macro lenses

I've always loved macro photography, but haven't had a macro lens since I got rid of my film camera. There are some amazing shots in the macro section. I'ved noticed a lot of the better shots, that the sigma 150, Sigma 105ex and the Canon MP E65 are in the gear list.

What would you suggest as a first macro lens. Input and suggestions extremely appreciated.

Thanks,

Jamey

Canon 100 Macro, great lens

I agree with calicokat, the Canon 100mm f/2.8 macro is my favorite

I picked up a used Canon 100 macro (non usm) from my local shop and have been happy with it. Although I must admit that I've had to completely start from scratch trying to figure out dof while using it. That said, the research that I did around here prior to making my purchase led me to believe that all of the dedicated macro lenses are razor sharp, and will do just fine, but that the Canon seems to get the nod for usm, and non extending front element. If price is an overiding issue, the Tamron 90, Sigma 105, or Tokina 100 are all fine lenses.

Thanks to all. Are there any other thoughts? I see the focusing distance of the canon is 5.9", the sigma 105 is 12.2" and the sigma 150 is 15". Is the canon lens sharp? I don't want to pay for a lens that only gets mediocre shots. I'm looking for some tack sharp quality.

Read the Sticky FAQ for What Lens to buy > Choosing a Macro Lens.
J.

Thanks. That was very helpful. I also am continuing the thread to get a more rounded opinion from users. I like to try to get several responses in order to be more informed by a multitude of users. This was very helpful though.

If you got the money and really want to do Macro, get the MPE-65. It can go to 5x. The canon and sigma to 1x max, without tubes. 2x max. with tubes. Once you start, your going to want to go to higher magnification reight away, so why buy everything in between and work up to it?

That's what I am doing, and I could have bought the MPE-65 for what I have invested in all the other stuff and I still only have 2x.

i wouldnt really reccomend the 65MP-E if you are new to macro, since the furthest out it can focus is 1:1 life size (which is the max focus without tubes of the other macro lenses mentioned here).
the canon 100 is a great lens, very sharp, and i believe it would fit your needs very well.

another vote for the 100mm 2.8 USM macro.

It also works well as a regular tele lens due to it's USM.

Livinthalife wrote in post #2032535
another vote for the 100mm 2.8 USM macro.

It also works well as a regular tele lens due to it's USM.

True and true! I've been extremely pleased with my 100 for both macro and event/portrait work.

All the major manufacturers are putting out superb macros.

Canon, Sigma, and Tamron are all equal in the macro field. There is NO major differences in these lenses. The Sigma 150mm is what is popular because of price and you get a better working distance. With the MP-E 65mm you will have to get REAL CLOSE to get shots.

As above I would not recommend an MPE-65 as a beginner lens- any of the macro lenses around 100mm would be excellent.
Brian V.

A few weeks ago I was also considering to buy a macro. These were the choices:

• Canon 100 f/2.8, which is considerably more expensive than the Sigma and Tamron (about 30%)
  
• Sigma 105 f/2.8 (min aperture f/45, which is very useful for object photography)
  
• Tamron 90 f/2.8 (min aperture f/22, which seems not enough for maximal DoF)
  
• Tokina 90 f/2.5 (which is not truly 1:1, which is difficult to find, but has the best photodo test results with 4,6)
  
• Tokina 100 f/2.8 (review found at http://www.radugrozesc​u.com/photo-te...ro-review.html)
  

Canon 100mm f/2.8 gets my vote. Super sharp, USM, and its the only one in the focal length that doesn't exend when focussing.