Macro or longer zoom; best low cost lens for each?

Well, you really aren't going to find both things in a single lens.

A true macro lens won't be as long as what you have now with up to 250mm. And there isn't anything "cheap" when it comes to telephotos that give significantly more reach than your 250mm.

The least expensive macro lens is the Canon EF 50/2.5 Compact Macro... $280. Be aware that it's not a 1:1 (lifesize) macro lens... it's 1:2 unless you add an adapter that costs an add'l $280. You might be able to use macro extension tubes instead (see below), to get greater magnification. Sigma offers a 50/2.8 macro that's 1:1 capable and costs about $370.

However, 50mm puts you awfully close to your subject, so it might depend upon your subjects, how useful those would be.

About the longest, widely available true macro lenses offered are 180mm. And, frankly, using even that long macro lens on a crop camera is pretty tricky... Do you have a good steady tripod? The longer the lens, the more you have to stop down to get adequate depth of field at high magnifications, forcing you to use slower shutter speeds and/or higher ISO... and often a tripod. I can't imagine using a longer macro lens, presumably longer than your 55-250mm! That would be a monster to work with.

This is 180mm on full frame (film) camera....

Golden Bee
EF 180mm f3.5L macro lens. EOS-3 camera, Ektachrome film (100 or 200). Handheld (actually camera & lens resting on the ground), availble light (no flash). Settings unrecorded. Image digitized with Nikon 4000ED film scanner.

As you can see above, the plane of focus with a long macro lens can be super shallow. In this case it's just a couple mm. Unfortunately the settings weren't recorded, but I bet it was f4 or f5.6, though it might have been smaller aperture. (No EXIF with film!).

I normally recommend someone trying out macro for the first time and shooting with a crop sensor camera look for a lens in the 60mm to 105mm range.These are much easier to use, a good compromise of hand-holdability and working distance. There are quite good lenses from Canon, Tokina, Sigma and Tamron in this range of focal lengths. Some like a more compact lens such as a 60mm, but those put you closer to the subject. Among the least expensive is the Canon EF-S 60mm f2.8 ($450 by the time you get the matching lens hood). The Tamron 60mm f2.0 has an unusually large aperture, so might be really dual purpose useful as a portrait lens, too... currently on sale for about $425.

I prefer a 90mm or 100mm for a walk-around macro lens. The Tokina 100mm for $490 and the Tamron 90mm currently on sale for around $450 are about the least expensive. The Canon 100mm USM (non-IS) is what I use a lot and sells for a little over $600 by the time you get the accessory lens hood... The tripod mounting ring for it (which I consider very worthwhile accessory) adds another $140 for the OEM Canon, cheaper clones can be found on eBay. The Canon 100mm L/IS sells for around $1000, and also doesn't include the tripod mounting ring ($180).

Instead of buying a macro lens, you might consider getting a set of macro extension tubes and use them with your 55-250, perhaps set to around it's 60 to 105mm focal lengths. The following was done with my 70-200mm f2.8 lens with one or two extension tubes on it....


Black & yellow garden spider in its web
EF 70-200mm f2.8 IS lens with macro extension tube(s). EOS-3 camera, Ektachrome E100VS film. Gizto 1325 tripod, Kirk BH-1 ballhead. 550EX flash (fill). Image digitized with Nikon 4000EF film scanner.

Again, settings unrecorced because it was shot on film. But this is an example where I was out shooting something else, so didn't have a macro lens with me.... but I always have a set of macro extension tubes in my camera bag, so was able to get a pretty tight close-up with my zoom lens.

One thing to note if you go with a set of macro tubes, you need to be sure to get ones that can be used with an EF-S lens such as yours. The Kenko tubes I linked to on Amazon are marked "For CA/AFs" on the side, which means they are compatible with EF-S lenses. Older ones only marked "For CA/AF" are not... Can only be used with EF lenses. Tubes like these are very easy to use.

Canon doesn't offer a set of tubes. They sell individual 12mm and 25mm tubes that are well made, but they work out to be rather pricey. If buying the Canon, you need to get the "Mark II" to be able to use them on an EF-S lens.

The Kenko set is well made and a reasonably good value at about $180. They are pretty similar to the Canon... metal tubes with solid latches and spring loaded electronic contacts.

There are cheaper, such as Zeikos, which also sell under the Vivitar, Bower, ProOptic, Jessop's and some other brand names. These have plastic tubes, aren't as well made as the Kenko and Canon, but might be fine for occasional usage with lighter weight lenses and cameras. Note that there are two versions offered. One has metal bayonet mounts and costs a little more. The other has plastic bayonet mounts and is cheaper. I would be pretty careful using the latter.

