Best Macro lens for Studio work?

Some would disagree with me but I will go ahead and suggest the 50mm f3.5 FD macro with extension tube and an eos adapter with no element inside. Why? Well I know you loose infinity focus but you said that you want it for macro, and macro is at the close focus end. A good macro lens is not only sharp, well color corrected, and of good contrast, but it must also have a flat field! In fact an element must be introduced to the array to intentionally flatten the image from edge to edge. The 50mm f3.5 FD has exactly this. It is manual focus and can be had for a mere $50 in mint condition! So if you want a dedicated macro that does its job extremely well run with the FD mount and sacrifice the unneeded infinity focus.

Man I'm stuck between two, I only have enough money for one more lens, and I have an 11-16 and a 70-200 but the 24-105 would be perfect to fill everything inbetween, but it would also be hard to swing macro on it, the 100mm f2 L is my next choice but other than close up studio shots its practically useless for me:/

It sounds like you only need the macro lens for specific macro and closeup photos. Even the Canon 60mm or the older Tamron 90mm would be great and you can find them used for relatively low prices. Or an old manual focus macro lens, which can be excellent. Then you can sae a lot, get one of the other lenses you want and have macro photos pretty much as good as you would have with a more expensive macro lens (assuming you are going to use a tripod, just as good really).

clarnibass wrote in post #16315275
It sounds like you only need the macro lens for specific macro and closeup photos. Even the Canon 60mm or the older Tamron 90mm would be great and you can find them used for relatively low prices. Or an old manual focus macro lens, which can be excellent. Then you can sae a lot, get one of the other lenses you want and have macro photos pretty much as good as you would have with a more expensive macro lens (assuming you are going to use a tripod, just as good really).

I have an alright tripod, i have a manfrotto 390 photo-movie kit, its sturdy but the head really jerks me around sometimes ive never used a 60mm, or any lens thats a fixed focal length, i feel like that would really bug me since ive always had lenses with adjustable focal length

And if i did use a 24-105 and the 100mm L f2.8 both at 100mm on the exact same object, would the difference be noticeable?

The 100mm macro lens (both the L and non-L, and the 60mm macro lens too for that matter) are going to be sharper at the 24-105's max aperture and also sharper throughout the frame when stopped to a smaller aperture. The 24-105 is still sharp when stopped down, but not as good as the macro lenses.

The main difference is that you asked about a macro lens and the 24-105 has a max magnification of x0.23 while the macro lenses allow x1. This means the size of the subject on the seonsor in comparison with its size in real life. Imagine you have a subject that is the exact size of your 7D's sensor. With the macro lens you could fill the entire frame with your subject. With the 24-105 lens and its x0.23 magnification you would only fill 5% of the surface of the sensor with your subject (since the x0.23 refers to a dimension of the sensor).

So it's a matter of whether more magnification than x2.23 is important to you. Your 70-200mm lens already has a max magnification x0.21 which is almost the same as the 24-105mm lens.

clarnibass wrote in post #16315337
The 100mm macro lens (both the L and non-L, and the 60mm macro lens too for that matter) are going to be sharper at the 24-105's max aperture and also sharper throughout the frame when stopped to a smaller aperture. The 24-105 is still sharp when stopped down, but not as good as the macro lenses.

The main difference is that you asked about a macro lens and the 24-105 has a max magnification of x0.23 while the macro lenses allow x1. This means the size of the subject on the seonsor in comparison with its size in real life. Imagine you have a subject that is the exact size of your 7D's sensor. With the macro lens you could fill the entire frame with your subject. With the 24-105 lens and its x0.23 magnification you would only fill 5% of the surface of the sensor with your subject (since the x0.23 refers to a dimension of the sensor).

So it's a matter of whether more magnification than x2.23 is important to you. Your 70-200mm lens already has a max magnification x0.21 which is almost the same as the 24-105mm lens.

