good non-prime macro lens?

on a recent trip, one of my trip mates had a tamron 28-75 2.8 macro. unfortunately it was a nikon so i couldnt try it on my camera, but after seeing her pics, i started thinking of perhaps going that route. i know its not a true macro camera, but rather a close-focusing one (not my words, i think i read it on the digital picture), but i am fine with that. i dont see this lens in production, and for not wanting to hunt around for it, i was wondering if there were any good recommended equivalents on the market now

Lots of zooms lenses have the word macro written on them somewhere = advertising crap usually. Why not get a macro prime lens like the rest of us do?

Sigma 17-70 2.8-4 OS, very nice minimum focusing distance.

Eos_isomer wrote in post #12159757
Sigma 17-70 2.8-4 OS, very nice minimum focusing distance.

I was going to recommend the old non-OS Sigma 17-70. It is cheaper, sharper wide open and it focuses even closer!

gasrocks wrote in post #12159756
Lots of zooms lenses have the word macro written on them somewhere = advertising crap usually. Why not get a macro prime lens like the rest of us do?

That is true, but you can check the maximum magnification. That Tamron 28-75 has a .25x magnification, which is still quite close depending on your subject. A few zooms go to .33x and a couple go to .5 (the Sigma 17-70 I mentioned above being the closes focusing standard zoom at .43x). Ironically, the OP lists a 24-105L in his kit which has roughly the same magnification as his friend's Tamron 28-75 (.23x vs .25x)

Well, if you want a general walk around lens that has a good MFD, the newer Sigma 17-70 OS is great (I own one and really like it). I do have to say that it's not as strong after 35mm as it is below it. Below 35mm it's an amazing lens. After 35mm it's better than average, but not remarkable.

However, if you just want to have a zoom lens that can kind of do macro, I'd say get an extension tube.

A 12mm extension tube on your 17-50 will bring your MFD in a bit but will sacrifice your infinity focus (but that might be livable for certain situations), and if you want infinity back, just pop off the extension tube. A 25mm extension tube would bring your MFD in even closer (depending on the lens, possibly too close) but would eliminate more of your longer range focus.

Tamron makes a 28-75mm f2.8 lens for the Canon mount. From the posts above, I'd not recommend it if you are looking for an affordable macro/close focusing lens.
Consider the Canon 50mm f2.5 macro or a Sigma 50mm f2.8 macro. They both have better image quality, is cheaper, and gives much more magnification 1:2 and 1:1 respectively.

Good luck.

thanks for the responses. time to do some reading!!

tkbslc wrote in post #12159778
Ironically, the OP lists a 24-105L in his kit which has roughly the same magnification as his friend's Tamron 28-75 (.23x vs .25x)

maybe i dont fully understand, but isnt MFD the key here? i tried taking a macro-ish shot of a lens i was selling with my 24-105, and it just couldnt focus

ekinnyc wrote in post #12161269
maybe i dont fully understand, but isnt MFD the key here? i tried taking a macro-ish shot of a lens i was selling with my 24-105, and it just couldnt focus

The max magnification tells you the size of the object that will fill the frame when at MFD. If it's 1:1 then the object that fills your frame will be the same size as your sensor.

If your 24-105 wouldn't focus closely, did you try switching to MF? It was probably just missing focus.

The Tamron 28-75 f/2.8 (which I own and love) is NOT a macro lens, despite what is written on the barrel.

First step is to decide whether you want a real macro lens, which is to say, one that reaches 1:1 magnification. (The image on the sensor is life size.) There may be a zoom that does this, but I have never seen one. All true macro lenses that I am aware of are primes.

On the other hand, if you don't need real macro, then the question is just how close you want to get, and whether you can get close enough with a lens that is not a true macro lens, coupled with extension tubes or a close-up diopter. I almost always use a dedicated macro lens for macro, but I will post one that I took with a 70-200 (not a true macro lens) with 68mm of extension (the full set of Kenko tubes):

gasrocks wrote in post #12159756
Lots of zooms lenses have the word macro written on them somewhere = advertising crap usually. Why not get a macro prime lens like the rest of us do?

While I 100% agree with you I think the word macro means different things to differnet people. I would venture to say the OP wants a lens where he can get pictures of flowers and bugs, not see the divisions of the eye on a bottle fly.

I'm going to chip in here with a second on check your manual focus and be prepared to move back a hair with your 24-105. Plus carrying an extension tube is easy to do for those times when you want to get a closer shot of a flower or bug.

phreeky wrote in post #12161593
If your 24-105 wouldn't focus closely, did you try switching to MF? It was probably just missing focus.

i did, but no dice

silvrr wrote in post #12161616
While I 100% agree with you I think the word macro means different things to differnet people. I would venture to say the OP wants a lens where he can get pictures of flowers and bugs, not see the divisions of the eye on a bottle fly.

correct.... which is why i should clarify that i am not looking for 1:1 magnification. i will give an example:

the group trip was to brazil, where we spent 2 of the 10 days in the rainforest. the local guides took us on a jungle trek, and showed us many different plants, flowers, etc.... while i generally dont shoot fauna/flora, i wanted to capture some of the things i came across (like 2" long ants!!!). they came out somewhat OOF with my 17-50, whereas with my friend's close-focusing tamron, they came out tack-sharp.

thats really what i would like, a general purpose zoom that has decent MFD. its not a requirement, and by no means would i exchange my 24-105 for it, but i thought id raise the question, if for nothing more than just educating myself.

silvrr wrote in post #12161616
..I think the word macro means different things to differnet people. I would venture to say the OP wants a lens where he can get pictures of flowers and bugs, not see the divisions of the eye on a bottle fly.

Agreed.

My 2¢ -> I took this picture with my Tamron 28-75 the other day, working distance was around 1 foot at 75mm. Not the best shot ever, heh, but for testing purposes, it shows what the lens could be capable of. I love my 28-75 for a million reasons, close focusing is just one of them.

IMAGE IS A REDIRECT OR MISSING! HTTP response: NOT FOUND | MIME changed to 'image/gif' | Redirected to error image by FLICKR

ekinnyc wrote in post #12161269
thanks for the responses. time to do some reading!!

maybe i dont fully understand, but isnt MFD the key here? i tried taking a macro-ish shot of a lens i was selling with my 24-105, and it just couldnt focus

It is part of the equation. The tamron 28-75 has a shorter MFD than your 24-105, but since it is only 75mm and your lens is 105mm, the size of the object in the frame works out to be nearly identical. That's the magnification number.

I have a 55-250 that has a MFD of 1m, but it gets me more magnification than a 28-75 because it is such a long lens.

The MFD of your 24-105 is 45cm (1.5 feet) which gives .23x magnification at 105mm, and considerably less as you zoom out from there.