Another "Which macro?" Thread

Well, I kinda wanna buy a macro after lurking the macro forum for quite some time. I'd like something that I could just walk around with and take pictures of anything on spot. I have a couple flashes and triggers and I'm sure there's tons of threads out there about how to make them work for you when shooting macro, but I don't plan on usually taking a bunch of flashes and stuff when hiking or just roaming around. I'm not planning to invest much in any additional lighting for macro shooting either. I'd also like to be able to fit something like a flower measuring 2 inches in diameter in the frame while I'm standing straight up. I wouldn't mind kneeling either, but there's no way for me to be taller. I'm about 5' 6" in height. So yea, basically a walk-around macro that's not too long, but also NOT TOO SHORT (bugs freak me out, but they are oh so intriguing to look at and photograph). My budget is about $500 dollars, but the less I have to spend on a good macro, the better. I also shoot on a Rebel XSi. Thanks guys!

Tamron 90mm macro $449 at B&H. Longer tele macro will get you further from the dreaded spider but they are more expensive and are harder to hold steady.

racketman wrote in post #13714830
Tamron 90mm macro $449 at B&H. Longer tele macro will get you further from the dreaded spider but they are more expensive and are harder to hold steady.

It's like $390 at BuyDig with the rebate! What a deal, but how does this compare to the more expensive 100mm f/2.8? It seems the 100 is an overall better lens, if worth the cost, I could spring for that. And at 90mm how far away from objects are we talking in order to get a decent magnification?

I absolutely love giving people advise and I am incredibly bad at it. However I bought a DSLR very recently, I took some photos with it and it rekindled in me an ancient passion for photographing things. I was acquainted with macro and being ever so obsessed with anything very small, very large or very far away, I thought I would give it a go. I bought some tubes, then a Canon D500 close-up lens, I then bought a reversing ring, then I bought a 100mm f/2.8 macro lens. I then kicked myself for not having bought the 100mm in the first place, I kicked myself again just a short time later when I realised what I'd spent fart arsing about would have bought me an MP-E 65mm. You know you want it, even if you don't know now, it won't be very long before you do know that you wanted it now. If you buy it and find it boring in just a short while, contact me and I will buy it off you!

My signature should read: Snowy, Canon EOS 550D, EFS18-55mm, EF75-300mm, MP-E 65mm

Snowyman wrote in post #13718635
I absolutely love giving people advise and I am incredibly bad at it. However I bought a DSLR very recently, I took some photos with it and it rekindled in me an ancient passion for photographing things. I was acquainted with macro and being ever so obsessed with anything very small, very large or very far away, I thought I would give it a go. I bought some tubes, then a Canon D500 close-up lens, I then bought a reversing ring, then I bought a 100mm f/2.8 macro lens. I then kicked myself for not having bought the 100mm in the first place, I kicked myself again just a short time later when I realised what I'd spent fart arsing about would have bought me an MP-E 65mm. You know you want it, even if you don't know now, it won't be very long before you do know that you wanted it now. If you buy it and find it boring in just a short while, contact me and I will buy it off you!

My signature should read: Snowy, Canon EOS 550D, EFS18-55mm, EF75-300mm, MP-E 65mm

The MP-E is incredible in the right hands. All the evidence is in the macro thread! But the thing is, the MP-E is TOO dedicated to macro for me. I'd like to be able to take portraits and everything else too! Should bought that 100mm when it was $450 on Amazon!

edmyloo wrote in post #13715052
It's like $390 at BuyDig with the rebate! What a deal, but how does this compare to the more expensive 100mm f/2.8? It seems the 100 is an overall better lens, if worth the cost, I could spring for that. And at 90mm how far away from objects are we talking in order to get a decent magnification?

Tamron 90mm macro minimum working distance is 99mm
Canon 100mm macro 150mm

I don't know if you would notice much difference in image quality, all the macro lenses from the main manufacturers have a good reputation. There are actually times when being nearer to the subject is useful eg when trying to hold a leaf still with one hand and shoot with the other in windy conditions but overall perhaps the extra working distance is to be preferred.

edmyloo wrote in post #13720676
Should bought that 100mm when it was $450 on Amazon!

Something weird is happening to the cost of lenses, I'm sure the MP-E 65mm has gone up by a whopping £100 since Christmas...

The Tamron 90 has been a great tool for me. Macro and general stuff.

I found (what I think) is a pretty decent deal on a 100mm, so I'm picking it up tomorrow. I felt like the Tamron wasn't that much cheaper, so might as well pay a bit more for USM and the brand name. I've heard resale value on Canon brand lenses are better too just in case I ever want to sell it.