Oh alright I understand, man its so hard to decide, I'd love to have the 24-105 to fill that focal length gap i was talking about but the 100mm sounds like it would produce a better all around photo for what im using it for

There's a reason the canon 100 F/2.8 (L or no L, or better said, IS or no IS) is the go to macro for most. If you are only going to use it from a tripod, then there's really no point to the L. I am surprised you don't have a prime in your kit, like a 50 F/1.4 or a least a F/1.8.

vengence wrote in post #16315360
There's a reason the canon 100 F/2.8 (L or no L, or better said, IS or no IS) is the go to macro for most. If you are only going to use it from a tripod, then there's really no point to the L. I am surprised you don't have a prime in your kit, like a 50 F/1.4 or a least a F/1.8.

yeah, i didnt think about getting a prime for some reason, do you think the 24-105 would be tolerable on a tripod? i know im starting to beat a dead horse on this lens but Canon's L series lens drives me nuts, and the 24-70 is way too expensive for me

A good macro lens is just 1 thing... (Maybe the new Tamron 90mm / f2.8 VC ?)

A very good tripod is the other one.... to stay rock solid....

Lights to create what U like to create is 3rd...

Some Photoediting is next......

About the Canon 24-105 ? It is a good one... if U got a good copy....

5DM2User wrote in post #16315454
A good macro lens is just 1 thing... (Maybe the new Tamron 90mm / f2.8 VC ?)

A very good tripod is the other one.... to stay rock solid....

Lights to create what U like to create is 3rd...

Some Photoediting is next......

About the Canon 24-105 ? It is a good one... if U got a good copy....

I tend to like to stay with canon lenses but im open to 3rd party, my 11-16 is tokina and ill be honest, i freaking love it,

my tripod stays solid but i have to use a shutter release remote if i press the actual shutter on the body the camera slightly moves down on the head of the tripod

im getting a light set up soon, but stuck between umbrellas and softbox, but im leaning towards softbox,

photo editing isnt a problem for me

i havent ever used/seen a 100mm L 2.8 but ive briefly used a 24-105 on a 6d and ill be honest, for the few minutes i used it, i wasn't dissapointed, wide array of focal length, and that thing focuses VERY FAST, excellent for fast moving sports which i shoot very often

Jonathan,

If you want to do macros of flowers, zoom lenses won't do the trick.

I use both an EF-S 60mm and an EF 100mm L for flowers. (check my website). For what you are interested in, I would say that the key variables are (1) the working distance you want, and (2) how much magnification you want if you are going to add extension tubes. If you have a reasonably long distance between the flower and the tripod, if you have a featureless background, and if you are not going to magnify more than 1:1, then it will make no real difference which of these lenses you use. I use them interchangeably, mostly based on how far I want to be from the flower. If working space is an issue, the shorter lens is handier. It will also give you more magnification for a given length of extension. I owned the 60mm before I bought the 100, and if I did not also do bugs, I wouldn't have bought the 100.

If you are going to use a tripod and want the longer length, you might consider the 100 non-L version, which is much less expensive and optically very good.

paddler4 wrote in post #16316102
Jonathan,

If you want to do macros of flowers, zoom lenses won't do the trick.

I use both an EF-S 60mm and an EF 100mm L for flowers. (check my website). For what you are interested in, I would say that the key variables are (1) the working distance you want, and (2) how much magnification you want if you are going to add extension tubes. If you have a reasonably long distance between the flower and the tripod, if you have a featureless background, and if you are not going to magnify more than 1:1, then it will make no real difference which of these lenses you use. I use them interchangeably, mostly based on how far I want to be from the flower. If working space is an issue, the shorter lens is handier. It will also give you more magnification for a given length of extension. I owned the 60mm before I bought the 100, and if I did not also do bugs, I wouldn't have bought the 100.

If you are going to use a tripod and want the longer length, you might consider the 100 non-L version, which is much less expensive and optically very good.

would the extension tube ef 25 ii help do the trick?

you seem pretty dead set on getting the 24-105mm...as not a single person has recommended it, and you're bringing it up constantly...

so get the 24-105mm...

then get a cheap 50mm f1.8, because you should have a prime anyways...add some dumb extension tubes(no electrical contacts) since you'll be shooting in a studio setting anyways and be done

i assume you already have some sort of lighting set up...

No, not if you want 1:1 magnification or better. The precise magnification you will get depends on the native magnification of the lens at closest focus, but unless that is very high for a conventional (non-macro) lens, you won't get near 1:1 with longer lens. See http://www.cambridgein​colour.com …tension-tubes-closeup.htm