Have Canon camera - What macro lens?

[m_later]

Looking for some lens recs from some of the experience macro photographers on here. I've recently come to enjoy taking macro pics but also have this feeling that I'm a bit limited by my non-macro lenses. I currently have an 'old' EOS20d and am contemplating an upgrade to a t2i or a 7D sometime this summer. But I'm also thinking I'd be better off spending money on a good macro lense and not worry so much about a body upgrade just yet. Is the Canon 100mm f/2.8 the way to go?

Longer Background : I take tons of travel pictures. I use the 18-55 kit lens, a 75-300 lens, and am tempted by the Tamron 18-270 lens. I'd like to get more in to macro photography and playing around more with exposures. I recently purchased the "Understanding Exposure" book from Amazon and am impatiently awaiting it's arrival.

[kyle L]

A cheaper alternative would be purchasing a 50mm 1/4 + Extension tubes. I'm using an old nikon lens with some extension tubes on a Rebel Xsi, and it's pretty nice so far.







But most of the time I find myself using the 18-55 kit lens, this one was with the kit lens.

[m_later]

Thanks Kyle, I wasn't aware of extension tubes. I'll try that out first before considering the macro lens.

[JBat]

Both the EF 100mm f/2.8 and the EF-S 60mm f/2.8 are excellent. And good choice of books. I think you'll both love it and learn a lot.

[TerryF]

Extension tubes are great but you will need a prime if you want to take any worthwhile photos.

You mention the 100mm F2.8, this is a very dedicated lens and you wont be using it all that often.

Kyle suggested the 50mm 1.4, a stunning lens and worth every penny but an even cheaper way to go and still get good pics is the 50mm 1.8II (called the nifty fifty) which give awesome images, doesnt cost an arm and a leg and then to add a set of Kenko extension tubes to it.

[JBat]

The EF 100 is more than a dedicated macro lens, it also serves very well as a portrait lens and, like most primes, it's tack sharp. I also think it's a better focal length on crop cameras than the 50mm, which can be a bit awkward at times.

[TheDude]

Canon has the most uber-specialized macro/micro lens:

MP-E 65mm f/2.8 1-5x Macro



It can shoot between 1x and 5x life size. Canon claims that you can fill a 35mm frame with a grain of rice.

Some example shots of watch movements - also a very nice tutorial on focus stacking.

http://prometheus.med.utah.edu/~bwjo...658/index.html

[TerryF]

Originally Posted by JBat

The EF 100 is more than a dedicated macro lens, it also serves very well as a portrait lens and, like most primes, it's tack sharp. I also think it's a better focal length on crop cameras than the 50mm, which can be a bit awkward at times.

Yip, quite correct, not only as a macro lens but as you say a studio portrait lens and yip, very sharp indeed - thats pretty dedicated in my books!

OP stated, "background, I take lots of travel photos". IMO the 100mm is not going to suit him as a travel lens hence my comments re suitability.

The 50mm is an 80mm equivalent on the crop body which is just as difficult to use for travel photography but costs 20% of the 100mm - even with the Kenko tubes its less than the 100mm.

And the little 50mm 1.8II is just as sharp as the 100mm.

[Tools]

Nothing wrong with the 100mm Canon Macro. It makes a great small telephoto too. Just because it can focus close doesn't mean that it won't also focus well throughout the entire range................. Your 20d will perform just fine with it........

[CKLinLA]

What focal length you choose depends on what type of macros you take -
insects (moving), or watches (still/immovable). Longer would work better for
live things that move (you can't get too near).

I have a 30D and am using a Sigma 70mm Macro, which does double duty
as a portrait lens for me. Since you have an APS-C (ie smaller sensor)
camera like me, and plan to stick with it (7D 2Ti), a 60-80mm type focal length
would likely work better if you plan to use for portraits as well. Longer lens
(100mm +) means you will have to be further than you likely want to, or can, be.

The Sigma 70mm has incredibly good reviews, but is not a big seller. Very sharp,
but slow in focusing. Its easy to focus manually, which does help when doing macro.
It would work less well if you are into insects and other things that move, you have to
be too close, plus the autofocus is slow..

[Dilemma]

I have the Canon 100mm 2.8 non-IS Macro, mounted on a 5D. Great results,,,,

it also serves very well as a portrait lens

This quote is from Photo.net. One of the sites I frequent.
"Canon puts a lot of effort into making the background blur ("bokeh") pleasing. This lens is not going to render out-of-focus highlights as smoothly as a lens specifically designed for portraits. Nor is the extra sharpness of this optic necessarily welcome by subjects, unless the goal is a reference image prior to dermatological surgery."

[Dilemma]

Originally Posted by TheDude

Canon has the most uber-specialized macro/micro lens:

MP-E 65mm f/2.8 1-5x Macro



It can shoot between 1x and 5x life size. Canon claims that you can fill a 35mm frame with a grain of rice.

Some example shots of watch movements - also a very nice tutorial on focus stacking.

http://prometheus.med.utah.edu/~bwjo...658/index.html

Holy Hannah that guy takes some nice shots

[kyle L]

This is with an old manual nikon lens + extension tube:

[OrchidDR]

I have the Canon 7d and I swear by my 100mm. It's a great lense for me in the garden. Ditto what everyone else has stated about it's versatility - it's an awesome piece of glass.

[m_later]

I picked up an Canon extension tube for $75 on e-bay today. I'll give that a shot and see if I'm happy with it. I'm also expecting that my reading will help me understand things a bit better and end up with photos that I'm happier with. At least it's fun while learnign and experimenting.

[kyle L]

Originally Posted by m_later

I picked up an Canon extension tube for $75 on e-bay today. I'll give that a shot and see if I'm happy with it. I'm also expecting that my reading will help me understand things a bit better and end up with photos that I'm happier with. At least it's fun while learnign and experimenting.

Is it an electronic tube? Could you send me a link?

[OrchidDR]

This morning I shot this bumble bee pollinating one my mango trees with my 100mm macro.

[vh_bu98]

When it comes to a dedicated macro lens, you can't go wrong with any manufacturer. The reason why is macro lens are highly specialized so there really isn't such a thing as a bad macro lens. You can buy the Canon version, Sigma, Tokina or Tamron...the thing you really have to decide is the focal distance.

If you're on a crop sensor, you will have to multiple by 1.6x. I'm sure you already knew that.

So the 50mm/60mm range is ideal for tabletop work or anything you can get really close to that won't move.

The 100mm range gives you a little more distance, but you have to move further back from your subject. It's a common distance, but I find it a little annoying if I am using a tripod and shooting tabletop work. But it does allow more light opportunity between the lens and subject.

The 200mm range is good for insects or anything that would be scared away if you got too close. You definitely will need a tripod and it makes tabletop work a lot more challenging if you don't have enough space for your setup.

[m_later]

Thanks all, I really appreciate the advice and suggestions. I received my book today so this weekend will be reading up and probably playing around with the setting on my 20D.

[m_later]

Well, I got a screaming deal on a Rebel T2i kit + the 100mm f 2.8 L lens from craigslist so I'll be picking those up on Tuesday. The next step will be to see if I can get some decent pics out of em :)

[Subfiend]

Originally Posted by JBat

Both the EF 100mm f/2.8 and the EF-S 60mm f/2.8 are excellent. And good choice of books. I think you'll both love it and learn a lot.

I have the Canon 20D and the EF 100mm f/2.8 macro lens. Frankly, I think 100 mm is too much. I should have gone for the 60 mm for macro work.