macro focal length for FF

great images bohdank. how many of them were handheld vs. tripod?

The first one was handheld... all others tripod.

I used to chase skittish bugs and a Tamron 180 was great Now I chase not-skittish flowers and 100mm is excellent. The Canon offerings are apparently excellent. If you think you want to go after things that can fly away (dragonflies...so frustrating, but awesome when you get the shot) then a 150/180 is a great idea. The tamron 180 has fantastic IQ and is not impossible to hand hold...but its not easy. The Sigma 150 is great and I sacrificed mine when I picked up my current macro lens. I don't know how good the Canon 100's and 180 are - have not owned them. The Canon 60 is great but not really applicable since its an EF-S lens. 1:1 ratio is important to some, 1:2 is acceptable to some, and some people want beyond 1:1 (the MPE). Good luck choosing, its tough!

Apollo.11 wrote in post #10428178
thanks for article jack...ignore crop factor on small sensors...never done macro...learning to take insect photos. what's a good focal length for that?

You're welcome. Opinions are low-price, and since I own or use just about every macro lens out there, I'll offer mine.
When most people say "macro," what they really mean is, "I want to take field close-ups and detail shots when opportunities arise." They do not mean life-size 1x reproduction.
Even a lot of butterfly and dragonfly photography is done at 0.5-0.7x with telephoto/tele zoom lenses with a 1.4x TC and/or Canon 500D +2 diopter on the front. There is a tremendous amount of working distance flexibility doing this, even though you lose infinity focus with the 500D.

Yes, you will have focal length overlap. And likely, on general outings, either the macro stays home, or a fast aperture prime stays home. Gear bag gets too heavy.

Since you already own some stellar glass, have you considered not buying a macro lens, but borrowing or renting a 1.4x TC and 500D, mounting on your 135L or 70-200 f/2.8L IS, and seeing whether that solves your close-ups needs? There's many ways to skin a cat here. Works great on larger spiders, larger insects, etc. That combo together however is almost the same cost as a used Canon 100mm f/2.8 USM macro.

Frankly, with small insects, say aphids, or thrips, even life size 1x is not enough magnification anyway. 1x is about right for anything from large, down to wasps, bees, flies, etc.

From personal experience, if you DO go the classy route of 100mm f/2.8L IS macro, you will likely find you hardly pack the 135L or 85 f/1.8 - unless you are an indoor sports shorter, theater, or selective focus portrait person, etc. The new Canon lens is stunning, critically sharp at f/3.2. Really nice to handle. Fun to focus on a subject AT ANY DISTANCE YOU CHOOSE. It will not stop subject motion because you can't get the shutter speed of an f/1.8 or f/2 lens, unless you raise the ISO though. Your choice of what's important to YOU.


Until the 100L IS, other than macro, I rarely shot with fixed focal length lenses. Then I got 100L macro, and realized I could walk around all day with just two lenses: the 35mm f/1.4L and the 100mm f/2.8L IS macro and focus from 15cm to infinity with no limitations. Very unusual for me. Quite a revelation of how well they work together, and without me having a zoom.
And this is on an APS-H sensor 1D IV. I rarely do wide angle unless it is necessary to 'pull a viewer into the frame' anyway.

There is lots of fun in the field at less than 1x using wide angle field of view lenses and short extension tubes to do "Thing in their environment close-ups," which you can't actually do with a macro lens. These are very impactful for documentary photography.

Everyone hates wasting money on photography books, but maybe before you buy a macro lens, buy a copy of Tim Fitzharris, Close-up Photography in Nature, Revised, from Firefly Publishing.
He is a Canon shooter, and this modern book is loaded with alternative lens setup recipes, good explanations of reproduction ratio needed with various critters, etc. It is a modern, Canon centric user's version of that famously well-read 1970s John Shaw's Close-ups in Nature. Shaw is Nikon shooter. Get Fitzharris book before you plunk down $900 on a macro lens. Just a thought.

I find the Canon APS-H sensor the ideal compromise of VF size and brightness for manual focus, VF shutter lever, pixel density, etc.
Crop sensor cameras have the same impact on macro they have on telephoto; you can fill the frame easier with more pixel density on the subject. These cameras are weak on wide angle, but that's not my thing.

Just rambling thoughts. Jack

Thanks for all the input Jack. Yes you are correct, I'm not as interested in "macro" as I am in "close-ups". I am leaning the 100L route but not sure.

I don't think books are a waste of money. I have a whole cabinet full of them. In fact, I dug up a copy of Shaw's Closeups in Nature. I also found another book call Macrophotograpy by Martin and Loaec. I think I'll give these a good read before pulling the trigger on anything. I'll try to get my hands on Fitzharris' book too.

With what you already have I would get the 180mm Canon. You can also use as a longer portrait lens. I shoot handheld with it all the time even with a ring flash attached.
Handheld recent shot...

HOSTED PHOTO
please log in to view hosted photos in full size.

I just ran across this post by LordV which is a good read too.

https://photography-on-the.net/forum/showthre​ad.php?t=807056

Apollo.11 wrote in post #10435451
...post by LordV which is a good read too.https://photography-on-the.net/forum/showthre​ad.php?t=807056

Apollo.11,
Many outstanding, experience sharing, macro members on POTN. LordV. Certainly. Avid user of Canon MP-E 65mm lens, which duplicates with far greater ease, old way we used bellows. Another POTN macro sharing member you should search and read is Lester Wareham:
http://www.zen20934.ze​n.co.uk …raphy/Macro_Equ​ipment.htm
http://www.zen20934.ze​n.co.uk/photography/my​newhardware.htm

Jack

Thanks again Jack. Lots of reading to do before I makeup my mind.