Macro Lens

Hello

Can you please recommend a good Macro Lens for a 10D.

Mid range price or just a good one please.

I just bought a Sigma 105mm f2.8 Macro based on outstanding user reviews at fredmiranda forum and seeing what are probably some of the sharpest and most dynamic images I have EVER looked at. Here's just one from the FM user reviews:

http://photocenter.smu​gmug.com/photos/732548​7-O.jpg

Mid range price ... Uk retail around £280. Other great options I looked at are the Canon 100mm and Tamron 90mm which are mid price.

I'd recommend the Canon 100mm f2.8 Macro based on reviews that I have read. I'm waiting for mine to arrive at the moment. Its in delivery somewhere. After practicing with a Tamron 70-300mm TeleMacro lens for a couple of years, I think that I should be able to take some pretty good photos with the Canon.

I like my EF 100 f/2.8 macro. Good portrait lens too.

Has anyone got any thoughts on the 50mm F2.8 EX DG Macro ?

i know tha canon 100mm is highly regarded for the fact you can manually focus at the sametime autofocus is on...

Too short. My Canon 100mm F2.8 macro is incredibly sharp.

I think i would prefer a 50mm lens to the 100 on digital.
A 50 is very nice as a portrait lens while the 100 is stretching it way too much.At least that's what i found,i sold my treasured EF100 macro because i just didn't use it enough on digital

As for which lenses...Most genuine macro lenses are outstanding in optical abilities,wether up close or for normal use.The only average ones that come to mind are the pheonix/samyang/vivita​r branded 100/3.5 lenses.
The canon 50 macro is good but doesn't give 1:1 magnification that others offer (it only goes to 1:2)
The canon 100 macro is a stunning lens closely followed by the tamron 90 macro (now selling in it's newest 'Di' variation)
The newest Sigma 105 macro looks to be a winner but it's best to avoid the recently superceded (non DG) version.
http://www.pbase.com/k​azfujieda/lenstest&pag​e=2
Some loved the old model,some -like me- didn't.Mine wasn't above average at all which is just not good enough when it has to compete with the amazing canon.
The link above and this following link show the average results many (most?) of the older versions gave .
http://www.orchideen-kartierung.de/Macro100​E.html

Excuse my ignorance

I have a Canon 17-40 L minimum focusing distance 0.28m, the macro lenses I am looking at range from 0.18 to 0.45m minimum focusing distance

Can my Canon be classed as a Macro then as the focusing distance is within the macro range.

In other words whats the difference between a lens with the word Macro in the title and my 17-40 L

Thanks

I have the newer version which just arrived as I was reading this thread. Opened the box, stuck the lens on the camera and it is actually VERY scary

I took a few quick test shots of one of my Cats' noses (two Cats, each has one nose, not one cat with multiple noses ) Anyway, it looks smooth and dry to the naked eye and on the Macro it is all bumpy and wet. The detail is extra-extraordinary! Hand held, first shot and lots of room for improvement still I'm sure. A few whisker shots also came out sharp and whiskery, not fuzzy! One of my standard test shots of the edge of my Leatherman penknife shows it full of tiny bits of fluff and dust in between the blades ... and this is something I use for cutting food, etc. when travelling I said it was scary!!

I have a mini tripod so will try it more later, but for now I am delighted

A macro lens has the ability to reproduce your subject at a ratio of 1:1 or 1:2 on the sensor. So if you focus on a 10mm bug then the resulting bug will be 10mm on the sensor. The minimum focus distance doesn't really come into it. A 150mm macro lens will allow you stand off quite far while still maintaining 1:1.

I have the Sigma 105mm and it is, as stated here, optically stunning. It's major problem is the slow focus motor especially when it hunts. Not a problem for large or static subjects but it makes tracking a flying bug virtually impossible because when it hunts you lose it.

oK THANKS

so would it be ok for wedding detailed shots
ie. shoes. flowers perfume etc

Bit concerened that the 105mm will not be wide enough? or am I wrong...........again

DPP- the minimum focussing distance means nothing unless the focal length is given at the same time.

For example a 20mm lens focussed at 40cm, a 50mm lens focussed at 100cm and a 300mm lens focused at 6 meters will all give identical magnification.

Traditionally most primes close focus to about ten times their focal length -i.e the EF50/1.8 can go to just under 50cm,the EF300/4L goes to just under 3 meters, etc

Most cheap zooms can do better than this at the expense of some closeup image quality

***note this whole theory falls down abit with internal focus lenses-they change focal length as you focus (yes,even if it's a fixed length prime lens)

A 100mm macro lens only has to focus to 31 cm to achieve 1:1 magnification
A 50mm macro lens that also gives the same 1:1 magnification has to focus to 19cm

So you can see that the close focus range of the 17-40 L isn't that impressive at all