.

Sigma 105mm (http://www.sigmaphoto.com/lenses/lenses_all_details.asp?id=3253&navigator=5) Tamron 90mm (http://www.tamron.com/lenses/prod/90mm.asp) Tokina 100mm (http://www.thkphoto.com/products/tokina/afl-m100-b.html)

Now, I am no a real macro photographer, but I am assuming most folks would rather use a Macro Lense than tubes and reverse lens. Both tubes and reverse lens have downsides/inconveniences.

[dicklaxt]

The specs are reading 1:1.34 or 1:1.3 etc,I may be wrong need an owner to speak up on this before I screwup royally.

:confused::confused::confused::confused::confused:

dick

[troypiggo]

Those are all true 1:1 macro lenses, you can be rest assured. They're not like some of the other "macro" lenses that just mean they focus a bit closer and are more like 2:1 or 4:1.

If I knew what I know now when I was first buying a macro lens, I'd have saved some money and bought either the Sigma 105 or the Tamron 90. Don't know much about the Tokina. I have the Canon 100 and the Sigma is at least as good as it, but much cheaper.

I'm selling my Canon 100 for the Sigma 150 (should arrive any day now) because I want a little extra reach. Plus I have the luxury of a wife who has the 105 if I want that focal length.

But they're all true 1:1 macro lenses.

Perhaps what's confusing you is that the 1:1 is at the minimum focus distance. They focus from infinity (except the MP-E 65) to min focus, and the magnification increases as you focus closer. It's only at closest focus they'll be 1:1.

[LordV]

Dick the only prime macro kens I know of that doesn't do 1:1 magnification is the canon 50mm macro lens which only does 0.5:1.
I currently use a Tamron 90mm and of course the MPE-65.
Brian V.

[troypiggo]

How do you rate the Tamron against the Sigma 105? Similar, better?

[LordV]

How do you rate the Tamron against the Sigma 105? Similar, better?

Not really shot enough with the tamron yet compared to the sigma but the Tamron seems slightly better to me in image sharpness and contrast.
Brian v.

[dicklaxt]

I have been reading a number of reviews on these lens the last few hours and the indicator is saying Tamron 90 when you also consider the $'s, without, then Canon leads the pack.We are talking $200 difference and thats a lot to this limited Social Security income plus I could take that $200 go to the Casino and see if I could parlay it into whatever:)

dick