Approve the Cookies
This website uses cookies to improve your user experience. By using this site, you agree to our use of cookies and our Privacy Policy.
OK
Index  •   • New posts  •   • RTAT  •   • 'Best of'  •   • Gallery  •   • Gear  •   • Reviews
Guest
New posts  •   • RTAT  •   • 'Best of'  •   • Gallery  •   • Gear  •   • Reviews
Register to forums    Log in

 
FORUMS Canon Cameras, Lenses & Accessories Canon EF and EF-S Lenses 
Thread started 02 Jan 2012 (Monday) 19:47
Search threadPrev/next
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)

Wanted: Inexpensive Macro - weighing my options

 
Erik_L
Goldmember
3,160 posts
Likes: 1
Joined Oct 2009
Location: Minnesota
     
Jan 02, 2012 19:47 |  #1

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!


Canon EOS 1D III
Manfrotto 190X Pro B w/324RC2 "Action Head" | Canon 580EX II
Sigma 20 f/1.8 | Canon 35 f/1.4 L | Sigma 50 f/1.4 | Sigma 85 f/1.4 | Canon 135 f/2 L
Flick (external link)r

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)
Snydremark
my very own Lightrules moment
19,065 posts
Gallery: 57 photos
Likes: 3376
Joined Mar 2009
Location: Issaquah, WA USA
     
Jan 02, 2012 19:55 |  #2

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.


- Eric S.: My Birds/Wildlife (external link) (7D MkII/5D IV, Canon 10-22 f/3.5-4.5, Canon 24-105L f/4 IS, Canon 70-200L f/2.8 IS MkII, Canon 100-400L f/4.5-5.6 IS I/II)
"The easiest way to improve your photos is to adjust the loose nut between the shutter release and the ground."

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Erik_L
THREAD ­ STARTER
Goldmember
3,160 posts
Likes: 1
Joined Oct 2009
Location: Minnesota
     
Jan 02, 2012 19:58 |  #3

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?!


Canon EOS 1D III
Manfrotto 190X Pro B w/324RC2 "Action Head" | Canon 580EX II
Sigma 20 f/1.8 | Canon 35 f/1.4 L | Sigma 50 f/1.4 | Sigma 85 f/1.4 | Canon 135 f/2 L
Flick (external link)r

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
lankforddl
Senior Member
Avatar
747 posts
Gallery: 1 photo
Likes: 5
Joined Oct 2009
Location: Minnesota
     
Jan 02, 2012 20:06 as a reply to  @ Erik_L's post |  #4

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: http://farm7.staticflickr.com/6158/6193527193_d04088fb8e_z.jpg
IMAGE LINK: http://www.flickr.com …dannylankford/6​193527193/  (external link)
Grasshopper UofM Campus (external link) by lankforddl (external link), on Flickr

IMAGE: http://farm7.staticflickr.com/6171/6193527003_cedff7790d_z.jpg
IMAGE LINK: http://www.flickr.com …dannylankford/6​193527003/  (external link)
Wasp (external link) by lankforddl (external link), on Flickr

IMAGE: http://farm7.staticflickr.com/6019/6242143361_1140e1a833_z.jpg
IMAGE LINK: http://www.flickr.com …dannylankford/6​242143361/  (external link)
Bees in the hood (external link) by lankforddl (external link), on Flickr

5DIICAN17-40CAN50CAN85CAN100CAN135CAN70-200

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Erik_L
THREAD ­ STARTER
Goldmember
3,160 posts
Likes: 1
Joined Oct 2009
Location: Minnesota
     
Jan 02, 2012 20:13 |  #5

lankforddl wrote in post #13636535 (external link)
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.

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

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

QUOTED IMAGE
IMAGE LINK: http://www.flickr.com …dannylankford/6​242143361/  (external link)
Bees in the hood (external link) by lankforddl (external link), 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.


Canon EOS 1D III
Manfrotto 190X Pro B w/324RC2 "Action Head" | Canon 580EX II
Sigma 20 f/1.8 | Canon 35 f/1.4 L | Sigma 50 f/1.4 | Sigma 85 f/1.4 | Canon 135 f/2 L
Flick (external link)r

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
kin2son
Goldmember
4,546 posts
Likes: 3
Joined May 2011
Location: Sydney, Australia
     
Jan 02, 2012 20:22 |  #6
bannedPermanent ban

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 :)


5D3 Gripped / 17-40L / Σ35 / 40 Pancake / Zeiss 50 MP / Σ85 / 100L Macro / 70-200 f2.8L II IS / 430 EX II / 580 EX II / Canon 2xIII TC / Kenko Ext. Tubes
EOS M / EF-M 18-55 / EF-M 22f2 / Ricoh GR aka Ultimate street camera :p
Flickr (external link) | My Images on Getty®‎ (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
lankforddl
Senior Member
Avatar
747 posts
Gallery: 1 photo
Likes: 5
Joined Oct 2009
Location: Minnesota
     
Jan 02, 2012 20:24 |  #7

Erik_L wrote in post #13636564 (external link)
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.


