Which macro lens and why?

Folks with experience, can you help choosing the right macro lens for a FF camera?
I was thinking about a 100 f/2.8 IS L as I could also use it as a portrait camera when I am hiking, but I have reviewed my favorite macro photographs and I noticed that they were taken with 150-180 mm lenses. Or with 100-105 mm, but on a crop camera.

I was thinking about Sigma 150 f/2.8, but I read about AF issues.

So what is the ultimate lens?

What do you intend to use it for? If bugs and stuff that can be scared off, the longer is usually better, and I'd recommend either the sigma 150mm OS or the sigma 180mm 2.8 OS. If just stationary stuff, and if portraits are important then the 100L or the sigma 150mm OS would do.

canon 100L is great. see what it can do: www.flickr.com/photos/​darts5/

It really depends on your needs. I voted the 100L because for most people it will be a more versatile FL lens for them - especially with the IS.

Personally I'm looking to a 180mm. I'm looking at the Sigma OS, for OS and brighter view the f/2.8 will give. Plus the OS and f/2.8 would be more beneficial when not used as a macro lens - for me an edge over Canon's 180L.

I have had both the Sigma 150 OS and the Canon 100 L IS and for full frame I would definitely recommend the Sigma 150 OS. It is just as good, if not slightly better, than the Canon 100 L. The only things you would lose are re-sale value and a stop of IS at most in macro. You can get a used one in great condition for about $100 more than the Canon 100 L but the build is way better and you also get a tripod collar.

Since I shoot with 1.6x format cameras, I prefer a macro lens with a FL of from 90-100mm because that FL seems to provide the best combination of lens to subject distance, weight and price (I bought my Tamron 90mm Macro for one hundred U.S. dollars, used in minty condition from eBay).

If I shot with full frame equipment, I would consider a 150-180mm lens...

The 100L is awesome, but from the reviews I've read, the 180L is better. I voted 180L because it is the "ultimate" macro lens, but you wouldn't be dissapointed if you get the 100L.

You never answered what you intend to shoot if you get a macro lens. Why don't you go to the source and ask the macro boys what lens they suggest? Or better yet, just look at their gear list and you will find that most of them have a 100 f/2.8L macro lens in their arsenal. -rick

Canon 100l got my vote, it's a good one that gives you good working distance

alazgr8 wrote in post #15086993
You never answered what you intend to shoot if you get a macro lens. Why don't you go to the source and ask the macro boys what lens they suggest? Or better yet, just look at their gear list and you will find that most of them have a 100 f/2.8L macro lens in their arsenal. -rick

something like this: http://1x.com/photo/41​370#

light_pilgrim wrote in post #15087681
something like this: http://1x.com/photo/41​370#

That looks like a photograph with a major overhaul done in Photoshop.

Assuming it isn't a fake effect, this seems to be done with a tilt-shift lens, probably the 90 mm, with a few extension tubes, and possbly an extender.

If it is a fake effect, considering the non-faked part of the bokeh (which isn't too great), it is probably taken with a 100 mm macro, non-IS (if this is done with a Canon lens anyway).

Personally, I'd recommend a 135L with a set of extension tubes and possibly an extender as well, for macro with extremely smooth bokeh. Works very well indeed.

For a real macro lens, personally I'd recommend the 180 mm - it doesn't get much better, and the bokeh is to die for as well.

Kind regards, Wim

The 180L is the macro monster. But it's heavy and pretty big. Focuses slower than other USM lenses (long way to travel from 1:1 to ∞). All of Canon's macro lenses will offer superb image quality. Comes down to what you want to spend, what kind of working distance you want at 1:1, and if you love those creamier backgrounds at 1:1. If you answered yes to these then you want the 180L. If you are not interested in shooting skittish insects than either the 100mm or 60mm offerings will be suitable.

And if you plan on doing a lot of shooting at 1:1 and stopping down the lens to get better depth of field, then you should consider grabbing a well diffused flash to add some action freezing light.

I think that image was done with a custom bokeh filter. Similar to punching a heart shaped hole into a piece of card stock. A lot of work done by Magdalena Wasiczek uses that effect.

Could I use 70-200 with extension tubes as a macro lens?

light_pilgrim wrote in post #15089290
Could I use 70-200 with extension tubes as a macro lens?

Yep... all shot with a 70-200 f/2.8L IS II + 36mm Kenko tube on a 60D, handheld, natural light. You could stack all of the tubes together to get 68mm of extension, but the DoF becomes extremely thin... no prob if you're using a tripod and/or focus stack.