Thinking of a Macro Lens...

I have been tossing around the idea of a Macro lens. I have been looking at the Sigma 105mm macro and the Canon 100 USM (non L) Has anyone had any use the Sigma? Is not having IS a big issue in Macro. Thanks Cole

Save yourself some money. Get a Vivitar (Pheonix) 100mm 3.5 Macro

It works, It's cheap, cheap, cheap and it's sharp sharp sharp. That's all you need.

http://www.photography​review.com …ro/prd_84631_31​11crx.aspx

cole4570 wrote in post #17834196
I have been tossing around the idea of a Macro lens. I have been looking at the Sigma 105mm macro and the Canon 100 USM (non L) Has anyone had any use the Sigma? Is not having IS a big issue in Macro. Thanks Cole

Heya,

Depends on what you need and what you're doing.

Do you need AF?
Do you use lighting (flash)?
Are you shooting with ambient light only?
Are you wanting to blend with ambient and flash?
Are you doing this hand-held?
Are you planning on using a rail and setting up on a tripod?
Are you doing this inside?
Doing this outside?
What are your macro goals?
What subjects do you think you'll photograph the most?

And there's more questions really.

But that should get you started. Without knowing anything, if the Sigma 105 OS is an option, I'd get it. Or the Tamron 90 VC. Otherwise, the 100L. Stabilization is not needed, but it's very helpful and opens doors to different methods and techniques if you're handholding. Some swear by it. I got along fine without it for years. Now I have stabilization and I like it as it allows me to get my shutter slower, to drag it, to blend more ambient light into my flash work during the day. I like that.

If you're shooting with no flash and purely ambient, get stabilization.

If you're shooting purely ambient light, add flash.

Very best,

I've got the 100L IS and love it, but it's the only macro lens I've got. I've also used it for close up birds, and portraits. I do hand hold shots with it too, so the IS does help there.

I also own the Canon 100mm L IS the new one. Is a wonderful lens, allow you take pictures as slow as 1/40s hand taken and looks sharp, with 2.8 aperture is very clear in low light situation and also for portraits photography is wonderful. Do i forget mention is sharp like a razor blade ?

Oh man, this is one of the few times in photography where I say "just do it". The macro world is almost limitless in it's interesting things to shoot; when I get really bored with photography, I take the macro lens out for a shoot in order to reinvigorate my interest and creativity.

As was mentioned by others above, the 100mm variety macros double as awesome portrait lenses too. If you have the financial room, go with the 100L IS. The IS is useful all around, allowing you to shoot in lower light and aids in hand held macro shooting to an extent. If you are wanting to do dedicated macro on a tripod/macro rail/ring flash, go with the non-L 100mm macro.

Echo others comments on 100L. Beautiful lens for macro, still life / mid tele. As a once Canon 6D, now Sony A7ii shooter, I've kept this lens for good reason. Being able to focus from infinity to macro with finesse and a high degree of acuity makes this a very versatile tool in the bag.

I bought the non-L, took some shots, realized I needed IS, and returned it the next day for the L. I'm glad I did. The reasons are mostly as stated by others - IS is very useful, especially when you are not in macro range - but even at macro distances IS helps.

I use the lens mostly for macro (as opposed to portrait, etc) and I usually use flash with macro. The IS is still useful for steadying the viewfinder image to help with composing and focusing.

If the primary light source is natural light then get a long focal length lens. If the primary light source is going to be a flash then get a short focal length lens. You'll have to get the flash / diffuser close to the subject to get good light, so a short focal length lens will work best. Honestly I cannot recommend lenses in the 100mm range because they seem to be a jack of all trades but a master of none. Too short for natural light, and too long for a flash unless you get the flash out past the lens. If anyone tells you that a short focal length lens isn't a "bug lens"...

IMAGE LINK: https://flic.kr/p/zE2b​PM

I"m also thinking of a macro lens, mostly I'd be using it for flowers, I think they would be good for that. So I've been poking around a little bit looking at a few options - At Amazon you can pick up a new Tokina 100mm f2.8 macro for $338, looks like a bit of a sale, anyone have experience with that thing? It does say first available in 2001, so 14 years old, not sure if lens design has changed that much since then. The L lens you guys talk about sounds great, but I'm not up for spending that much on a macro lens.

patrick j wrote in post #17842842
I"m also thinking of a macro lens, mostly I'd be using it for flowers, I think they would be good for that. So I've been poking around a little bit looking at a few options - At Amazon you can pick up a new Tokina 100mm f2.8 macro for $338, looks like a bit of a sale, anyone have experience with that thing? It does say first available in 2001, so 14 years old, not sure if lens design has changed that much since then. The L lens you guys talk about sounds great, but I'm not up for spending that much on a macro lens.

The Tokina has quite a good review at photozone.de. Also keep in mind that one usually stops down to f/11 or thereabouts for macro work, where diffraction softening kicks in, tending to equalize the sharpness of all lenses.

I have never used this lens, so can't comment directly, but anyway the personal experience of strangers on forums doesn't count for much IMO compared to the assessments of experts at the well-known review sites.

The Tokina sux: I had one and it had focus shift, and at normal/long distances to boot. Ended up replacing it with a Canon EF 100mm f/2.8 L IS. Also, the Tokina has a barrel that extends/retracts with focusing: these barrels are a no-no if you're thinking of using a ring flash, as the weight of the flash might wreck the lens.

Opinions vary I guess. A used Canon 100 can be picked up on Ebay for about the same as a new Tokina, maybe that's the way to go.

cole4570 wrote in post #17834196
I have been tossing around the idea of a Macro lens. I have been looking at the Sigma 105mm macro and the Canon 100 USM (non L) Has anyone had any use the Sigma? Is not having IS a big issue in Macro. Thanks Cole

I agree on the idea of Sigma; I disagree on the 105mm.

IMO, the Sigma 180mm offers more features/advantages/be​nefits than any other macro lens on the market.

Take a moment to read my review when you get the chance.

Good luck,

Jack

PS: While rating the Sigma 180 #1, I rate the Sigma 105 #8, so I am by no means brand-biased.