Macro Question: If you had 1 lens to buy, which would it be?

I want to get a macro lens but want some opinions on which if you were only going to have one ... what would it be. I currently own 24-105 Canon L, 18-200mm Sigma, 70-200mm Canon L, 100-400mm Canon L and lastly 10-20mm Sigma. I don't have any money for more L glass quality but with winter fast approaching would like to do some macro in the basement. Thanks for any advice you can provide.
Chuck

http://sports.zenfolio​.com/

Well if it was me my first choice would be the MPE-65 , but due to its high cost it would be in this order
Canon EF 100/2,8 MACRO USM
Canon EF-S 60/2,8 Makro USM as i already have this one.

If I had a DSLR, would be a sigma 105mm and extension tubes

Tamron 90mm SP Di

I was under the impression that extension tubes and your current L glass would act as a decent macro setup in the case of financial shortages....and maybe getting a good flash.... ?

mpe-65 and the twin flash for me. since i have the 100 already .

Bill

Looking at the lenses you already have and what you could use a macro for, plus wanting almost L quality glass, you really have 2 choices only in my mind

Canon 100mm macro or the Canon 60mm macro - both are excellent lenses (I have both) and both can be used for portrait photography if you ever wanted to do that. Price, weight and working distance are the only deciding factors as to which one you would choose.

The MPE is a great macro lense but you would be very limited in using it I think and its not cheap!

Linda

ceriltheblade wrote in post #6264322
I was under the impression that extension tubes and your current L glass would act as a decent macro setup in the case of financial shortages....and maybe getting a good flash.... ?

It won't be a "true" macro setup, as I don't think he'll get 1:1 lifesize magnification.

I am really enjoying my 100mm macro but as soon as I get good at this I want to upgrade to the MPE-65. The MPE-65 has a magnification ability that the 100mm does not have.

It really depends on how much you want to get into this. If you want to do occasional macro then the 100mm would be sufficient and is a great lens to start with while you learn. If you want to get serious than the MPE-65 really is not that much more expensive (only $350.00 more ).

I should mention that now I have both the 100 and the MP-E 65, and would not recommend having the MP-E as your only macro lens. I think you still need a "standard" macro lens that can focus to infinity and down to 1:1. So start with either the Canon 100, Sigma 105, Tamron 90 (if you can find one available, I understand they're pretty hard to get a hold of ATM), Canon 60 etc.

troypiggo wrote in post #6267709
I should mention that now I have both the 100 and the MP-E 65, and would not recommend having the MP-E as your only macro lens. I think you still need a "standard" macro lens that can focus to infinity and down to 1:1. So start with either the Canon 100, Sigma 105, Tamron 90 (if you can find one available, I understand they're pretty hard to get a hold of ATM), Canon 60 etc.

Thanks for posting this! Now I feel better about buying the 100mm instead of spending the extra money on the MP-E 65!!

What about the Sigma EX 150 / 2.8 macro. I have this lense and it seems to work for me. Grant it i'm not a pro and i'm still learning. It takes very nice pictures when i hold it still. 90% of the time it's the end user not the equipment. So i'v learned, but the sigma is a nice lens.

I'm sure it is a nice lens. But IMO the cheaper ones might be a better choice for the beginner or someone who is not sure how "into" macro photography they'll be.

The Canon 100mm f/2.8 macro is a great lens for a great price.

Canon 100mm Macro 2.8 without a doubt.