OK Macro Maniacs

It is hard to believe, but I am already in the mood for a new lens. I currently have two primes Canon 85 1.8 and Sigma 30 1.4. I am looking for a macro to fill out the prime line up. I am however torn between what focal length to get and what brand even. There seem to be a lot of good options at 60-100 focal length. I don't want to spend $1000, but I am good for about half of that. I am just hoping those of you that use the macro on a regular basis can lead me in the right direction. I really like both of my current primes and I was initially planning on the Canon 60 Macro to fill in a the distance between the 30 and 85 focal distance. But after looking at the 100 I really like the look. So I am really torn between those two lengths.

Canon 100 f/2.8L IS... $869 in the cart at Adorama or B&H. I love this lense; I use the IS all the time (though others may think it unimportant for macro); well-built; fast AF (I sometimes use it for macro, though some never do); sharp; good focal length for other stuff.

If you've got some extra money, get a set of extension tubes; you'll go from 1:1 to about 2:1. But get used to the lens first.

edit: sorry. I saw $1000... and not the "half that." The non-L is supposed to be equally sharp. $519 in the cart.

Since macro is your primary concern I would not think about the focal length to fill your line up, but about what it will do in respect to your macro work.

A longer focal length macro lens will give you more working distance and a narrower background. Think about framing a person with a 35mm and a 85mm. The person will be the same size in the frame but the background will be very different. Same with macro.

Don't get the 50mm f/2.5 macro. By the time you add the cost of the life size converter you have paid for the 100mm macro (non L). Cost was around $600CND new. $519US with free shipping form B&H (as Moose said. )

Then you'll want the MP-E. And when 5:1 is no longer cool and you need to go further you will want a set of microscope objective lenses to get crazy high magnifications.

LV Moose wrote in post #15876878
Canon 100 f/2.8L IS... $869 in the cart at Adorama or B&H. I love this lense; I use the IS all the time (though others may think it unimportant for macro); well-built; fast AF (I sometimes use it for macro, though some never do); sharp; good focal length for other stuff.

If you've got some extra money, get a set of extension tubes; you'll go from 1:1 to about 2:1. But get used to the lens first.

edit: sorry. I saw $1000... and not the "half that." The non-L is supposed to be equally sharp. $519 in the cart.

This is perfect advice. I own the L, and love it! And a friend of mine has the 2.8 version, and it seems good as well.

I had looked at the MP-65 and if I was made of money, I would definitely be looking in that direction. I do like the suggestion of the 100 non L as that is clearly one I have been looking at. I guess I will have to check out the lens picture archives of the 60 and 100 and see which one floats my boat.
As for the pricing, I could float the cost of the L at 100, but if I was going to do that, I would likely just splurge and with the MP65 instead. They are within $100 of each other.
As for filling out my prime lengths, I had heard good things about the 60 macro as a good portrait lens. And with my current 30 and 85, I have found a gap in the middle, which is why I was looking at the 60. But you guys are correct, if I am looking to do Macro, I should focus on that instead of trying to fill in the gaps with other lenses. I can always come back in fill in later with something else. I do have a 28-80 USM right now. I am very close to dropping my 18-55 because of it too.

I got my MP-65 for $600 used.

Honestly, I would reverse your 18-55 IS, with a reverse adaptor that screws on to the filter rings, and buy the 100L. A reversed 18-55 will most likely get more magnification than a mp-e65 ever could; especially with macro tubes. You have to be careful how the camera is turned in relation to the light source, though, or you'll get a nasty glare.

With all of you talking about extension tubes, I might give that a shot since it appears I can get a set of Kenko's for $200 or a set of Zeiko's for about $80. I will be looking for that MP65 used price too.
There are just so many options out there. Enough to make your head spin. I did take the Siggy 30 out last night and got some decent flower photos, but that 12" mfd, sure is a long ways away compared to the shots I have seen you guys create.

I recommend reading this review. Half way down there are some pics that illustrate the varying field of view between 60mm-100mm-180mm and the effect it has on bokeh. As far as tubes goes, see my recent thread in this forum on Vello's tubes from B&H. Don't pay the $200 for Kenko.

I like the comparison on the link you listed. Definitely shows the difference between the different lenses. Looks like I will be looking at the 100mm as my first option. You mention on your vello thread that the extension tubes help you get to close to 2:1 magnification. Would you be willing to show some shots with and with out the tubes on that thread? I would be interesting in seeing what the tubes do since I don't really see a specific thread on the forums with demo of the with and without tubes on specific lenses.
I am all for saving some money by getting the tubes for now until I can get enough side money together for the 100 Macro lens.

sirquack wrote in post #15883790
I would be interesting in seeing what the tubes do since I don't really see a specific thread on the forums with demo of the with and without tubes on specific lenses.

I just took these as a demo, if they help. Both taken with 100 f/2.8L (on a full frame), without, then with tubes (a Kenko set). Both uncropped, and at minimum focus distance.

The cool thing about tubes; there's no glass, so no degradation of image quality. While taking pictures of smaller bugs, extension tubes can make the difference between having a keeper, or tossing the shot because you couldn't get close enough to see any detail.

The bad thing is, they rob light. I adjusted the ISO, shutter-speed, and flash settings for the second shot. No biggie, but just so you're aware of it.

Oh, and if you want to get 3:1... add a 1.4X teleconverter to the mix.

IMAGE LINK: http://www.flickr.com …/92594357@N07/8​696211459/

IMAGE LINK: http://www.flickr.com …/92594357@N07/8​696211511/

sirquack wrote in post #15883790
I am all for saving some money by getting the tubes for now until I can get enough side money together for the 100 Macro lens.

This is the best way to go I think, if you find you like the results they'll still be useful if you add a 100L later.

[QUOTE=LV Moose;15884222]I just took these as a demo, if they help. Both taken with 100 f/2.8L (on a full frame), without, then with tubes (a Kenko set). Both uncropped, and at minimum focus distance.

The cool thing about tubes; there's no glass, so no degradation of image quality. While taking pictures of smaller bugs, extension tubes can make the difference between having a keeper, or tossing the shot because you couldn't get close enough to see any detail.

The bad thing is, they rob light. I adjusted the ISO, shutter-speed, and flash settings for the second shot. No biggie, but just so you're aware of it.

Oh, and if you want to get 3:1... add a 1.4X teleconverter to the mix.

Thanks for the comparison shots. It helps me tremendously to see something like this in practical form. I am quite a visual person in that regard. The tubes are on their way as of this morning. I went with the Vello's as from the reviews I have read here and elsewhere, they appear to be a great quality set without the cost of the Kenko's.
Now to try to convince the better half to let me by the 100 "L"

sirquack wrote in post #15886289
Now to try to convince the better half to let me by the 100 "L"

Tell her it's a good portrait lens, and that you'll be able to take beautiful pictures of her!


Looking forward to seeing some macro shots once you get those tubes

LV Moose wrote in post #15886334
Tell her it's a good portrait lens, and that you'll be able to take beautiful pictures of her!


Looking forward to seeing some macro shots once you get those tubes

I would love to have her as a model. As with all women, she is convinced that she is not nearly model material. I hope to have the tubes early next week. I wish I had done this sooner since I am heading to Kansas City for the weekend. But I guess it is probably a good thing since I would probably be looking for bugs to shoot when I should be enjoying the little vacation time with the wife.