Best Non L Macro Lens...???

Not to start. I was just using that picture for illustration, to show that at 1:1 a mosquito is still small. My recommendation is to start with a 1:1 macro lens and get really comfortable with it--which can take quite a long time. Then, if you want to go closer, get a set of Kenko tubes, and start with the shortest (12mm), gradually building up--because more extension makes everything more difficult.

The only argument for buying extension tubes off the bat is that you can experiment with macro by putting them on a regular lens at lower cost, then use them with a macro lens when you buy one. However, I think the lowest-frustration route is to start with a macro lens. You might hunt for a used one. I started with a used 'compact 50,' which is only 1:2 but has good optics and cost me only $150. Once I was hooked, I sold that and bought an EF-S 60, and then an EF 100mm L.

paddler4 wrote in post #12724576
A mosquito is so small that even 1:1 -- working at the minimum focusing distance for a dedicated macro lens -- will give you a pretty small image. 1:1 means that the object size is the same as the image size on the sensor. For mosquitos (I have never tried one), you would either have to crop severely or use a lot of extension to get better than 1:1.

The mosquitoes you get are obviously much smaller than those that I get!

I have the 60mm Canon and love it, light weight quick focus and on a crop body is really 96mm. I don't take photos of too many insects but have shot some great ones of a beetle once. I find flying insects don't really like to stay put too long when you are that close. But I like the 60 for portrait shots as well, worked great on a beach photo shoot. Also consider the Tamron 90mm macro, gets great reviews and is priced well.

MKII wrote in post #12724102
i am in search of a new lens...i am between the 100 macro and the 70-300 is usm. The use of the lenses will not be much but i want one just in case...the idea of a telephoto lens doesnt sound as intresting as a macro lens.. so i i would like to know some thoughts for the macro lenses from your experience..
expect for the 100 L cause iwont give so many many for a macro lens..
thanks in advance..!!
ps. i will use it with my 7d..

Hello there

Canon makes 6 macro lenses, and I have personally owned and used 4 of them: the EF 100mm f/2.8 non-L, the EF 100mm f/2.8L, the MP-E 65mm, and the EF 180mm f/3.5L. As a matter of fact, I have written a blog post on the subject of my experience with Canon macro lenses that may be of some help to you.

Regarding your statement of "giving up" money, how much money you give up is not always a waste ... it can, in every sense of the word, be an investment. I don't know how serious you are about getting into macro photography, but if you get hooked (as I have!) you will want to do it all the time ... and with macro you can

If you are planning on photographing live subjects, in my view you need a 100mm lens, at minimum, not to be forever frustrating yourself "scaring away" your subjects. I personally hardly use my 100mmL anymore, in favor of using the 180mmL, precisely because the 180mm gives me twice the working distance of the 100mm, so I am not always scaring away butterflies and such. This allows me the use of a tripod, which to me is critical for macro work.

If you don't use a tripod, then the 100mmL will serve you FAR better than will the elder "non-L" macro lens, because that image stabilization allows you to "keep" far more shots than without, and I can say this definitively as I have shot thousands of macro shots with both the non-L and the L 100mm lenses.

If you do use a tripod, then the non-L will do you just fine, as will the very inexpensive Tamron 90mm, which is about the best buy in non-IS macro lenses when used on a tripod. Just remember, the best glass and sharpest "potential" in any lens is utterly wasted if you move and have a blurry capture ... so if you're not using a tripod, and you don't have IS, you will lose far more shots than you would with the 100mmL.

I actually did another blog post comparison of the Tamron 90mm to the Canon 100mmL, as a response to another discussion of "cheapness" versus features ... and what the hidden costs can sometimes be that you don't really think about ... especially with a macro lens that "reaches out" to bugs (like the Tamron) versus a lens with internal focusing elements that allow it to stay true ...

Cheers & good luck!

Jack

.

I used to have a Tokina 100 2.8 Macro.. it was very sharp...

John Koerner wrote in post #12727265
Hello there

Canon makes 6 macro lenses, and I have personally owned and used 4 of them: the EF 100mm f/2.8 non-L, the EF 100mm f/2.8L, the MP-E 65mm, and the EF 180mm f/3.5L. As a matter of fact, I have written a blog post on the subject of my experience with Canon macro lenses that may be of some help to you.

Regarding your statement of "giving up" money, how much money you give up is not always a waste ... it can, in every sense of the word, be an investment. I don't know how serious you are about getting into macro photography, but if you get hooked (as I have!) you will want to do it all the time ... and with macro you can

If you are planning on photographing live subjects, in my view you need a 100mm lens, at minimum, not to be forever frustrating yourself "scaring away" your subjects. I personally hardly use my 100mmL anymore, in favor of using the 180mmL, precisely because the 180mm gives me twice the working distance of the 100mm, so I am not always scaring away butterflies and such. This allows me the use of a tripod, which to me is critical for macro work.

If you don't use a tripod, then the 100mmL will serve you FAR better than will the elder "non-L" macro lens, because that image stabilization allows you to "keep" far more shots than without, and I can say this definitively as I have shot thousands of macro shots with both the non-L and the L 100mm lenses.

If you do use a tripod, then the non-L will do you just fine, as will the very inexpensive Tamron 90mm, which is about the best buy in non-IS macro lenses when used on a tripod. Just remember, the best glass and sharpest "potential" in any lens is utterly wasted if you move and have a blurry capture ... so if you're not using a tripod, and you don't have IS, you will lose far more shots than you would with the 100mmL.

I actually did another blog post comparison of the Tamron 90mm to the Canon 100mmL, as a response to another discussion of "cheapness" versus features ... and what the hidden costs can sometimes be that you don't really think about ... especially with a macro lens that "reaches out" to bugs (like the Tamron) versus a lens with internal focusing elements that allow it to stay true ...