There are also really cheap "dumb" macro tubes... Fotodiox and some other brands.... under $25 and some as cheap as $8 or $10. These do not have electronic contacts, so are much more of a pain in the arse to use with most of our AF lenses (might be fine with vintage, manual focus/manual aperture lenses, though).

So, the most cost effective way to start doing macro is to use the lens you've already got with one or more macro extension tubes. Your 50/1.8 might be usable too....

The image below was shot with my 50/1.4 lens with a 20 or 25mm extension tube on it...

Chiaroscuro rose bud
EF 50/1.4 lens at f2 with 20 or 25mm extension tube. EOS 10D camera at ISO 100, 1/2000 shutter speed. Handheld, available light.

This shot shows what happens with some non-macro lenses when you force them to focus unusually close. Most macro lenses are what's called "flat field" design. They are optimized to focus closesly, so that the image they produce is in focus from edge to edge at high magnifications. Most non-macro lenses are not designed this way, since it makes for more expensive design and manufacture.

But it isn't necessarily a bad thing.... I deliberately used a non-macro lens with an extension tube, and a larger aperture, to get the softening effect around the subject in the above image. There also is a lot of vignetting, or light fall-off in the corners and at the edges... another thing I wanted in this particular image.

I recommend experimenting with macro extension tubes with various lenses, to see how they work. They can even be useful on true macro lenses and super telephotos. In the first case, you can increase the macro lens beyond it's usual max magnifications. In the latter case, with a super telephoto, you can use extension tubes to increase the len's close focusing ability.

This was shot with a 25mm extension tube on a 90mm Tamron macro lens (an older, manual focus lens that's only able to do 1:2 or half life size on it's own)...

Bee on orange poppy
Tamron SP 90mm f2.5 macro lens with 25mm extension tube at f11. EOS 7D camera at ISO 400, 1/400 shutter speed. Handheld, avail. light.

The following was shot with a 500mm lens, but the subject was within that lens' 12 foot minimum focus distance, so I had to use a 36mm extension tube on it...

Anna's hummingbird on her nest
EF 500mm f4 IS lens at f4 with 36mm extension tube. EOS 30D camera at ISO 1600, 1/160 shutter speed. Tripod, 550EX fill flash.

As to a longer telephoto... Well, it's about $1000 minimum to get one new. The Sigma 120-400mm OS sells for about that and the SIggy 150-500 OS is just a little more expensive. The Siggy 50-500 OS and Canon 100-400 IS are in the $1500-1600 range.

A prime lens won't be as versatile as a zoom, but might be sharper. The least expensive that's significantly longer than your 55-250 is the Canon 400/4.6 that sells for about $1350. It lacks IS, though, so you'll need to keep your shutter speeds up and/or use a tripod or at least a monopod. The Canon 300/4 has IS and is more hand-holdable... but doesn't give you much additional reach over what you already have and costs about $1450. However it does work well with a teleconverter such as the Canon 1.4X II ($330) or Kenko Pro 300 DGX 1.4X ($250), to give two useful focal lengths, up to an effective 420mm f5.6. (Note: There's also a cheaper Kenko MC-4 1.4X teleconverter: $150... But I wouldn't expect as good image quality from it. I haven't compared Tamron and Sigma teleconverters.)

The prices for longer/faster telephoto lenses just go upwards from there. Most are big and need some sort of support... So add some budget for at least a monopod (about $100 min.). Or, depending upon what you want to shoot, up to a fairly sturdy tripod and head... which can cost up to $1500.

Before you ask, AFAIK, teleconverters are not usable on your 55-250mm lens. In general, I don't recommend teleconverters with zooms. There are a few exceptions, but generally speaking the image quality loss is too great. The Canon TC won't even mount, can't be used with any EF-S lens and only physically fits on select EF lenses. I don't know about all the others, but suspect they wouldn't work well with your EF-S 55-250mm. It's an f5.6 lens, too... which would mean that when a teleconverter were added, AF will probably stop working, or at best only work intermittently and/or hunt a lot.

By the way, because a lens with a teleconverter added does not change it's closest focusing distance, the effect is greater magnification with that lens.... Sometimes into close-up, near macro levels. The lens used below is normally able to focus close enough to give 0.18X magnification, or a little less than 1/5 life size. With a 1.4X teleconverter on it, it's more 1/4 life size, handy for small subjects...

Fence lizard camouflage
EF 300mm f2.8 IS lens with 1.4X II teleconverter, effective 420mm at f7.1. EOS 30D at ISO 200, 1/100 shutter speed. Tripod w/gimbal head. No flash.

Have fun shoppng!