5DIICAN17-40CAN50CAN85CAN100CAN135CAN70-200

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Sp1207
Goldmember
1,835 posts
Gallery: 3 photos
Likes: 4
Joined Nov 2010
Location: Right Behind You
     
Jan 02, 2012 20:24 |  #8

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


Gear

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
svarley
Senior Member
Avatar
592 posts
Likes: 13
Joined Mar 2009
Location: LA, CA
     
Jan 02, 2012 20:27 |  #9

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.




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Erik_L
THREAD ­ STARTER
Goldmember
3,160 posts
Likes: 1
Joined Oct 2009
Location: Minnesota
     
Jan 02, 2012 20:27 |  #10

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.


Canon EOS 1D III
Manfrotto 190X Pro B w/324RC2 "Action Head" | Canon 580EX II
Sigma 20 f/1.8 | Canon 35 f/1.4 L | Sigma 50 f/1.4 | Sigma 85 f/1.4 | Canon 135 f/2 L
Flick (external link)r

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
1Tanker
Goldmember
Avatar
4,470 posts
Likes: 5
Joined Jan 2011
Location: Swaying to the Symphony of Destruction
     
Jan 02, 2012 20:54 as a reply to  @ Erik_L's post |  #11

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


Kel
Gear

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Erik_L
THREAD ­ STARTER
Goldmember
3,160 posts
Likes: 1
Joined Oct 2009
Location: Minnesota
     
Jan 02, 2012 21:07 |  #12

1Tanker wrote in post #13636738 (external link)
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.


Canon EOS 1D III
Manfrotto 190X Pro B w/324RC2 "Action Head" | Canon 580EX II
Sigma 20 f/1.8 | Canon 35 f/1.4 L | Sigma 50 f/1.4 | Sigma 85 f/1.4 | Canon 135 f/2 L
Flick (external link)r

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
archpictures
Member
Avatar
165 posts
Joined Nov 2011
     
Jan 02, 2012 21:57 |  #13

lankforddl wrote in post #13636535 (external link)
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 NOT FOUND
HTTP response: NOT FOUND | MIME changed to 'text/html' | Content warning: script


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

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

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

nice, are all these at 135mm?


:)bw!:oops::D;):rolleyes::(:confused::mad::p:cool::eek::lol::o:cry:
is photography an art, or sport?

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Erik_L
THREAD ­ STARTER
Goldmember
3,160 posts
Likes: 1
Joined Oct 2009
Location: Minnesota
     
Jan 02, 2012 21:58 |  #14

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


Canon EOS 1D III
Manfrotto 190X Pro B w/324RC2 "Action Head" | Canon 580EX II
Sigma 20 f/1.8 | Canon 35 f/1.4 L | Sigma 50 f/1.4 | Sigma 85 f/1.4 | Canon 135 f/2 L
Flick (external link)r

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
lankforddl
Senior Member
Avatar
747 posts
Gallery: 1 photo
Likes: 5
Joined Oct 2009
Location: Minnesota
     
Jan 02, 2012 22:02 |  #15

Erik_L wrote in post #13637079 (external link)
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.


5DIICAN17-40CAN50CAN85CAN100CAN135CAN70-200

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)

4,798 views & 0 likes for this thread
Wanted: Inexpensive Macro - weighing my options
FORUMS Canon Cameras, Lenses & Accessories Canon EF and EF-S Lenses 
AAA
x 1600
y 1600

Jump to forum...   •  Rules   •  Index   •  New posts   •  RTAT   •  'Best of'   •  Gallery   •  Gear   •  Reviews   •  Member list   •  Polls   •  Image rules   •  Search   •  Password reset

Not a member yet?
Register to forums
Registered members may log in to forums and access all the features: full search, image upload, follow forums, own gear list and ratings, likes, more forums, private messaging, thread follow, notifications, own gallery, all settings, view hosted photos, own reviews, see more and do more... and all is free. Don't be a stranger - register now and start posting!


COOKIES DISCLAIMER: This website uses cookies to improve your user experience. By using this site, you agree to our use of cookies and to our privacy policy.
Privacy policy and cookie usage info.


POWERED BY AMASS forum software 2.1forum software
version 2.1 /
code and design
by Pekka Saarinen ©
for photography-on-the.net

Latest registered member was a spammer, and banned as such!
915 guests, 296 members online
Simultaneous users record so far is 15144, that happened on Nov 22, 2018

Photography-on-the.net Digital Photography Forums is the website for photographers and all who love great photos, camera and post processing techniques, gear talk, discussion and sharing. Professionals, hobbyists, newbies and those who don't even own a camera -- all are welcome regardless of skill, favourite brand, gear, gender or age. Registering and usage is free.