Tokina 100mm Macro vs. Canon 100mm Macro

[nishywishy]

I'm looking for a new lens, have a smallish budget. I want to shoot flowers/insects, and also portraits. How do those two stack up??

I've also looked at the Tamron 90mm and the Canon 85mm 1.8 had been recommended.

[KVN Photo]

Buying a dedicated macro lens like 100 canon/tokina is the best for insects, while 85 f/1.8 with some close up filter has reasonable magnification but it will never produce the same result like macro lens. And 100mm is nice for a portrait as well, I don't think you'll have problem with that.

Tokina or canon, it's your call. Both are very good.

[nishywishy]

So, you are saying that the dedicated macro like the two I mention would work great for insects and flowers AS WELL AS portraits, right? Whereas the 85 f/1.8 would do great for portraits but not so much as a macro?

Can I ask you something else? Not totally on topic but sort of. I'm trying to add a lens to a basic kit (I'm a beginner) which consists of a nifty fifty, an 18-50 (came with the body), and a 55-250. I like these lenses but keep wanting to get something that will "catch" a wider angle (like the 18 on the kit lens but better!) Any suggestions? Maybe getting a dedicated macro lens isn't a good idea after all?

Thanks in advance!!!

Originally Posted by KY707

Buying a dedicated macro lens like 100 canon/tokina is the best for insects, while 85 f/1.8 with some close up filter has reasonable magnification but it will never produce the same result like macro lens. And 100mm is nice for a portrait as well, I don't think you'll have problem with that.

Tokina or canon, it's your call. Both are very good.

[phreeky]

Between the Tokina and Canon I'd probably choose the Canon. Unless I'm mistaken they're similarly priced, and you'll get better AF performance with it.

As for macro lens versus something like a Canon 85mm F/1.8, the 85mm will certainly have faster AF and stopped down to about F/2.8 will probably be just as good IQ wise (maybe even a little better). But to use it for macro you'll either need a close-up filter that goes on the front (I've never used them) or an extension tube. The lens will have a limited focusing range when it's in use, and the manual focusing ring will have a LOT less throw so make focusing more difficult.

[nishywishy]

Originally Posted by phreeky

Between the Tokina and Canon I'd probably choose the Canon. Unless I'm mistaken they're similarly priced, and you'll get better AF performance with it.

Seems the Canon runs about about $150 more than the Tokina new and used. I'm a beginner so I actually may not even notice the differences you are referring to! I really want to try my hand at macro.

As for macro lens versus something like a Canon 85mm F/1.8, the 85mm will certainly have faster AF and stopped down to about F/2.8 will probably be just as good IQ wise (maybe even a little better). But to use it for macro you'll either need a close-up filter that goes on the front (I've never used them) or an extension tube. The lens will have a limited focusing range when it's in use, and the manual focusing ring will have a LOT less throw so make focusing more difficult.

Yes, I've tried extensions on my 50mm and it's not much fun. By the time I got the focus, the lovely butterfly was far and away!

[KVN Photo]

Originally Posted by nishywishy

So, you are saying that the dedicated macro like the two I mention would work great for insects and flowers AS WELL AS portraits, right? Whereas the 85 f/1.8 would do great for portraits but not so much as a macro?

Can I ask you something else? Not totally on topic but sort of. I'm trying to add a lens to a basic kit (I'm a beginner) which consists of a nifty fifty, an 18-50 (came with the body), and a 55-250. I like these lenses but keep wanting to get something that will "catch" a wider angle (like the 18 on the kit lens but better!) Any suggestions? Maybe getting a dedicated macro lens isn't a good idea after all?

Thanks in advance!!!

Get 55-250 and 50 f/1.8 II will give you an extra reach and fun to use lens, and no need to upgrade your kit lens until you need to improve something (aperture, sharpness, CA control, weather sealing, etc.).

