Macro lens advice

I'm in the market for a macro lens for my Canon 7D. This would be mainly used for photographing insects, flowers, coins etc. I have looked at the Canon 100mm 'L' lens and the Sigma 105mm lens. Any advice please?

Get a longer FL lens for insects, such as the Sigma 150 (OS or not). Great lenses, both of them!

The canon 100mm non-L is a great performer and it will save you a bit of cash.

The Tamron 90mm is also well regarded as a very sharp macro lens. I have one and would probably trade it for a canon 100 just for the AF but for macro stuff that isn't really much of an issue anyway (most of the time).

The Canon L is a no-brainer if you can afford it.

One thing to consider is that some insects don't like you getting close and if you plan to work at 1:1 regularly you HAVE to get close. the longer macros might be worth considering as well i.e. Canon 180mm, Sigma 150mm or even a 300mm f4.0L although those won't necessarily get you 1:1 macro they do give you a bit more distance to subject.

Lots of choices and as macro lenses tend to be very sharp by design, it is hard to go wrong.

100mm or thereabouts is a reasonable length for bugs. Longer lets you stay farther away but is bulkier, harder to hold, and often more expensive. I've done bugs with a 60mm, but it is harder.

Some macro lenses extend when focusing, which I would not want for bugs. the Canon lenses don't.

I have the 100L, and it is a wonderful lens, but if you are going to freeze motion with a flash or tripod, the IS won't help, and the non-L is both cheaper and optically similar.

How will you freeze motion with a tripod? It is the other way round.

paddler4 wrote in post #15269303
100mm or thereabouts is a reasonable length for bugs. Longer lets you stay farther away but is bulkier, harder to hold, and often more expensive. I've done bugs with a 60mm, but it is harder.

Some macro lenses extend when focusing, which I would not want for bugs. the Canon lenses don't.

I have the 100L, and it is a wonderful lens, but if you are going to freeze motion with a flash or use a tripod, the IS won't help, and the non-L is both cheaper and optically similar.

vsg28 wrote in post #15269327
How will you freeze motion with a tripod? It is the other way round.

Perhaps that clarifies . . .

Another vote for the Sigma 150mm. It only costs around $50 more than the 100L (B&H as of today), it is around the same physical size, it has OS and when shooting insects I find the extra reach to be very useful.

Get yourself the 100mm L IS, some extension tubes, and don't look back!

Sneaking up close to those little buggers is more fun than extra reach.

100l is the Oneida used, great lens

make sure you get a flash set up to go with it...i'd rather have the 100mm non L with a flash, than the 100L without flash

I've got the 100mm L and I love it. It's not been used much lately because of work so I'm thinking of selling it, though

I've used a Tamron 18-270mm zoom, advertised as a macro for bugs, spiders etc. It needs to be put on a tripod. I just can't wrap my head around IS, or VC (Tamron speaking) being turned off. I've found that trying to get to a bug inside a bush with a tripod, lighting, and camera, with long lens to be impossible without scaring the bug, or spider away. I just bought a Canon 100L macro, and my get some extension tubes, and use it hand held with a ring light.

I recently had the same dilemma but was torn between the 100l and the sigma 150 OS.

I went with the 100l for these reasons:
- lighter and less bulky - easier to take with you
- tropicalized - macro in wet places is fun
- also an excellent portrait and mid range tele prime
- hybrid IS does help a little with handheld macro
- reputation - check out the macro forum

The main pro for the sigma is working distance so you need to consider that against your likely subjects.

Either way you will have excellent iq.

Cheers,
Eros

I would prefer 150mm for bugs. 100mm isn't enough sometimes.

Canon 100L. Nuf said.
Darts
www.flickr.com/photos/​darts5/