Best macro lens and range?

I have been thinking considering a macro lens to start taking pictures of bugs and other small stuff, but I don't know where to begin. For living things like bugs and lizards I understand that it is better to get a longer macro for to not scare them off as easily, so would that be in the 100mm range or is 150mm better?

Here are some of the lenses that I have been looking at, I would really like to get some opinions and ideas about them.

Canon 60mm 2.8
Tamron 60mm f3

Canon 100mm IS L 2.8
Sigma 105mm OS 2.8

Sigma 150mm OS 2.8

I am really curious as to how the Tamron and the Canon compare at 60mm and how the Canon and the Sigma compare at ~100mm.

This is for a Canon 60D. Thanks so much for the help!

The only lens in your group that I've used is the 100L. Great lens. I've owned
this lens for about a year and a half and it is my favorite. I take a lot of macros. If you want to see what this lens can do, go to www.flickr/photos/dart​s5/.
Good luck,
Darts

Depending on size a bug might require a different FL or working distance than a lizzard.
What lenses have you allready got? Using extension tubes will work with most if not all lenses.
It will provide an inexpensive opportunity to find out your favourite macro FL.
I found the 100 FL on crop to be very convenient, it also works great as a portrait lens.

I'd go with the sigma 150 2.8 OS. Reach is always nice with bugs and critters that can run away. I just came back from a bit of macro shooting with my 100mm and wished several times that I had more working distance available. One thing to take into consideration though, is the thinner DOF for the same magnification with longer macro lenses, so you have to be prepared to stop down more and use flash.

Strange that you lefty out the Tokina 100mm and the Tamron 90mm which are the best sellers.

i've had the 60mm, 100 and 100L from Canon. I couldn't detect any IQ difference in them. 60 doesn't give you much working room, but it's great for street photography where you don't want to be noticed.

http://www.flickriver.​com …sigma/sigma150m​mf2.8exdg/

Hands down, the Sigma 150. Just an outstanding lens. The non-OS edges out (in my subjective opinion) the newer stabilized edition. OS isn't as big a factor with macro so depending on your subject matter, technique and style, you might be better off finding the older (and less expensive) one.

The flip is that the new stabilized model makes a dandy tele also.

Both work nicely with tubes and extensions.

Sigma also has an updated 180mm offering in the pipeline.

I have the Tokina 35f2.8, Sigma 50f2.8 and the Canon 100f2.8 macro lenses.
For very small stuff, the longest lens would be most appropriate. It gives you more working room between the front of the lens and the object you wish to photograph.
Size and need for working distance should guide you. All of the macro lenses will be sharp. Something with a shorter focal length would be best for tabletop, larger stuff. For rings, you would want more working room to help with lighting.
The 150s are really the "big guns" for someone with a passion for macro work. They are likely to benefit from use on a tripod, given their size and weight. Take this into consideration as you mull over your choices.
Personally, I would avoid a macro lens without a focus limiter, since that could really slow things down under some circumtances - like you want to use the lens as if it were a typical prime lens.
The Canon 100f2.8 non L macro does focus surprisingly fast for a macro lens. The Tokina is on the slow side, but AF is accurate and the lens is very sharp.

I do mostly macro and have the Canon 60 and 100L. both are superb, as is the non-L 100.

For bugs, I prefer the 100 to the 60 because of the greater minimum working distance (MWD). I have not used the others, but I would suggest considering two factors. one is that if a lens extends when it focuses (the canons do not), your MWD can be less. For this reason, the MWD of the Tamron 90 is pretty close to that of the Canon 60. Check out this. Second, I find that for macro, it is VERY handy to have full time manual focusing and keep AF on the back button. A lot of macro work is MF, and this allows you to switch back and forth between AF and MF instantly, without fumbling for a switch. All of the Canon lenses allow FTM focusing. Some others don't. I don't know which do, but I would check any of the others you are considering.

I've used the 100L, ZE 50/2 MP and ZE 100/2 MP. While the Zeiss lenses are spectacular on subjects the size of - say - a flower, the lens that really worked for macro was the 100L. All three work fine with extension tubes.

The IS on the 100L makes it really usable when hand held at high reproduction ratios, it's also a pretty decent mild telephoto.

I used to own a number of 3rd party lenses and replaced all of them with Canon lenses, save the Sigma 150 (non-OS version). I just couldn't part with that one. I rarely use a tripod with it when shooting live subjects.

I sometimes use TCs with it and it takes them quite well. I've even pressed it into service for shooting sports on occasion with good results. I shoot bees quite a bit with it and appreciate the longer working distance.

I haven't used the newer version with OS and don't plan on upgrading mine since the older version meets my requirements.

I am not the most experienced macro shooter, but it seems like whenever I scare a bug away before getting the shot with my 60/2.8, I am scaring it away before I get close to the MWD of a 100mm lens anyhow. Once I get inside that 6" distance without scarring it away, I usually have no problems getting to the 3.5" MWD of the 60/2.8. That has just been my experience.

I like having the 60/2.8 because I like to be able to have it double as a portrait lens and at 96mm equivalent, it's a great length for that. Other good things about the 60/2.8 is if you want larger than 1:1, shorter focal length lenses get more enlargement using extension tubes and the 60/2.8 is so light is no problem to throw it in the kit when traveling with other lenses. Adding a Sigma 150 OS into a travel kit is going to be a bigger commitment for sure. I would though like to add the 150 OS to my kit some day.

I currently have a 15-85 and a Tamron 70-300 USD. How would these work with extension tubes?

Also, why is IS less useful with macro work?

My EF-S 60 Macro works great on the 7D and doubles in focal length as a nice portrait lens, too. Super SUPER sharp lens!!!!

Conventional IS compensates for rotation. (This is why some Canon lenses have a second IS position for panning). rotational motion has a huge effect at long distances but very little effect at very short distances. The most problematic motion at macro distances is parallel to the sensor. Conventional IS does not help with that. The hybrid IS in the Canon 100mm L does, but it provides less help than at long distances. I have that lens, and I find that the IS is good for perhaps 1.5 stops at MWD.

Tubes make the image dark. (you are effectively taking the light from a portion of the regular circle and spreading it over the entire circle.) If you are starting with a slow lens, you will find it dark enough that focusing (manual or otherwise) can be tough except in very bright light.