Best Macro for UNDER $300??

david888lee wrote in post #6470201
how about kenko extension tubes? you can find them for around $100-125 used.

+1 for the tubes.

Ever since trying out the full set (68mm) of tubes on my 70-200 I don't even want to put my 60mm macro back on the camera. The working distance is soooo much better! Not to mention the having flexibility of zoom is nice too.

I see you have a 70-200 too, I'd give the extension tubes a try first.

drkstang00 wrote in post #6473250
+1 for the tubes.

Ever since trying out the full set (68mm) of tubes on my 70-200 I don't even want to put my 60mm macro back on the camera. The working distance is soooo much better! Not to mention the having flexibility of zoom is nice too.

I see you have a 70-200 too, I'd give the extension tubes a try first.

How do tubes effect your f stop? Is it like the same way like extender (1.4x, 2x) that they make your lens slower? Have not done much reading on tubes at at all.

i believe it doesn't have any effect on your f/stop...there's no glass...the DOF does become a lot smaller because you are at a closer distance

pixel_junkie wrote in post #6471730
EFS 60 f/2.8 Macro - You can easily find one for around $300, it is a little faster AF than the 100 Macro and just as sharp. Also, contrast and bokeh are excellent. My 100 Macro is insane, I can't say enough good about it, and from what I hear, the 60 macro is just as good and is probably more versatile length on a crop body.

Another vote for the 60mm macro. One of the sharpest lenses I've ever used. I used to own the Sigma 50 macro and the Canon is well worth the extra $100 - the Canon doesn't extend, is much faster focusing and is much better in low light....

Tamron Macro Lenses

Tamron has produced three versions of the 90mm Macro.

The original 90mm f/2.5 "Adaptall" which is a manual focus lens which uses separate adapters to fit on various camera brand bodies. This lens also need an adapter to achieve 1:1 imagery. I would not select this version for a Canon EOS DSLR.

The 90mm f/2.8 AF SP is an excellent discontinued lens which is often available on eBay or other used camera sites for a reasonable price. I obtained mine several years ago in mint condition for under $125 which included shipping. This lens produces excellent imagery which I consider up there with my "L" lens quality. The auto-focus, although not as fast as USM lenses is reasonably fast and is extremely accurate when locked on. I absolutely love my lens.

The 90mm f/2.8 AF Di SP is Tamron's latest issue and is touted to be optimized for digital. It is a great lens which normally sells new in the $350 or so area.

Since ext. tubes are spreading out the light in a larger area, you do lose light, exposure wise.

I have read that the Canon 100mm macro is better than the 60 if you'll be shooting insects, because you have to get right in their face with the 60mm and they'll run away.

RPCrowe wrote in post #6474323
Tamron has produced three versions of the 90mm Macro.

when i first read the title, i immediately thought of the tamron 90!

yuriyo923 wrote in post #6474118
How do tubes effect your f stop? Is it like the same way like extender (1.4x, 2x) that they make your lens slower? Have not done much reading on tubes at at all.

There is a geometric light loss, at life size this is nominally 2 stops.

You can work this out easily, the magnification you get with tubes is M=E/F, where E is the tube length and F is the lens focal length.

M is the ratio of the size of the image to the size of the object.

The light loss is approximately (M+1)^2 for shutter speed and M+1 to multiply the set f-stop to find the effective f-stop.

A real macro lens will be a lot more convenient than tubes as well as having lower lens aberrations at close distances. All the macro lenses seem to be good optically, although the Canon 100mm does have some good features that improve it operationally such as full time manual focus, internal focus (non-extending) and USM AF motor.

What focal length you want depends on what you are doing with it, for general bugs and flowers etc I would suggest something around 100mm, especially for bugs which are almost certainly hand held where shake and weight will be issues.

I have some ramblings about macro kit and links to tests and things at the below which might help http://www.zen20934.ze​n.co.uk …raphy/Macro_Equ​ipment.htm

DeCeccoNET wrote in post #6471990
I had the 60, and didnt like the working distance (even on a crop body)...

Does working distance depend on sensor size? I'd have thought not.

At 1:1, isn't the sensor twice the focal length from the subject, irrespective of sensor size?
Yes?
No?
???

For the photographer using through-the-lens light metering, the light loss introduced by tubes (defined above by Lester) doesn't call for any computation/manual compensation on shooting. The metering system inside the camera will read the reduced light and react accordingly, in the same way as if, say, a cloud dimmed the sunshine. With a preset aperture, the metering system will set the shutter to the appropriately slower (compared to the naked lens) speed.

Beside the fact that normal lenses with tubes - especially zooms - generally underperform compared to macro lenses, some lenses are notoriously soft at minimum focusing distances even before tubes are added, and are therefore particularly unsuitable for macro use. One such is the 70-200 f/4 IS at 200mm. It pays to check on this possible issue before buying tubes. Unfortunately, I didn't.

xarqi wrote in post #6476239
Does working distance depend on sensor size? I'd have thought not.

At 1:1, isn't the sensor twice the focal length from the subject, irrespective of sensor size?
Yes?
No?
???

No the magnification (more properly linear magnification) and working distance are independent of sensor size because magnification is defined as the size of the image to that of the object.

So a 10mm long image of a 20mm long object is 0.5X or 1:2 whatever the sensor.

However on APS-C sensor the 10mm fills about half the frame but on a full frame sensor if fills only 1/3 of the frame. This is why the term crop factor is used, the smaller sensor crops the lens image. (an old chestnut but a goodie).

Sorry for the semantics, so on full frame you will need more magnification to fill the frame with a given subject than on APS-C and so your working distance will be less because of this.

Has anyone used tubes on Sigma 30mm?? I would mainly use it for wedding details shots, some flowers shots... No bugs photography in my near future

yuriyo923 wrote in post #6476755
Has anyone used tubes on Sigma 30mm?? I would mainly use it for wedding details shots, some flowers shots... No bugs photography in my near future

Can't say so, but the shortest tube is 12mm, with a 30mm lens that gives you a minium magnification of about 0.4X and a working distance of around 60mm, sounds a bit more than you want.

For flowers an ordinary short tele can probably focus close enough and should give better perspective control over the background. If you need to get close add a tube. Try using your 70-200 zoom.