Macro Lens

I would love to try Macro photography but don't have a ton of money to spend on a lens. Is there an inexpesive lens as a beginner option?

Kenko Extension tubesto add to your 50mm, gets you full macro. Also for past 1:1 you can reverse your 50 on the end of your 75-300mm with a cheap reversing ring.

What's your price range ?

one option is extension tubes. for $169 u can pick up a set of Kenko tubes and attach it between the body and your 50mm 1.8 and experiment with the 18-55mm as well.

The maximum magnification you get would be approximately 1:2 or 0.50x

To get true 1:1 and grab more detail you need to get a dedicated macro lens.
The Canon 60mm Macro goes for about $400 and can double as a portrait lens.

The Sigma 105 is also relatively inexpensive, and is a great macro lens. I loved mine - only got rid of it when I upgraded to the Canon 100L (my very favorite lens.....!)

Hi Rachel,

This question has been asked and answered an awful lot... do a search of this forum and you'll find many detailed responses.

Granted, it was a stroke of good luck getting it so cheap, and it's purely a manual lens (focus and aperture), but the lens that took this shot cost me all of $65 (including a $45 adapter from China)...

i'm with Kasrielle on the 100 L lens being the favorite.

i can feel my heart smile when it engages IS and locks focus. *beep* *click* *aaah*

slasher723 wrote in post #11559234
i'm with Kasrielle on the 100 L lens being the favorite.

i can feel my heart smile when it engages IS and locks focus. *beep* *click* *aaah*

the Canon 100L is nice but at $1,000 it may not fit the OP's budget criteria.
My smiling heart's on the Tamron 90 2.8 macro - about $300 used and can double as a nice portrait lens

Yes, the 100L is wonderful--I have one--but the OP specifically said that she does not want to spend a lot of money.

Rachel--you can get a good macro lens for a lot less. But before you spend money, it would be helpful to decide what kind of macro you want to do because that will determine the focal length you need. Assuming you want 1:1 magnification or close to it--the image on the sensor is life-sized--I find that a length of around 60mm on a crop sensor camera like yours is very good for flowers, but it is very short for bugs because you have to get so close. So I use my 100mm for bugs but usually opt for my 60mm when I am doing flowers.

The cheapest canon macro lens is the 'compact 50' f/2.5, but that only goes to 1:2 magnification. At least one of the Tamron macro lenses has a superb reputation, but I have never used any.

watt100 wrote in post #11559299
the Canon 100L is nice but at $1,000 it may not fit the OP's budget criteria.
My smiling heart's on the Tamron 90 2.8 macro - about $300 used and can double as a nice portrait lens

$300 is more in my budget range. I'll keep an eye out for one. Any other input is appreciated.

Sigma 50mm f/2.8 EX DG Macro is $300 new, $220-250 used, but it might be a bit short for creepy crawlies.

Rachel:
Your least expensive option is to use your existing lenses and crop heavily. Unless you are making large prints, that may do the job.

Next, I'd suggest that you spent any money available for photography on replacing your 18-55 with the 18-55 IS. Not only is this a superior lens optically, it has a very good IS system and also provides 'near-macro' levels of magnification, about 1:3.2 I think.

Then, you might consider replacing the 75-300 with the EF-S 55-250 IS, which also gives about 1:3 'macro', but from a greater distance.

If your need for true macro performance at a low cost is really paramount, extension rings, or reverse-mounting your 50/1.8 in front of your 18-55 could be options.

If 1:2 is adequate, consider the EF 50/2.5 Compact macro.
You could also adapt an old manual lens such as the Zuiko 50/3.5 macro.

There's no doubt though that the best and most convenient way to achieve 1:1 is with a dedicated macro lens, and the very great majority of these perform well. The EF-S 60/2.8 is very highly regarded, as are longer offerings from Canon, Tamron, and Sigma.

algold wrote in post #11559590
Sigma 50mm f/2.8 EX DG Macro is $300 new, $220-250 used, but it might be a bit short for creepy crawlies.

The Sigma 50mm macro is a very good lens and does 1:1, unlike the Canon 50mm macro which does only 1:2. But you're right its working distance is a litle short for insects.

Just to be clear, you CAN do bugs with a 60mm macro on a crop sensor camera. It's just harder, and the keeper rate is lower. I have done lots. This one was done with a 50D, the EF-S 60mm macro, and I think an extension tube, but I have no record of which length. (BTW, some bugs will let you get closer if you are not above them. I crawled along on my stomach for this one, shooting away as i slowly got closer.)

slasher723 wrote in post #11559014
The maximum magnification you get would be approximately 1:2 or 0.50x

a full set of tubes would give 1:1 i think...

the cheapest thing you can do is just get a reversing ring to switch your current lenses around...basically mounting them backwards...

everything depends on how much money you want to spend...someones cheap is another persons expensive, so actual numbers usually help more