Should a DSLR newby buy a macro lens?

Hi all,
being a complete newby, I hope I'm at the right place in the forum. If not - I'm sorry and please redirect me.

I'm buying my first DSLR (after p&s Canon SX30IS) - decided to go for the Canon T6i with their EF-S 18-135 mm lens.
As we travel alot (and most of the photos are done there) it seems like the best lens option to begin with according to what I've read (do you agree?).
But while I enjoy taking photos of the view, the kids, portraits and more, my favorites are macro: close-ups of flowers, bugs, rocks, some more flowers... Several years working on electronic microscope only made it probably "worse". So after reading a bit deaper into it I'm tempted to buy also Canon's 60mm f/2.8 macro lense - which looks like having good reviews and should be useful in both macro and portrait photos (correct?).

Am I rushing it? Should I just start with one lens, to learn to play with the images, light, all the exposure parameters to understand them better before investing into a macro lense? It sounds so logical, but on the other hand, one of my main reasons to move to DSLR is to be able to get better macro images. (I have to say that going a bit through the forum and seeing some flowers/bugs/water droplets photos just make me itch more )

Or may-be I should put my question differently: My impression it that 60mm macro will give me an opportunity to take macro pictures that cannot be taken with 18-135mm, even (or may-be espesially?) at the begginer's level of skill. Is this correct?

Thank you!

Normally I would suggest more photography experience before investing in a macro, which admittedly is a specialty lens. But given your interest in close-ups and macro, I would say "go for it". I recently bought the 60/2.8 macro and have had a lot of fun with it, not only with macro and close-up, but also for selective focus and for portraits.

The only negative with the 60mm macro is you won't have much distance between you and your subject for true macro photography. That matters with insects, etc.

You might consider one of the two Canon 100mm macro lenses.

Edit: I was at work, typing on my iPhone. So...your working distance will be greater with one of the longer macro lenses, i.e., the two Canon 100mm lenses or a Sigma or Tamron. I chose the 100L because it has IS which I find useful for handheld shots, though the quality of the two Canon lenses is thought to be the same by those with far more experience than I possess.

That said, I've also heard/read but have no first hand experience, that the 60mm EF-S lens is also very good, but limited to use on a crop camera. At this point, I doubt that will be a limiting factor for you. As I mentioned above, the main negative, if there is one, is how close you'll have to be to get a 1:1 photograph (a true macro shot).

As I see it, a general Macro lens, around 100mm (that is the most comm anyway) would not only serve you well for close-ups,
but also as a portrait lens, if portraits are your thing.

So I would say, you can't really go wrong with one, it would be definately one of the most fun lenses for your money.
Sadly I never got to the point to buy one, but its on my shopping list

That said, you will need to LEARN how to use a lens for macro, and you will need tons of light for it, BUT i the end, even if you don't use it for Macro, it will still serve you well.

ABSOLUTELY go for the macro lens! It's probably the most used, favorite in my lineup due to it's versatility and fun factor. Being able to shoot bugs and sharp portraits with one lens is awesome. If you're having fun shooting, everything else will fall into place.

Since you already know that you like macro photography I'd also say "go for it".
I have the EF-S 60mm and can definitely recommend it. While it is true that a 100mm lens gives you a little bit more working distance I don't have problems shooting insects with the 60mm. Most insects don't mind you being close, they're just easily scared away by sudden movements.
The 60mm is also great if you want to shoot indoors (portraits etc.) 100mm might be a bit long indoors at times.
That being said, the 100mm L is a great lens (I've borrowed one once) if you can afford it.

Another option is to get these extension tubes with a 50/1.8 STM.

http://www.bhphotovide​o.com …auto_macro_exte​nsion.html

The 50 will be a better portrait lens with an extra 1-1/3 stop of aperture and with the tubes, still give better than 1:1 macro. These two would cost half the price of a macro lens. I have examples in my gallery using the tubes with my 60/2.8 and 100L macro lenses.

The best thing about the tubes is if you get into macro, you can still use these tubes with a 60/2.8, 100 macro or any other macro lens to get even more magnification.

If you want to just jump into it and get a macro now, I would go with the 60/2.8 because it will be more of an all around portrait lens than a 100mm which you may find too long for portraits. I really don't notice myself scaring off bugs with my 60 any more than my 100L.

AnnaF wrote in post #18019345
But while I enjoy taking photos of the view, the kids, portraits and more, my favorites are macro: close-ups of flowers, bugs, rocks, some more flowers...

that's enough for me to recommend a macro lens. I would steer you towards something between 90-105mm if your interest runs more towards bugs.

Absolutely especially if you have an interest in macro. I too would go for either of the 100macros. But if you're really interested, go for it all, the macro holy grail MPE-65. Only used ones left so they are getting harder to find. It's a macro only lens but the results this lens delivers is stunning.

everyone buys a macro lens at some point. few actually use/keep them. only one way to find out

Hi Anna,

Welcome to DSLR photography and PoN! Let me give you a contrary opinion. My advice would be that you not let other people tell you what you "should" buy. Especially in online forums such as these, where people enjoy buying and selling equipment and drooling over the latest and greatest.

I would suggest first that you see what you can do with the 18-135mm lens you have. That's actually a pretty good all-around lens (I have one that I use for travel). Although it's not called "macro" and you may not be able to get 1:1 image size, you might be able to focus close enough to get good shots of what you want. Start with that, and once you run into the limitations of it, you will be better able to determine what you need.

My Sigma 17-70mm "normal" lens isn't a true macro, but it can focus pretty close and I have gotten nice shots of cherry blossoms and spiders this spring. They're nothing like the shots people post that are taken with dedicated macro lenses, but I'm happy with them and I don't have to carry anything extra.

Mike

I agree with most others. You can't go wrong with Canon's 100mm macro lenses, which are very versatile and will serve you well with all of the subjects you mention. The 60mm may also work, but the 100mm f/2.8 L is a great lens.

My first DSLR, purchased about 4 years ago, was 7D + 28-135mm kit lens. I bought my macro at the same time, and while I've expanded my lens collection to just about everything I'd ever want the macro remains near the top in usefulness and fun factor.

the 18-135STM does get close...nothing is as good as a true macro lens...if you can afford it, i'd say go for it...although it may lead you to getting a flash as well...

If you want to keep it light, the 50stm + macro tubes is a great way to go.

If you don't mind some heft, and know you are going to be serious about macro.. the 100L is a totally awesome lens to have for both portrait and macro.

Thank you so much everybody!
I can't wait for my new camera to arrive (just a few days) to start to experiment!

DreDaze wrote in post #18019957
the 18-135STM does get close...nothing is as good as a true macro lens...if you can afford it, i'd say go for it...although it may lead you to getting a flash as well...

Does anybody have photos of how close this lense can get? My friend has the exact same equipment (T6i with 18-135) that I played with for several hours, but I couldn't get as close as I'de like - but I'm wondering if it's just lack of skills? (Yes, my logic sais I have to learn and practice and see what I get with the first lens, but the thought that I'll be traveling mid June in Colorado with no ability to shoot macro...)

as to the flash - yes, so it seems, but with that I feel like I can wait for now

I'm afraid that the 100mm macro are above my budget currently... but 60mm is still possible

I was considering earlier the 50mm+tubes option - but read somewhere on this forum that you could get much more with the 60macro...
Is there somewhere a comparison of what you can get with 50mm+tubes against 60mm macro?

Thank you again for all the advice and patience!