recommended macro lens?

[NAILER341]

what is a recommended macro lens. i have been looking at the tamron 90 2.8, and the canon 100 macro lenses.
what is recommended in the $500.00 range.
i want to be able to get in real close on insects, and things like that with my canon 10d.
thanks for any tips.
i am sure whatever i get will have to be 1:1 or better.

[DavidEB]

consider extension tubes. see this post (http://www.photography-on-the.net/forum/showthread.php?t=80205) for an example.

with your 24-70 you will be able to get about 1:1 magnification at close focusing distances, and with your 70-200 you will be close to 1:1 with long working range. Add a 1.4x teleconverter and you'll be all set.

[digitaltourist]

For a few dollars more you can get the Sigma 150mm f/2.8 macro from Delta International. Comes with a lens hood and a tripod ring. Takes fantastic macros and will provide you with the additional working distance that is often needed for insects.

[NAILER341]

thanks for the replies.
i have tried taking the close up macro type pics with the 24-70, and am not happy with the results. i cant imagine it being any where near 1:1 unless i am doing something wrong.

keep the tips coming.

[tim]

You can't beat the Canon 100mm F2.8 macro, it's a brilliant lens for macro and portraits, sharper than anything else i've used.

[NAILER341]

You can't beat the Canon 100mm F2.8 macro, it's a brilliant lens for macro and portraits, sharper than anything else i've used.

have you used the tamron 90 2.8?
also, i have heard that the canon 100 is not a true 1:1. what is your feeling on this?
i saw the picture of the fly posted on this forum having been taken with the canon 100. stunning photo, and VERY close up.

i just want to make sure i only have to do this once, and am happy with the purchace.
keep the opinions coming!

[DavidEB]

Nailer --

My comments about how to take these photos with the lenses you have involves using extension tubes, which sit between the lens and the camera. Check it out here (http://www.shutterfreaks.com/Tips/ExtensionTube.htm), for an example, see the link I posted above.

to get 1:1 out of your 24-70, add extension tubes. I don't know the lens, but on my (similar focal length) tamron, with 68 mm of tubes, it's about 1:2 at 70mm with a working distance of 2-3 inches (front of lens to subject), hits 1:1 somewhere around 50mm, gets way beyond 1:1 in the 40-45mm range and infinite magnification (with object touching lens) at about 40mm.

Tubes combined with the 70-200 makes for great macro photography at a fraction of the price of a dedicated macro lens. Around 70mm focal length the magnification is 1:1 (with my sigma) and the working distance is quite long.

The optical quality of even the cheapest extension tubes is excellent.

[OceanView]

Using tubes on the 24-70L is a good way to justify buying it.

[tim]

have you used the tamron 90 2.8?
also, i have heard that the canon 100 is not a true 1:1. what is your feeling on this?
i saw the picture of the fly posted on this forum having been taken with the canon 100. stunning photo, and VERY close up.

i just want to make sure i only have to do this once, and am happy with the purchace.
keep the opinions coming!

No I haven't used the Tamron, so I can't compare them.

Re not 1:1, I think you need to do more research - look at the specs on the http://bhphotovideo.com page for the lens.

[J Rabin]

Every few weeks I end up reposting this. I've used many macro lenses. All brands are all brutally sharp. Here's the way to think about working distance when these lenses are focused at full 1:1 magnification:

60mm Canon = 10 cm working distance @ $450
100mm Canon = 15 cm working distance @ $480
150mm Sigma = 20 cm working distance @ $620
180mm Canon = 25 cm working distance @ $1,300
180mm Tamron = 26 cm working distance @ $800

The new Canon 60mm EF-S macro is very sharp, a joy to use because of portability and short focal length providing hand holdability. Just keep it in your pocket during trekking. It is NOT a good butterfly/dragonfly hunter because of short working distance. Limited to EF-S mount cameras. If you recall the legendary Nikon 60mm micro Nikkor, this is Canon's equal. Circular aperture blades to about f/5.6 so manually focused portrait OOF areas are nice. It is the only macro lens where you can leave a filter on and still clamp the 24EX macro flash.

