Good macro lens

I am looking to add a good/versitile macro lens to my line up. But I dont know where to start. Reason: where I live there has been a huge increase in the spider population and their colors are awesome and I would love to get some great shots of them. Any and all sugestions will be of great help

I just bought a 100 f/2.8L Macro last night from B&H. Do a search, and you will find that (almost)everybody raves about that lens. It has a reputaion as one of Canon's sharpest lenses. -rick

I've got the 100mm f2.8 (not the L) recently for use with my 7d and it's a cracking lens..

As far as IQ, just about all true macro (only primes here) lenses are very good to excellent. Get one that goes to life size (1:1) without an adapter.

As far as versatility, macro lenses can be used just like any other prime of that focal length. They just will be f/2.8 or slower. IMO the 100mm FL is probably the most versatile. It gives decent working distance. The 180mm gives more working room and the 50-ish mm range give less working distance. IMO In general spiders are less skittish than insects so the 100mm would be fine.

If I didn't already own, I would go for the 100L. I think the IS would add even more versatility to non-macro shots. I don't know about IS at macro settings, as I have never used a macro lens that had IS. But flash and/or a tripod seems to work.

Just from the few of you that have replied so far 100mm is the way to go. i think i'll work on getting the 100mm f/2.8L IS USM. I may rent it first to see how it goes.

IQ isn't the difference between the L and nonL 100mm's, the IS on the L is really about the only real difference. I think you will appreciate the working distance of the 100 vs something shorter.

As BrickR said; the L is only better (and more expensive) due to IS and weather sealing. IQ is a wash between the 2 canon 100mm's.

I use the non-L myself. IS would be nice, but I manage fine without it. I do wish I had it sometimes, but not enough to make me spend the money. A flash on an ETTL cable and a bracket is more useful IMO.

Some shots with the 100 non-L

IMAGE LINK: http://www.flickr.com …s/noobography/7​995103441/

IMAGE LINK: http://www.flickr.com …s/noobography/7​995110814/

IMAGE LINK: http://www.flickr.com …s/noobography/7​995104807/

100L works great for spiders

IMAGE LINK: http://www.flickr.com …unetsukiphoto/7​940767860/

I would go for the 100/2.8 non-L..or 100L(if you can afford it, and want IS), over the 60 or 50. The few inches of extra working distance would be nice for spiders.. i don't want to get too close to spiders, and end up with webs on my lens/hood.

1Tanker wrote in post #15016566
I would go for the 100/2.8 non-L..or 100L(if you can afford it, and want IS), over the 60 or 50. The few inches of extra working distance would be nice for spiders.. i don't want to get too close to spiders, and end up with webs on my lens/hood.

They get scared too, its hard enough with the 100L + 1.4x teleconverter sometimes...

I'm happy with the Canon 60mm I just got but I think maco will take a back seat and it will be used for everyday shots and if I need to get close it'll work for that also.

Actually, the 300/4 IS (on 7D) makes a pretty good macro lens, too...

Canon's EF 100mm 2.8 non-L is a magnificent macro lens. By all accounts, the L version is even better. Pick your poison, you won't go wrong.

I've got the Non L 100mm 2.8. its a stunning lens for macro but mine has also seen a bit of use in portraits, and sports. so its a good choice for its flexibility of use.

If you are looking for a few more inches than the 100mm macro, I'd suggest looking at the Sigma 150mm. I rented it and the Canon 180mm, loved the Sigma, didn't like the Canon. I'll mainly use it for butterflies whenever i decide to buy it.