Macro Choices

I've been sitting on the fence for a while about picking up a macro lens. I've never shot macro before but I think I could have some fun with it.

Always thought I'd just pick up 100L and be done with it, I even bought one off eBay during a PayPal offer they ran a month ago but there was no stock so I just cancelled the order.

In Australia we get really good prices on Sigma gear for some reason so I've been thinking about picking up one of the longer focal lengths for around the same money as the 100L.

There is a pretty good sale on at one of the local stores.

These are my options.

Canon EF 100mm F2.8L Hybrid IS USM Macro $871 (US$708)

Sigma 180mm f/2.8 APO Macro EX DG OS HSM $1188 (US$965)

Sigma APO MACRO 150mm F2.8 EX DG OS HSM $867 (US$704)

Sigma 105mm f2.8 Macro EX DG HSM OS $560 (US$455)

Which would you choose and why?

El Pedro wrote in post #17356883
I've been sitting on the fence for a while about picking up a macro lens. I've never shot macro before but I think I could have some fun with it.

Always thought I'd just pick up 100L and be done with it, I even bought one off eBay during a PayPal offer they ran a month ago but there was no stock so I just cancelled the order.

In Australia we get really good prices on Sigma gear for some reason so I've been thinking about picking up one of the longer focal lengths for around the same money as the 100L.

There is a pretty good sale on at one of the local stores.

These are my options.

Canon EF 100mm F2.8L Hybrid IS USM Macro $871 (US$708)

Sigma 180mm f/2.8 APO Macro EX DG OS HSM $1188 (US$965)

Sigma APO MACRO 150mm F2.8 EX DG OS HSM $867 (US$704)

Sigma 105mm f2.8 Macro EX DG HSM OS $560 (US$455)

Which would you choose and why?

I went through this decision-making process earlier this year. There are lots of factors that need to be considered. And many of these factors don't become clear until you decide what kind of shooting you want to do.

Some of my findings:

- All macro lenses are effectively equally sharp because stopped down to the usual macro f stops, they are all equally diffraction-limited.
- Longer focal lengths give longer working distance (obviously), but those lenses are heavier, more expensive, and slower-focusing.
- Shorter focal lengths allow for easier lighting with diffused (soft) light sources (because softness is strongly affected by how close the diffused light is to the subject).
- IS is not very effective at macro distances.

So there are compromises and trade-offs.

I decided for the Canon 100mm non-IS and bought one, but immediately regretted it because it lacked IS. See, I wasn't using it at macro distances all the time. As I said, it depends so much on your application and the kind of shooting. So I returned it and got the 100mm IS.

But that is not going to be the best choice in many situations. You may need more than one macro lens.

Or less than one. You can use an existing lens with a closeup lens, or with extension tubes. I did that for years with great results.

It all depends on what you want to shoot, and the kind of results you are after.

In the end, I concluded that lighting was more important and complicated than lens selection in macro photography. But everybody worries about which lens.

Heya,

Depends on what you want to shoot.

I generally do macro of bugs, so I like having as long a lens as possible to get high magnification with a long working distance. So I use a 180mm macro with a 2.0x TC making it a 360mm macro lens that can do 1:1 from nearly 3 feet away, and 2:1 at 18 inches.

If you want to do more natural light macro and keep it light and simple, and double as a portrait lens, then look to the 100L or Tamron's 90 VC.

Comes down to what you want to shoot though. You either need working distance (go long) or not (keep it short).

Very best,

What are you going to shoot? If living creatures are not on your agenda, consider an efs 60mm f/2.8 Macro for use on your 60D. I had both the 100 f/2.8 (non-L, non-IS) on either ff or apsc, and the 60 on apsc. I sold the EF 100 and kept the 60mm efs lens. I needed the ability to go nearly 1:1 with deeper DOF, handheld. In my experience, the 60 does that better on crop than the 100 does on ff. An added benefit is that the 60 makes for a nice light, fast, fast-focusing medium telephoto/portrait lens. I find it more versatile than the 100 2.8.

Of course, if you are shooting skittish critters, one of the longer lenses would be preferable.

Thanks for the replies guys.

No 60D anymore. Only shooting with the 1DX now so the EFS60 is out of the equation.

The sale ends today and I'm still in two minds, I'm just bit that sure I'd get much long term use out of it. I've got the focal lengths covered as well with other lenses so the old argument of getting good use for portraits etc. doesn't apply either.

I'm thinking about picking up another nice watch instead. There's a nice Frederique Constant I have my eye on going for a song not far from me.

if you dont mind heavier lenses, then stick with the 150 and up OS lenses, otherwise, something stabilized helps a TON. 100mm is fine for your first macro lens.

I would go the Sigma 180mm f/2.8 OS. For everything MalVeauX stated. (I just don't have it in the budget.)

Along with intended use, knowing what you have lens-wise might help see what might also fit/help for a better progression (more for non-macro photography).

In reality I like all the lenses on your list. The only one I (personally) would take out is the Sigma 105. Not that it is a bad lens, it is an excellent lens. It may even be a tad sharper than the 100L, and can usually be bought cheaper than the 100L. The problem, it does not take a tripod collar. For what I like to do a tripod collar comes in handy. So when I purchased, I went with the 100L (from the EF 100mm macro version 1 - no collar possibilities). Purchased a collar for it almost at the same time (I believe with-in a day or so).

I think there is some debate about how helpful IS is with macro, some feel it can get in the way for focus stacking; however it can always be turned off.

You need to decide if you want 100mm or 180mm. I would say 100mm is the standard for bugs with a crop but on full frame I find I use the 180mm more.

I can't say I use TCs with the 180L at macro distances, it works, you loose a bit of quality but the main problem is finding the subject when you have the combination of longer focal length and near life size.

I dont think you can buy a bad Macro lens. They are all really good. I have a Sigma 105. The canon and Tamron counters all looked about the same to me. These Macros are excellent so I would buy on price cause your not gonna get a bad one.