You only pay $30 to add 5 cm of working distance from Canon's 60 to Canon 100mm USM macro lens. Unless you need the 60mm for a specific use (I do), the 100mm Canon macro is a better all around value in working distance and flexible use for most people. Due to the floating internal elements, the Canon 100mm has a focal length < 100mm when close focused at 1:1, probably around 80mm, keeping the field of view wider while still getting the 14.9 cm distance.

To step up, you pay additional $140 for the 2nd 5cm distance gained from the Canon 100mm to the new Sigma 150mm. This 20 cm, and the fact the Sigma comes with a hood, tripod mount, HSM auto focus, with full-time manual over ride (I shut off auto focus and manually focus much of the time with macro lenses) makes it an interesting middle contender. This lens is sharp, contrasty, still hand holdable in a pinch. This new Sigma 150mm f/2.8 is very good, if it fits your needs. It is not a me-too offering like many 3rd party macro lenses. I think it will be popular.

Step up on more time, and you pay an additional $700 for the next 5 cm working distance between the Sigma 150mm and the Canon 180mm. This is an amazing optic, almost no diffraction even when stopped down above f/22! Ultimate in working distance. It's big and long and prefers to be used tripod mounted, except when "butterfly hunting."

The Tamron IS NOT AN OPTION even though it is the working distance winner because it's odd filter rotator on the lens front reduces ability to use a macro flash.

What is working distance? Working distance is the distance from the front of lens element to the subject when the lenses are focuused at their closest focus 1:1 magnification. The lenses all focus continuously to infinity also, but we are only calculating close focus distance above.

Calculate Working Distance to subject =
published close focus spec for lens - lens length - distance between rear element and sensor or film plane (which is 4.4 cm for Canon EOS cameras.

Working distance is a BIG limiting use factor (in addition to the full 2 f/stops of light loss @ 1:1 magnification), so get as much as you can afford.

If you're serious about macro, do not buy any macro lens where the barrel length changes during focus. For casual macro users, this is OK (like carrying the old Canon 50mm f/2.5 in a pocket out for a hike).

When we mean macro, we mean life size reproduction, (1:1) magnification or greater. There is loads of fun "close-up" photography at less than life size, say 0.25x to 0.70x (butterfly and dragonfly hunting range) that you can do with diopters, close focusing zooms, etc. A cheap Canon XXmm-300mm zoom with a Canon 500D ($140) +2 diopter makes a good butterfly hunter, providing about 0.4-0.7x depending on focal length.

All macro lenses miss auto focus and "hunt" because the lens elements move greater distances. Live with it.

Hope that helps. J

[NAILER341]

that is a lot of information. thank you.
this makes things much clearer.

you stated "tamron is not an option" can you explain why this is?

[martook]

Nailer341: If you keep reading that sentence, you can see why... :)
"The Tamron IS NOT AN OPTION even though it is the working distance winner because it's odd filter rotator on the lens front reduces ability to use a macro flash."
I guess the lens doesn't have internal focusing, so you focus by rotating the outer part of the lens, which is a big no-no.

It looks to me though that he talks about the 180mm Tamron, don't know if the 90mm has the same problem.

[CyberDyneSystems]

J.
You have PM's turned off so I thought I'd ask you here...

Would you be interested in putting together a Macro Lens Sticky thread?

[J Rabin]

Martook, Nailer.
Sorry I was not clear on the Tamron 180mm. It is a fine, sharp, well priced lens, and the "working distance winner," especially considering its price point. It has a special feature to enable rotation of a filter - a lever. This otherwise nice feature makes it hard to use Canon's 24EX macro flash, or any lens attached flash, so it dropped off my list.

Since you lose 2 full f/stops a 1x magnification, an f/2.8 macro lens is like working with a f/5.6 lens when you're close focused (the rear lens element is moving AWAY from the sensor). The camera meters perfectly and automatically takes care of all this, but new macro users are sometimes shocked at how much supplemental light they need, even in a bright view, to get f/8-f/11 adequate DoF at ISO 100. And you do want to shoot all macro at ISO 100 or at most ISO 200.

