Looking to get into Macro. Budget $1,200. Help please!

I've seriously reached the end of the internet reading up on all the choices for macro lenses & accessories. I was dead set on saving for the 100mm 2.8L Lens ($1050). I never buy anything without doing A LOT of research. Lately, im doubting that the 100mm 2.8L is really what I should get.....

I will be using these lenses on my crop cameras. The main purpose for wanting to get into macro is for flowers, bugs, wedding rings, etc. I really would prefer "L" series lenses for their construction, IQ, etc. But these, dont seem to have the same build as my 70-200mm...

My questions about getting the 100mm 2.8L are:

1. Im thinking the 100mm 2.8L is too long for a crop camera, or since, its a macro, should i be thinking differently? I really would like to be UP CLOSE as possible to the subjects.

2. I hear that some prefer the 135mm or 180mm Macros to get the lens farther away from the subjects, so that the lighting isn't affected. Totally makes sense, now I could talk myself into the 135mm!

3. Extention tubes. Do most use them? Are they required for the best (close-up) macros? I think it's a great idea, but have no idea if they reduce IQ, or settings on the camera , aperature, iso, etc.

4. Are the Macro Primes built weather proof? Seems like they're plastic!? Are they really worth the extra $ over the non-L macros? I ultimately want the best. I've tried saving money previously with bad luck.

At the end of the day, I just would prefer the best lens in my budget. I'm open to any/all suggestions. Sorry for the rant, but hopefully i've got enough information here to put into perspective, just what i'm looking for.

Thanks in advance!

1. You could buy the low price 60mm EF-S macro or rent it to see how you like working UP CLOSE. I would prefer a bit more working room.

2. You do know the 100 will work like a 160 on your 7D.

3. With your "flowers, bugs and wedding rings" I don't see a need to get closer than 1:1 (lifesize) so the lens alone should do the job.

1. There is no 135mm macro
2. I don't know why you wouldn't want as much working distance as you could get
3. They remove infinity focus but allow representation of the subject past 1:1
4. the 100L is weather resistant with a front filter installed. The rest I believe are not

1. The minimum focusing distance on the 100Macro-L is about 12 inches and the 100Macro-regular is 6 inches. Just FYI.
2. Eh... it's not just about lighting. You don't want to scare away the little bugs. However... 100mm is fine, I think, especially on a crop.
3. No knowledge... can't offer opinion here.
4. Best for what? Are you really going to be shooting in the rain or snow? Those are some serious conditions for macro photography... most of the Macro shooters I know shoot in controlled environments. Of course, I understand that these lenses can be used for nonMacro photography, but you haven't described nonMacro use.

In my opinion, the real reason to get the L version is for the hybrid IS. Handholding macro shots would be amazingly fun if I had it!

Sdiver2489 wrote in post #12275527
1. There is no 135mm macro
2. I don't know why you wouldn't want as much working distance as you could get

Less FL means less shake
the optimal distance for me is around 5cm

Also if you say flowers, bugs and rings instead of FLY HEADS GETTING THE ENTIRE FRAME, you probably wont need extension tubes and will be fine with 1:1

I've been having the same debate myself. Here are my thoughts...

-100mm on a crop seems to provide a good distance from the subject
-I don't see myself working in the rain or windy (and thus dusty) conditions so weather sealing isn't a big plus for me
-almost all macro work that I like has been done with flash so I don't really see myself needing IS, any truly natural light macro will most likely be done on a tripod

Thus for me I'm planning on buying the non 'L' EF 100 and saving ~$500. I've seen both lenses being sold used and both retain their value equally.

Nathan wrote in post #12275581
1. The minimum focusing distance on the 100Macro-L is about 12 inches and the 100Macro-regular is 6 inches. Just FYI.

Both the 100mm macro and macro L IS have a working distance of 6 inches(with in a tenth of an inch)

I would wait and get the new SIgma 150mm. Weather resistant, OS, HSM. Going to be a great lens.

Raylon wrote in post #12276084
I would wait and get the new SIgma 150mm. Weather resistant, OS, HSM. Going to be a great lens.

+1...If quality/focus issues are absent, should be a killer lens!

marcus769 wrote in post #12275391
I've seriously reached the end of the internet reading up on all the choices for macro lenses & accessories. I was dead set on saving for the 100mm 2.8L Lens ($1050). I never buy anything without doing A LOT of research. Lately, im doubting that the 100mm 2.8L is really what I should get.....

I will be using these lenses on my crop cameras. The main purpose for wanting to get into macro is for flowers, bugs, wedding rings, etc. I really would prefer "L" series lenses for their construction, IQ, etc. But these, dont seem to have the same build as my 70-200mm...

I shoot lots of flowers (close up, not macro) and I think 100mm is a great focal length on a crop. I do often use the 50mm if I want to move in close though.

You are correct that the 100mm f/2.8L has the same construction as most other Canon lenses. It will last a lifetime, but you don't have the bragging rights that it is "L construction".

You could get the regular EF 100mm f/2.8 and the EF-S 60mm f/2.8 for the same price as the L version. Both of these are such excellent lenses that you would have to look hard to find improvements in the L version. Image stabilization would be the only benefit for me.

You are better off spending a little less on the lens to make sure you get a good ring-flash setup. The MR-14EX and the Sigma 105mm Macro would be a good combo for a good price.

Mark-B wrote in post #12276241
I shoot lots of flowers (close up, not macro) and I think 100mm is a great focal length on a crop. I do often use the 50mm if I want to move in close though.

You are correct that the 100mm f/2.8L has the same construction as most other Canon lenses. It will last a lifetime, but you don't have the bragging rights that it is "L construction".

You could get the regular EF 100mm f/2.8 and the EF-S 60mm f/2.8 for the same price as the L version. Both of these are such excellent lenses that you would have to look hard to find improvements in the L version. Image stabilization would be the only benefit for me.

I disagree. The quality of construction on the 100L is fantastic. The focus ring is wonderfully damped, all parts are assembled very tightly, etc.

The lens is built to the same level of the 35L, 24L II both of which I have owned.

The 100L is a great lens.

Go with Canon 100mm f2.8L, you won't be disappointed...

You can't go wrong with the 100 2.8.I use mine on crop bodies,it is still 1 to 1 but gives you more working distance,very sharp lens