Cheers & good luck!

Jack

.

I think it should be added that many people find tripods very tricky to use for insects since many insects constantly move all over the place. I can't image using a tripod for lots of shots that I have tried. And I have heard people say that the 180mm is particularly tricky to use handheld compared to the shorter macros. Of course people do get some great results with tripods+insects but I have to think they pass over lots, lots, lots of potential shots (although I guess they do an extra good job on the ones that they can snag).

wombatHorror wrote in post #12727540
I think it should be added that many people find tripods very tricky to use for insects since many insects constantly move all over the place. I can't image using a tripod for lots of shots that I have tried. And I have heard people say that the 180mm is particularly tricky to use handheld compared to the shorter macros. Of course people do get some great results with tripods+insects but I have to think they pass over lots, lots, lots of potential shots (although I guess they do an extra good job on the ones that they can snag).

You are exactly right

I don't even bother hand-holding my 180mm macro, because it simply will not take what I consider to be a "sharp" shot, unless the lighting is great and I have a fast shutter speed. However, I typically like to shoot in the early morning, with soft light, and my shutter speed will be between 1/5 and 1/40, which is a waste of time trying to do with the 180mm hand-held.

I would never bother taking 180mm out into the field for precisely this reason ... unless I took a tripod with me (or at least a monopod) ... but, to be honest, I use mirror lockup (LiveView) and a remote, so a monopod wouldn't work for me either.

Moreover, if I am trying to nail a butterfly as quickly as possible before it flies away, for documentation/identifi​cation (rather than trying to get the best image possible) ... then hand-holding is the way to go ... and the 100mmL is the best tool for this job IMO.

That said, when I do use a tripod, Live View, and a remote ... and my 180mm instead of hand-holding my 100L ... my results with the 180mm eclipse what I can get out of any "hand-held" efforts with the 100mmL. And, because of the reach of the 180mm, insects and spiders are much more likely to "hold still" for me when I use my tripod than they are with the other lenses. Butterflies especially are more likely to sit still early in the morning before they've "warmed-up"

Cheers!

Jack


.

I'm a big flash user. I use my Sigma 150 almost solely handheld, and sometimes with a 1.4x which means it's a 210mm 1.4:1. So I have absolutely no doubt that you could use the 180mm macro handheld without too much trouble, so long as also using a flash.

ihyperthug wrote in post #12726965
I'm actually about to buy the 100mm Macro L lens. Is the non L just as good?? Is it really worth almost double the cost for the L features?

IMHO no the L is not worth the premium. The L does have IS for non macro situations and the build is "slightly" better. I have had my non L for years and it is the sharpest lens I have ever owned. i tried the L version a couple of times and it is just as sharp and the IS is nice but I would not pay $500 for just the IS.

dadgummit wrote in post #12728324
I would not pay $500 for just the IS.

Doesn't it also sport better build, weather sealing, smoother bokeh, and better sharpness wide open? How about AF performance, is it on par or better than non-L?
And why "IS for non macro situations", isn't Hybrid IS designed specifically for Macro?

WOW..Thank you all for your replies...such a great help..i must say that iam more close to the 100 usm non L Macro..and if i become so addicted to macro photography then it will be easy to buy something better as the 180 L. As i said mu purpose at least for start is to take picture and film humans with this lens..no portraits..macro shots in detailed parts...i hope it will do my job..!!

Just a sample given your earlier request.... I think this is a mosquito, if it's not it's of similar size, taken with a Canon 100 f/2.8 macro on a 5D Mk II but it was cropped a bit.

Link to full size image here: http://www.jimpr4.com …JB9#1029407807_​Rx6x2-O-LB

ihyperthug wrote in post #12726965
I'm actually about to buy the 100mm Macro L lens. Is the non L just as good?? Is it really worth almost double the cost for the L features?

In what way? IQ, it's not worth 2x the price - no way. Its your money, you'll have to decide is a better build/feel with IS worth 2x the price. It was to me.

phreeky wrote in post #12728307
I'm a big flash user. I use my Sigma 150 almost solely handheld, and sometimes with a 1.4x which means it's a 210mm 1.4:1. So I have absolutely no doubt that you could use the 180mm macro handheld without too much trouble, so long as also using a flash.

When I first started shooting macro ... I hand-held all the time ... and I used a flash all the time as well ...

Now, however, I honsetly don't like the "flash" look at all to macro photography. The use of flash destroys one of macro photography's greatest gifts, and that is bokeh. Unless utterly diffused, flash photography changes the tone and color of the light, adding a warm and reddish "cast" to everything, and so I try never to use flash in my macro work anymore, unless absolutely necessary. A lot of my earlier work was heavy in flash use, but almost none of my current work is.

For example, you cannot get bokeh shots like this with the use of flash:

HTTP response: 404 | MIME changed to 'text/html' | Byte size: ZERO

HTTP response: 404 | MIME changed to 'text/html' | Byte size: ZERO

HTTP response: 404 | MIME changed to 'text/html' | Byte size: ZERO

HTTP response: 404 | MIME changed to 'text/html' | Byte size: ZERO

rick_reno wrote in post #12729297
In what way? IQ, it's not worth 2x the price - no way. Its your money, you'll have to decide is a better build/feel with IS worth 2x the price. It was to me.

I agree.

I used both lenses, and the L lens has better AF, better bokeh, and (IMO) better color rendition. It is simply a better lens, and that is especially true if hand-holding.

I prefer not to hand-hold, but if I am out in the field and need to, I certainly noticed a vast improvement of "keepers" when using the IS of the 100L, over the non-L!

Cheers!

Jack


.