With the Canon 60 and 100mm macro lenses, I clamp the 24EX flash (or 14EX) directly to the front of lens. With the Canon 180 or Sigma 150, both with 72 filter threads, you buy the Canon 72mm macrolite adaptor for $35 to clamp the flash head. But, this can't be used on the Tamron 180, as noted above.

Sorry I was not clear.

The Tamron 90, Sigma 105, etc. are all sharp. Just my opinion if you're spending the money, why save $100 and have a barrel length that extends during focus? It's fine for casual macro, especially if you purchase a used macro to give a try. But, if you do a lot..... well there goes the wallet.

Jack

[J Rabin]

Would you be interested in putting together a Macro Lens Sticky thread?

I suppose. It gets old re-posting that long boring working distance vs. price e-mail every few weeks. I'm not a very good creative photographer, I just do a lot of macro in the workplace type stuff. I see lots of posts with better pictures than mine!
What's it entail?
Jack

[BlueTit]

J Rabin, great info on macro lens, have you any experience of the Sigma 180 -v- the Canon 180mm?

[J Rabin]

J Rabin, great info on macro lens, have you any experience of the Sigma 180 -v- the Canon 180mm?

It is one I have not personally used, nor calculated the working distance. From acquaintences who own it, compared to the Canon 180mm, I can offer it is FAR MORE THAN one-half the Canon lens for one-half the Canon price. It has the HSM, which works like Canon's FT-M, and is ESSENTIAL for manually focusing. It does use a normal 72 filter. It does work with a 1.4x tele extender, filling the view finder from far away. It doesn't quite focus as fast or good, but since you'll manually focus 80+%, who cares?

But, in the end, for lens junkies, the Sigma 180 is another me-too 3rd party macro. I think that new Sigma 150 at 2/3 f/stop faster and easier to handhold offers users something competitively special from a third party lens vendor. The Sigma 150 really is its own lens, not a me-too glass, hand holdable but with 20cm working distance.

The Canon is a special optic, in a league of its own, especially the low diffraction at f/22. If you HAVE the money, like to compose macro at narrow field of view, get it because you will always wonder..... If you don't, the Sigma 180 is fine.

I'm terrible, because I don't think I've ever met a bad macro lens! I remember my first Olympus 50mm f/3.5 macro, still legendary sharpness 30 years later. Likewise the Nikon 60mm..... In this day and age, I just don't prefer the lenses' whose barrel changes length as they focus.

Jack

[BlueTit]

Thanx for the thoughts Jack, I liked the reviews of the 150mm Sigma too, but was just wondering what you thought of the Sigma 180mm. I would not spend the money on the Canon 180mm. I have the Canon 100mm but would like some extra working distance, so I think I will go with the 150mm.

You said: "In this day and age, I just don't prefer the lenses' whose barrel changes length as they focus." Try the MP-E 65mm it extends from both ends!! I have it but don't use it that much, too much trouble to set up and light etc and limited subjects for such magnification.

Thanx again.

[J Rabin]

Blue Tit.
Know what you mean. The Canon MP65 is special, but I rarely have enough TIME to set up shots with specialist tools like that. Shame on me for not having an hour per photo time!
Getting the lens plane parallel with the plane of subject where you want max depth of field to fall is difficult. The 180mm and 150mm seem to facilitate adjusting to obtain that angle. Maybe it's my imagination.
J.

[CyberDyneSystems]

I suppose. It gets old re-posting that long boring working distance vs. price e-mail every few weeks. I'm not a very good creative photographer, I just do a lot of macro in the workplace type stuff. I see lots of posts with better pictures than mine!
What's it entail?
Jack


Nothing really ;)

Actually.. someone just beat you to it...
http://photography-on-the.net/forum/showthread.php?t=85004

We now have a "macro sticky" thread ;) (it was started today in fact )

But don't let that stop you..
If you were to cut and paste info into the thread above,.. that would be great!

Doesn't need to have any pics at all, unless you wanted to illustrate an example.