Wanted: Inexpensive Macro - weighing my options

I'm looking to get an inexpensive 1:1 macro lens.

So far, I think I've narrowed it down to:

Canon 100 f/2.8
Sigma 70 f/2.8

both are about $500 new, f/2.8, 1:1

I'm not too worried about working distance - I prefer closer. The canon is USM, I know the Sigma is not but i'm not sure if it's terribly noisy.

Would I be better off spending more and getting an OS/IS macro lens instead? I'd likely be using this outdoors or with flash and I DO NOT have a steady hand

Any first-hand experience would be appreciated!

I've really enjoyed the 100mm 2.8, myself; I've been toying with the idea of updating to the L now that it's out...but it's just such a nice lens on its own, that I haven't been able to justify the additional outlay just for IS. I don't have a steady hand, either, but it still works well when I do the occasionaly handheld shots.

I played with the 100L in person and was VERY disappointed in how it felt - feels cheaper than my already "cheap feeling" 35L. I'm sure it delivers the goods, but that bothered me a bit.

I just ordered the Sigma 70 f/2.8 - it'll be here Wed. and I'll post pics (I can always return if I don't like it....)

I've been very pleased with Sigma's primes in the past and all the reviews rave about how sharp it is and how nice the bokeh is - what more could a guy ask for?!

I put a raynox 250 ($79 at BHphoto) on the end of any fairly good zoom lens and come up with these type of shots. I've owned the canon 100 2.8 IS and non-IS. I find them overkill unless you're truly dedicated to macro work and you don't need a true macro. Put this raynox on your tokina 50-135 and you're golden.

IMAGE LINK: http://www.flickr.com …dannylankford/6​193527193/

IMAGE LINK: http://www.flickr.com …dannylankford/6​193527003/

IMAGE LINK: http://www.flickr.com …dannylankford/6​242143361/

lankforddl wrote in post #13636535
I put a raynox 250 ($79 at BHphoto) on the end of any fairly good zoom lens and come up with these type of shots. I've owned the canon 100 2.8 IS and non-IS. I find them overkill unless you're truly dedicated to macro work and you don't need a true macro. Put this raynox on your tokina 50-135 and you're golden.

IMAGE LINK: http://www.flickr.com …dannylankford/6​193527193/
Grasshopper UofM Campus by lankforddl, on Flickr

IMAGE LINK: http://www.flickr.com …dannylankford/6​193527003/
Wasp by lankforddl, on Flickr

IMAGE LINK: http://www.flickr.com …dannylankford/6​242143361/
Bees in the hood by lankforddl, on Flickr

Very interesting. I don't "trust" my 35, 50, 85mm lenses with enough resolution or color-fringing performance to work as a macro with a converter, but the 135 and 50-135 would likely do well. I'm tempted to buy this as well and do some head-to-head tests. I just feel like a tool using some "converter" since they have such negative connotations

Also, i'm not sure if this will get me 1:1 magnification.

i would definitely pick the Canon between the 2 if they are about the same price.

I have the 100L and it's one sharp lens

Erik_L wrote in post #13636564
Very interesting. I don't "trust" my 35, 50, 85mm lenses with enough resolution or color-fringing performance to work as a macro with a converter, but the 135 and 50-135 would likely do well. I'm tempted to buy this as well and do some head-to-head tests. I just feel like a tool using some "converter" since they have such negative connotations

I think those images speak for themselves. Who cares what other people think of your gear? The quality of that raynox 250 glass is amazing when you use it correctly.
But my recommendations are the;

Canon 100mm 2.8 (NON-IS) and the
Tamron 60mm 2.0

Get the Tamron 60mm f2.0 and the raynox 250. You'll have a fantastic portrait/macro lens with up to 2:1 macro capabilities and be under your $500 budget.

I've heard the Tamron 60/2 works awesome on APS-H.

You might want to consider just using a tripod for macro... on that note, I have a 100 f2.8 USM version and I really like it. It's an outstanding lens for the price.

The shorter your lens, the more effective the tubes should you eventually choose to use those.

The 50 f2.5 is also a very well regarded macro and inexpensive. I think they're about 250.

I have aspirations to one day have full-frame again So I'd like to get something that will work with both, and i'm trying to move away from the 50-135 since it just barely fills the 1.3 crop frame.

Once my Sigma 70 arrives, I'll be able to make a decision from there. I forgot all about the Tamron 60 f/2.....

And to think, I just ordered the Ec-s focusing screen... if it's anything like the one on my 5D II (when I had it) it will be painfully dim on f/2.8 lenses, especially as I near the 1:1 limit.... I wonder what the f/ equiv is on the Sigma 70mm f/2.8 compared to the Tamron 60mm f/2

ALSO, I had the 50 f/2.5 "macro" and liked it well enough, but it was only 1:2... using a lifesize converter seems foolish since the working distance becomes VERY close then.

I'm surprised nobody suggested the Tamrom 90 f/2.8. It's a great macro, and a sweet portrait lens as well.

1Tanker wrote in post #13636738
I'm surprised nobody suggested the Tamrom 90 f/2.8. It's a great macro, and a sweet portrait lens as well.

I'm pretty sure that my Sigma 85 and 135L are even sweeter portrait lenses I feel like I'd be hard-pressed to find a 1:1 macro lens that I could afford that would rival either of those for portraits, unless I get get a 150mm cheap.... but even then.

lankforddl wrote in post #13636535
I put a raynox 250 ($79 at BHphoto) on the end of any fairly good zoom lens and come up with these type of shots. I've owned the canon 100 2.8 IS and non-IS. I find them overkill unless you're truly dedicated to macro work and you don't need a true macro. Put this raynox on your tokina 50-135 and you're golden.

HTTP response: NOT FOUND | MIME changed to 'text/html' | Content warning: script

IMAGE LINK: http://www.flickr.com …dannylankford/6​193527193/
Grasshopper UofM Campus by lankforddl, on Flickr

IMAGE LINK: http://www.flickr.com …dannylankford/6​193527003/
Wasp by lankforddl, on Flickr

IMAGE LINK: http://www.flickr.com …dannylankford/6​242143361/
Bees in the hood by lankforddl, on Flickr

nice, are all these at 135mm?

Looks like they're with the 24-70 and 70-200 f/4 according to his EXIF

Erik_L wrote in post #13637079
Looks like they're with the 24-70 and 70-200 f/4 according to his EXIF

yep, with the raynox 250 and f13 or higher if I recall correctly.