[phreeky]

Originally Posted by nishywishy

Yes, I've tried extensions on my 50mm and it's not much fun. By the time I got the focus, the lovely butterfly was far and away!

A good macro lens is definitely nicer to use than a non-macro lens with tubes, but don't underestimate how difficult it can still be. The plane of focus is still very very thin, the subject is still generally very close to the front element, and the only obvious advantages are the nicer focusing ring and the ability to focus from MFD to infinity without swapping the tubes in and out.

[nishywishy]

Originally Posted by KY707

Get 55-250 and 50 f/1.8 II will give you an extra reach and fun to use lens, and no need to upgrade your kit lens until you need to improve something (aperture, sharpness, CA control, weather sealing, etc.).

Thanks! I already have the 55-250 and the old 50 f/1.8. I agree, it's enough. There is a ton to learn with just those two! I am wondering about getting an inexpensive flash (someone suggested Yongnuo YN-468) to get started on learning flash photography. I might go that route, just to mix it up. Which flash do you use?

[rick_reno]

Originally Posted by nishywishy

Seems the Canon runs about about $150 more than the Tokina new and used. I'm a beginner so I actually may not even notice the differences you are referring to! I really want to try my hand at macro.



Yes, I've tried extensions on my 50mm and it's not much fun. By the time I got the focus, the lovely butterfly was far and away!

I agree, extension tubes aren't fun, they're a PIA.

If all you want to do is try your hand at macro and not spend a bunch of money, look at the Canon 60mm 2.8. I have it, the 100mm and 100mm L macro lens and I can't tell any difference in IQ between the 60 and the 100 non L. It's a nice little lens.

[hillavoider]

canon 100mm L macro is awesome, i love it, its really good for portaits as well, so good it makes having my 85L just an indulgence

[KenjiS]

Pretty much all macros are equal, They're all sharp, They're all good lenses, I dont think theres a single TRUE macro lens that is a bad lens out there

For my money, The Canon would be my choice because its the only one with USM, which means its more practical for more subjects than JUST macro...And I'm frequently thankful I have fast AF for macro too

[Sirrith]

I was making this exact same decision 2 days ago at the camera store. I wanted to get a tokina lens because of their nothing short of amazing build quality (heck, their lenses have better build than my 70-200 f4), and their macro is significantly cheaper than the canon version, and I believe is the same, or even ever so slightly sharper. HOWEVER, when I tried the tokina at the store, its AF performance shocked me. It is without doubt the slowest lens I have ever used in terms of AF, and when it hunts (and it will, even my canon hunts sometimes though, so thats not tokina's fault, its just because its a macro lens), you might as well give up and use MF. The canon is more than twice as fast, and probably even faster in terms of AF. If AF is not important to you, then the tokina is the obvious choice, it has better build, similar IQ, comes with a hood, and is cheaper. However, if you want to use your lens as, say, a portrait lens, you'll want the canon simply because your subject will have time to leave, buy a burger, come back, eat it, and resume their pose in the time it takes for the toki to focus.

[lightbender57]

I'd suggest you also consider the Sigma 105mm Macro.

I've been using one for years for my work, and find it equal to anything else out there. No IS, but IS only gets in the way for serious macro work anyway.

[KenjiS]

^- I humbly disagree with the "IS gets in the way of serious macro work" thing...Really, I do..:/

[watt100]

Originally Posted by KenjiS

Pretty much all macros are equal, They're all sharp, They're all good lenses, I dont think theres a single TRUE macro lens that is a bad lens out there

For my money, The Canon would be my choice because its the only one with USM, which means its more practical for more subjects than JUST macro...And I'm frequently thankful I have fast AF for macro too

even the macro lens without "USM" or HSM or SWM are good for subjects for more than JUST macro - they seem to have pretty fast "AF" even without USM !
Shocking!

XSi (450D) with Tamron 90mm 2.8 macro non-Di non-USM
(cropped 60%)




Tamron 90mm 2.8 macro non-Di