I have a Canon EOS 40D and need a macro lens but have no idea where to start

Sirrith wrote in post #13618903
You could look into old MF lenses. FD mount macro lenses are fine, because you can use a glassless adapter, which means no loss of quality. However, you will lose infinity focus, so it will literally be macro only. Upside is that they're within your price range. The canon 100/4 is about $100-$150, and there's a vivitar 100/3.5 at about $200-250. All you'd need then is an FD-EOS adapter with either no lens, or a removable lens. Those run about $30-40 I think? Alternatively there's the old tamron 90mm in adaptall mount, which is about $150-200, or various m42 mount ones.

I like the manual lens option, but why recommend FD mounts, when there are many better mount options.

http://www.bobatkins.c​om …faq/manual_focu​s_EOS.html

That's a link on lenses you can get where the adapter does not need to have a piece of glass in it, so the quality is the same on an EF mount camera, as it was on the original body.

Pentax, Nikon, and Contax are all over ebay, along with the adapters you need to make them work (get chipped adapter, for focus conformation).

Many options for under $200.

To give you an example of the savings. (Personally, I would not buy this lens, as I would want something better, but for good MF lenses, your starting in the $150 range, and can easily spend $500).

http://www.ebay.com …1c21b58b33#ht_1​659wt_1165

And the adapter:

http://www.ebay.com …ain_0&hash=item​27c1d411d3

So something like that will get you into Macro, with a Macro lens, for around 50 bucks.

I would second both the extension tube option as well as the older MF option though I would look at almost anything other than Canon FD, trust me I own almost every good piece of FD glass canon made and I wish they worked better on the EF bodies. Almost every other brand of lens be it Nikon, Leica hell even my Mamiya medium format lenses were easier to adapt than my FD lenses.

Damian75 wrote in post #13619847
I would second both the extension tube option as well as the older MF option though I would look at almost anything other than Canon FD, trust me I own almost every good piece of FD glass canon made and I wish they worked better on the EF bodies. Almost every other brand of lens be it Nikon, Leica hell even my Mamiya medium format lenses were easier to adapt than my FD lenses.

There is a good chance as technology advances, in 10 years or so all/most DLSR's will be mirror-less.

If that ever happens, FD lenses will work well on EF mounts. We can only hope

I would start with some inexpensive extension tubes and go from there. I picked up a set of 3 for $80 that are perfectly adequate (metal, good quality etc..). I do enjoy macro, but don't anticipate printing any macro shots more than 8x11inches, and for that the tubes work fine for me. Also 1:1 sounds great (and is a prerequisit for a really good macro lens), but I think most people just getting into macro will find that actually they don't really need that much magnification for what they were thinking of shooting.


They will also work with AF. The main drawback is choosing the right extension tube for the job and getting 1:1. For the former issue having a zoom helps becasue you can use the zoom to broadly focus, then use AF. If the image isn't magnified enough you have to change to a longer extension tube.

Also best used on a nice high quality lens with little CA as this will tend to get amplified. My best lens for using extension tubes is the 70-200 f4.

mafoo wrote in post #13619520
I like the manual lens option, but why recommend FD mounts, when there are many better mount options.


That's a link on lenses you can get where the adapter does not need to have a piece of glass in it, so the quality is the same on an EF mount camera, as it was on the original body.

Because if you read my post, you'd see that I mentioned the glass and what to do with it, and because I don't know all the other available lenses in all other available mounts, and because of the adapter issue with FD lenses, they are generally quite cheap, whereas other mounts such as m42 are more expensive due to higher demand.

mafoo wrote:
To give you an example of the savings. (Personally, I would not buy this lens, as I would want something better, but for good MF lenses, your starting in the $150 range, and can easily spend $500).
http://www.ebay.com …-70-210m...ht_1659wt_1165

And the adapter:

http://www.ebay.com …dapter-P...item27c1d411d3

So something like that will get you into Macro, with a Macro lens, for around 50 bucks.

That link doesn't show a macro lens.

Sirrith wrote in post #13623122
Because if you read my post, you'd see that I mentioned the glass and what to do with it, and because I don't know all the other available lenses in all other available mounts, and because of the adapter issue with FD lenses, they are generally quite cheap, whereas other mounts such as m42 are more expensive due to higher demand.


That link doesn't show a macro lens.

Looks like both those links are now dead. Anyway, there are lots of choices out there....

As for the FD lenses being cheeper, I guess that's true for now. As soon as more people start buying mirror less cameras and playing with old lenses, they will go up as well.

But any lens you have to add an optical element to is less good then lenses you don't (provided the lens itself is of the same quality). I guess if you can get an amazing quality lens in FD, with a VERY GOOD adapter for less money then you get a mediocre lens in other adapters, it might be a good idea.

If my comment came across as condescending, or argumentative, I apologize. That was not my intent.

mafoo wrote in post #13623348
But any lens you have to add an optical element to is less good then lenses you don't (provided the lens itself is of the same quality). I guess if you can get an amazing quality lens in FD, with a VERY GOOD adapter for less money then you get a mediocre lens in other adapters, it might be a good idea.

If my comment came across as condescending, or argumentative, I apologize. That was not my intent.

But thats precisely my point, you don't need the glass element when using an FD lens for macro work on an EF mount camera, so you retain the full quality of the lens.

And no worries, I'm just responding because you don't seem to be noticing the part where I said that you don't need the adapter with glass for macro work

I went with the Macro Filter option myself, http://www.bhphotovide​o.com …m_500D_Close_up​_Lens.html.

I mostly use it with my 70-200 lens and have been pretty happy with the results so far.

IMAGE LINK: http://www.flickr.com/​photos/szrir/363941199​1/

Alan, are you SURE the 100mm 2.8 USM has been discontinued? It's been a fairly strong seller.

There was a 100mm f/2.8 NON-USM macro that has long been discontinued, when the new USM model was made available.

mafoo wrote in post #13618380
another option that's much less expensive, is a extension tubes

http://www.bhphotovide​o.com …Macro_Extension​_Tube.html

You put these between your len and your camera, and it allows any lens to be a macro lens. You lose the ability to focus to infinity while the tube is on, but who cares. Here is a video on it.

http://www.youtube.com​/watch?v=Lg7Wm7qLPR0

Just search youtube for extension tubes, and you can find a lot of info.

What is 'focus to infinity'?

mafoo wrote in post #13619520
I like the manual lens option, but why recommend FD mounts, when there are many better mount options.

http://www.bobatkins.c​om …faq/manual_focu​s_EOS.html

That's a link on lenses you can get where the adapter does not need to have a piece of glass in it, so the quality is the same on an EF mount camera, as it was on the original body.

Pentax, Nikon, and Contax are all over ebay, along with the adapters you need to make them work (get chipped adapter, for focus conformation).

Many options for under $200.

Is MF manual focus?
What's FD?

I think I want just a dedicated macro lens. Not a tube extension.
I said 6" before but am wondering if 1' is better.
Mostly taking pictures of flowers, insects, plants, etc

There is so much info here but it's hard to process, especially with essentially no knowledge of the technical photography jargon stuff, total noob here.

Also check out the Macro section on here .

https://photography-on-the.net/forum/forumdis​play.php?f=38


David