Best value Macro Lens

I'm very new to this so please excuse my noobieness.
I really want to get into Marco but don't really know where to start.
I been looking at the Canon EF 50mm f/2.5 Compact Macro Lens. It's priced at about $370 cdn. Is this a good value lens and do you guys/girls recommend it or something else. I'd like it to be priced under $500 cdn with shipping.

I have a Canon T2i by the way.

Thank you very much for the help.
Jimmy

I bought my Sigma 105mm from eBay for £240 used. Apparently that's 369 Canadian, so right in your ball park. I think you'd value the greater working distance. My understanding is that you can't really go wrong with any macro lenses. The Tamron 90mm is supposed to be very good, as are both the Canon 100s. Only thing is, don't expect a macro lens to have fast AF unless it's got USM. So they're good lenses, but they're not fast to focus. At least that's the experience I have with mine.

The compact macro is a nice lens, and just like it's name implies... it's compact. The 100 macro drives me nuts... it's so big! The EF-S 60 macro is a real stunner and worth it. But the 50 macro is also quite good. I don't know what you are shooting, but often, many macro shots aren't at the full 1:1 magnification. The 50 compact macro gives you 1:2, which for many things, is quite adequate. But if your macro needs are for REAL closeups, then you'd probably be better served with 1:1 macro lens.

If you are on the cheap, then it's hard to go wrong with a set of extension tubes to bring macro focusing distances to your existing lenses. That is a cheap but effective way to go. You can also reverse a lens to get macro magnification, but you lose all the electrics, which to me, is not very nice.

Another cheap alternative is to buy a super cheap and old canon 35-80 lens. You remove the front element and it becomes a macro that gives you greater than 1:1 magnification. You lose focusing ability so you have to move your camera to achieve focus, but if you are always doing closeup work with it then it's a somewhat livable crutch.

All in all, I would probably go for the 50 compact macro. I LOVE my 60 macro, but I'd probably just get 50 if I had to do it all over again.

The canon 50mm macro is not a true macro lens, instead it achieves only around half (1:2) magnification that a true macro lens will be capable of. It can get to full 1:1 magnification if you also purchase the lifesize adaptor for the lens; but at that point you could have used the money for an all in one lens with a longer focal length like a 100mm macro.

Generally though outside of the 50mm macro all the prime macro lenses are 1:1 "true" macro lenses and all are optically great performers - price, focal length and features are what will differ between them so its a case of seeing what fits your budget and what will give you the most for your money.

Note that generally speaking if you intend to work with insects 90mm is the recomended shortest focal length to start with (eg Tamron 90mm macro) because the longer the focal length the longer the working distance of the lens itself (which means less chance to spook the insects)

Sigma makes a very good 50mm 2.8 macro that does 1:1 .

I have only used Canon macro lenses. The 50mm, as pointed out, is not a true macro lens. I bought one but sold it fairly quickly. The EF-S 60mm is a fabulous lens. I use it most of the time for flower macros, but it is not ideal for bugs because you have to get very close.

paddler4 wrote in post #11547410
I have only used Canon macro lenses. The 50mm, as pointed out, is not a true macro lens. I bought one but sold it fairly quickly. The EF-S 60mm is a fabulous lens. I use it most of the time for flower macros, but it is not ideal for bugs because you have to get very close.

The same is true for the Sigma 50mm macro . That's why I also have the Sigma 150mm maco .

I'd get a Sigma 105 or Tamron 90mm, those are both great macros for a great price. These days the Canon 100 non-L is a pretty good price used as well, I would consider that if you don't mind buying used!

Awesome tips and info!
Thank you everyone for the quick and great replies

A lot of macro is manual focus. If you are willing to do stop down aperture settings then you well on the way to manual focus lenses for macro.

Enlarging lenses on M42 tubes are inexpensive and quite sharp for macro. The savings can go into some other aspect of your photography.

An older macro prime, Nikkor 55 3.5 is about $50.

Canon EF 35-80, chop off the front 3 elements.

If you don't need the full 1:1 magnification, the 50mm 2.5 is a nice lens. Its a good one to buy used. I bought mine for $170. I also bought a 60mm 2.8 macro used for $270, but I think used ones now go about $300. The 60mm is a full macro and has outstanding IQ and might be your best bet. However, as previously mentioned, if you plan to take macro shots of insects, the 100mm 2.8 would be a better choice. The longer focal length will give you some needed distance between you and your subject. The non IS version of the 100mm 2.8 macro goes used for around $400.

I used the Sigma 105mm macro for this shot. I think it is a very capable lens, used for what it is intended for.

Byte size: ZERO | Content warning: NOT AN IMAGE