Advice about 2 macro lenses

I'm considering either a Canon EF 100 macro (non-L) or now a Canon EF 100-300 macro (also non-L). I had been looking for the 100 macro for some time but haven't stumbled into one at the right price when I happened to have the cash but I'm now aware of a 100-300 macro that might actually be well within my present price range. The problem is that I know nothing about the 100-300 macro. I know that the 100 is reputed to have excellent IQ but what about the 100-300? Can you also use this as a standard telephoto zoom or not?

Thanks in advance for any education or opinions.

I have a sneaky feeling that the 100-300 is not a true macro lens, so if it's macro that you want to be doing, then the 100-300 may not be the lens for you.

Sorarse wrote in post #14661495
I have a sneaky feeling that the 100-300 is not a true macro lens, so if it's macro that you want to be doing, then the 100-300 may not be the lens for you.

Well, that's why I'm asking the question. I had not seen or heard of this lens before but it's listed as an EF 100-300 f/5.6 macro. I don't need a zoom lens of that length at all but would be very curious if it did have macro capabilities. Thanks for your thoughts.

OK, while "googling" I discovered that the 100-300 "macro", probably isn't a really high quality lens and probably doesn't have true macro capability but I did see some recommendations fro the Sigma APO macro 70-300 f/4-5.6. It claims to focus to 1:2. Any thoughts about this lens?

The truth is that I don't absolutely need a macro lens right now but I absolutely do want one at some point, preferably sooner than later. I'm not looking to pay big money for one but I have seen Canon 100 f/2.8 macros in my price range and the Sigma 70-300 macro is well within my price range. So I guess, in addition to my initial question, that I'm also interested in anyone's opinion about the Sigma lens either as a telephoto zoom or a macro lens.

Thanks again.

Get the Canon 100/2.8 USM(non-L) and be done with it. 1:1 magnification, you can throw a non-Canon TC on it if you want for longer fl and greater mag., and it makes for a great non-macro lens as well(portraiture and anything that warrants some nice bokeh). Tack sharp, as are most macros.

1Tanker wrote in post #14661689
Get the Canon 100/2.8 USM(non-L) and be done with it. 1:1 magnification, you can throw a non-Canon TC on it if you want for longer fl and greater mag., and it makes for a great non-macro lens as well(portraiture and anything that warrants some nice bokeh). Tack sharp, as are most macros.

OK, that might be the final word. I actually have the Kenko pro 300 TC so I could use that as well. Anybody have one really cheap for sale?

There are no true macro zooms that I'm aware of. It is likely just a close focusing zoom, that probably gets 1/4 to 1/2 life size at best. Many of these are called macro, but are not true macros. The chances of them being designed to have edge to edge sharp/flat like a true macro is small.

My guess is the 100-300 zoom is an old lens and is not going to have the excellent IQ that the 100mm (or any macro) will have (that is even if has good IQ). Chances are it will also not have USM, so it will be loud and slower to focus. The Sigma APO macro 70-300 f/4-5.6 is probably newer and faster at 1/2 life size is decent. I almost guarantee it will not match a true macro, but it could be enough for you right now. Also for a telephotro, I would want something with IS if possible (IMO).

If you want a macro lens, I'd wait and get the 100mm macro or some true macro. You did not mention you price range or camera type. There is a 50mm Sigma and a Canon and Tamron 60mm macros but the 60mm are for crop cameras. I believe these are cheaper than the 100mm though. Even so, I would save and get a 100mm for working distance and ease of use.

As Jim said, there are no true macros that are zooms.

Before buying anything, I would give a little more detail. What body will you be using? The 100 has about the same field of view on a "full frame" camera as the EF-S 60mm has on a crop sensor camera. What will you be shooting? Things that run away (bugs) or don't (product photography, flowers)? The longer FL of a 100 is a big plus for bugs but not necessarily for other things. What other uses are you going to put the lens to? On a crop sensor camera, the EF-S 60 is a nice portrait lens, and it is short, light and balances well. The EF 100 is a portrait length on a full frame but more of a telephoto on a crop.

I do a lot of macro, shoot with a crop sensor camera, and have both the EF-S 60 and the 100mm L. When I bought the 100, I thought I would sell the 60, but I find I often prefer it for a lot of tripod-based flower work. If I were going to get only one, I think I would probably get the 100, given that I do a modest amount of photos of bugs.

you could look at the 100mm macro non USM if you want to get even cheaper...probably can pick one up on ebay for about $300 or so...

I have the USM 100/2.8 non-L & I picked it up used but as new for a bargain £230 [plus fuel to pick it up ] Bargains are out there & I hope you find one as it's a great lens.

"Macro" has become a marketing term that really means it focuses closer than the earlier model lenses did. "Macro" should always mean 1:1. I'm not even sure the Canon 50 Macro qualifies since it doesn't focus to 1:1 without the adapter.
The 100 non-L is an excellent lens in terms of IQ and flat field imaging. I'm really anxious to do some work with in with my 5D III given its superior autofocus capabilities.

Bill Ragosta wrote in post #14661627
OK, while "googling" I discovered that the 100-300 "macro", probably isn't a really high quality lens and probably doesn't have true macro capability but I did see some recommendations fro the Sigma APO macro 70-300 f/4-5.6. It claims to focus to 1:2. Any thoughts about this lens?

The truth is that I don't absolutely need a macro lens right now but I absolutely do want one at some point, preferably sooner than later. I'm not looking to pay big money for one but I have seen Canon 100 f/2.8 macros in my price range and the Sigma 70-300 macro is well within my price range. So I guess, in addition to my initial question, that I'm also interested in anyone's opinion about the Sigma lens either as a telephoto zoom or a macro lens.

Thanks again.

I own the brother to the Sigma 1:2 macro lens , I have the Tamron version. It's a decent lens but if you want it for macro specifically you will probably be left wanting more. The IQ is decent but nowhere near the macro IQ the Canon 100 L or non-L produce, or even the setup I use now the 50mm 1.8 with Kenko tubes. I plan to pick up the Canon 100 F2.8 in the near future. Also the Sigma, like my tamron, is a bit slower lens. It's a great telephoto lens with macro capability but you make some trade-offs in IQ.

OK, all really good and really helpful information. For what it's worth, I will do some bug work as well as flowers and other general macro and I'm using a Canon 60D crop body. Thanks everyone.

Find a lens with a better minimum focus distance, not for the word "macro" slapped on the lens (some aren't even macro at all or very bad minimum focusing). An e xample would be comparing the Sigma 70-200mm f/2.8 and the Sigma 70-200mm f/2.8 MACRO. Compare their focusing distances. Note that true macro lenses minimum focuses are 18" and lower. Of course the closer the better IQ you'll receive.

Have you thought about a non-Canon macro lens? Tokina and Tamron make some nice ones...