Macro lens

Just wondering what lens you guys would recommend. I don't want the mp-e 65. Doesn't need to be canon. Also, what would the benefit of a 100mm over a 60mm if they both do 1/1. Is it just what you would prefer, for when your not shooting macro?
Thanks, Dave

The 100mm macro would give you more working distance than a 60mm macro.

bmynbr wrote in post #13756997
Just wondering what lens you guys would recommend. I don't want the mp-e 65. Doesn't need to be canon. Also, what would the benefit of a 100mm over a 60mm if they both do 1/1. Is it just what you would prefer, for when your not shooting macro?

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

Thanks, Dave

Do you like telepho or medium range?

Hi,

If this is your first foray into macro photography, then I'm glad you've ruled out the MP-E 65mm. It's a very cool lens, does things no other macro lens can do on its own, but is a serious and experienced macro shooter's tool. It's manual focus only and very high magnification, higher than a lot of people find easy and fun to experiment with.

To answer your question, well it sort of depends upon what you want to shoot and how you will be using the lens...

For outdoor shooting, general purpose, flowers and bugs and such, I recommend a lens in the 90mm, 100mm or 105mm focal lengths, for use on a crop camera like yours. The reason is simple... these focal lengths give you some working distance, so you won't scare away small critters, might avoid getting bitten or stung by some of them. With inanimate subjects, there's less chance of throwing accidental shadow over it, too, thanks to the extra working distance. Also, these lenses aren't so long as to be difficult to be difficult to hand hold, longer lenses are more likely to require a tripod or at least a monopod to get a good, steady shot.

On the other hand, for indoor use... studio work and other more controlled setups, mostly with inanimate subjects, a shorter lens in the 50mm to 60mm range, perhaps even as short as 35mm might be useful. One reason is just the opposite of the above... Often with studio macro shooting it's helpful if you can reach out and rearrange the subject while keeping your eye to the viewfinder. So the shorter lens might be useful. Much of this type of macro work is done on a tripod and/or with supplementary lighting of some sort, so camera shake might not be a big concern. OTOH, with inanimate subjects and a tripod, longer shutter speeds, mirror lockup, a remote release and/or self-timer delay might be used.

There are longer macro lenses available... 150mm and 180mm in particular. With some particularly nasty critters, a bit of additional working distance can come in handy!

The main changes you would be getting from longer focal lengths for macro purpose are working distance and background blur.

Here's a good example of that: http://www.the-digital-picture.com …SM-Macro-Lens-Review.aspx

When I first considered getting into macro, I went to the threads here on the forum on the subject of "best lens" and read various reviews on the net. I chose the Canon 100mm 2.8L IS and couldn't be happier. I frequently add extension tubes and sometimes a 1.4X TC as well. It's a sharp, fast lens for non-macro shooting, too.

I have the 60mm and 100mm nonL from canon as well as the 50mm makro planar from zeiss.

If you have the funds, I highly recommend the zeiss 50mm makro planar. The canon macros are very good, but the optical quality of zeiss glass is in a whole different category IMO. I've also heard and seen amazing results from the zeiss 100mm makro planar, but have no personal experience with it.

Good luck with your new macro venture!!!

I have the EF-S 60mm f2.8 and the EF 100 mm f2.8 L IS. The 100mm is new and I haven't really gotten much chance to use it yet, but I already know I'm going to love it. I like the extra distance I can get from my subject (vs. the 60mm) while still maintaining the same magnification.

Both are also good as primes in their focal ranges, although as mentioned above, slightly slower focusing than a standard prime would be. I only see that as a downside in very rare instances if I'm trying to track a moving target like a bird in flight or a running dog, etc.

i've had the 60mm and both 100mm lens - all from canon. Very hard to detect any IQ difference between them, I got the 100mm for some extra distance between me and what i'm shooting, then I got the 100L for IS and it feels like a better build.