Need Help with Macro Lens

I have a Canon Rebel XS and have the EF-S 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6 IS and EF-S 55-250mm f/4-5.6 IS lenses. I am looking for a macro lens to take close-up pictures of insects and flowers. I am on a budget so I have been looking at the Sigma line of lenses. I have been looking at two different lenses the Sigma 70-300mm f/4-5.6 APO-M DG Macro Lens and the Sigma Normal 50mm f/2.8 EX DG Macro Autofocus Lens. Since I already have a telephoto lens would it be better to get the 50mm macro or should I buy the 70-300mm? Which one of these lenses will take the best close up macro shots? Thanks!

If you want to take pictures of insects and flowers, I don't think the 70-300 will help you. I also don't think the Sigma is that amazing either. I think you should go with the Canon 60mm f/2.8. It's a wonderful lens!

If you want to get up close insects, you will be disappointed with the 70-300 - it's not a true macro lens and won't give you 1:1 lifesize magnification. Also, for shooting insects, the working distance is pretty important - that's the distance from front of lens to subject. The macro lenses around 100mm focal length are a good trade-off of reasonable WD, managability, and cost. You won't be sorry with something like the Tamron 90, Sigma 105, or Canon 100.

I like the price of the Canon 60mm and the Tamron 90mm. Which of these would you recommend? Is the Canon 100mm really worth spending $100 more over the Tamron 90mm?

The Canon 100mm is worth spending over the Tamron, the price is very good for the Canon 60mm, but macro photographers prefer the longer lens so they don't have to get as close to the subject as you do with something like the 60mm. But they usually don't have to worry as much about their budget.

I think the $100 is wroth it. The 100mm is a fantastic lens, and you don't have to get too close to your subject.

You could also get the Canon 50mm 1.8 for $100 and a set of Kenko extension tubes for $180.

$280 total gets you a nice low-light and portrait lens + up to 1:1.5 macro.

You could even just get extension tubes and try them out on your existing lenses to see how they work for you then get a prime lense or even macro lense to use with them later.

arentol wrote in post #10476844
You could also get the Canon 50mm 1.8 for $100 and a set of Kenko extension tubes for $180.

$280 total gets you a nice low-light and portrait lens + up to 1:1.5 macro.

You could even just get extension tubes and try them out on your existing lenses to see how they work for you then get a prime lense or even macro lense to use with them later.

I have been thinking about buying the 50mm for portrait because I heard it has outstanding sharpness. Since I am very new to photography I am not familiar with extension tubes. So If I buy the extension tubes with the 50mm I can get macro quality shots, comparable to the canon 60mm or 100mm for less than 300 dollars? So the WD would be about 90mm with the 36mm extension tube? Thanks for the feedback everyone!

I've had or have the Canon 100, Sigma 105, Sigma 150, and MP-E 65, and a friend has the Tamron 90. If I had my time again, I'd have gotten the Tamron 90 over the Canon 100 first time around.

All macro lenses tend to be very sharp and no noticable difference in IQ. You can't really go wrong with any of them. It's just about finding the price and focal length that suit you.

troypiggo wrote in post #10477106
I've had or have the Canon 100, Sigma 105, Sigma 150, and MP-E 65, and a friend has the Tamron 90. If I had my time again, I'd have gotten the Tamron 90 over the Canon 100 first time around.

All macro lenses tend to be very sharp and no noticable difference in IQ. You can't really go wrong with any of them. It's just about finding the price and focal length that suit you.

Exactly

Only thing to watch if you go used is the older Sigmas can have issues on the newer Canon bodies..

If you're intending to do insects, the longer the better.....

Personally, I'd go with the Canon 100, Either of them, the IS is definately a bonus if you're not working from a tripod frequently (Which you might not be)

The big difference in the Canon is the fact they have USM, their AF is much MUCH quicker for normal subjects...Also means you have full time manual override...