Macro Lens - DPChallenge Forums

08/07/2009 07:34:27 AM · #1

Hey all,

Me again... :)

In addition to my new purchase of the Sigma 70-300mm, I'm planning another lens purchase in the near future. This time I want a 'true' macro lens.

If I want something of this excellent photographic standard (see photos below) what lens could do the job AND be not astronomical in price? (I know I can look at the lens used, but I'm interested in your opinions too).

All these photos seem to be taken with expensive lens... are there any 'mid-range' price lens that can achieve a similar result or is it just that you cannot get this result with anything else?

THANKS :)

Alex_Europa

Canon EOS-60D

08/07/2009 07:38:22 AM · #2

Canon EF 100mm f/2.8 Macro USM

I don't think that bird picture was taken with a macro lens. Everything else was though.

But it's not nearly as much about the lens as it is the technique, lighting, etc...

Just make sure that whatever lens you buy is able to focus down to a true 1:1 ratio; unlike some "macro" lenses that cannot. That information can be found on internet reviews, or if you're in the store, on the window on the lens barrel.

- Alex

Message edited by author 2009-08-07 07:43:16.

rodneyg

Canon RF 100-500mm f/4.5-7.1 L IS USM

08/07/2009 07:39:30 AM · #3

I think the decision needs to be based upon your subject matter as well as your pocket book. I really love my Canon 60mm for macro and it doubles quite well for portraits. The drawback is that you have to get somewhat close to your subject, so you can scare off skittish insects. From my observations, the Canon 100 mm looks like a really sweet lens to have and it affords you a little more distance from the skittish subjects. Just my 2cents worth.

Rainbow-Coloured-Soul

08/07/2009 07:44:31 AM · #4

Originally posted by Alex_Europa:

Thanks Alex,

I think the 100mm might be just slightly out of my price range (unless I save for the next few months).

What about any of these candidates? Jessops Macro Lens
Thanks,

Nichola

Message edited by author 2009-08-07 07:45:24.

Rainbow-Coloured-Soul

Sony 24-70mm F4 Vario-Tessar T* FE OSS

08/07/2009 07:48:00 AM · #5

Originally posted by rodneyg:

Yep, it looks like an incredibly sweet lens... I'm almost tempted to do the saving thang!

Bear_Music

Samsung Galaxy S24 Ultra

08/07/2009 08:09:15 AM · #6

Originally posted by rodneyg:

I really love my Canon 60mm for macro and it doubles quite well for portraits. The drawback is that you have to get somewhat close to your subject, so you can scare off skittish insects. From my observations, the Canon 100 mm looks like a really sweet lens to have and it affords you a little more distance from the skittish subjects. Just my 2cents worth.

The working distance issue is nearly irrelevant between the 60mm and the 100mm; worki9nhg distance is calculated from the sensor plane to the subject, and the 60mm is a MUCH more compact (ie shorter) lens than the 100mm, so the actual difference in working distance [i[from the front of the lens] is just under 2 inches at 1:1 magnification. In all respects the 60mm is a fantastic lens, sharp as a tack, a joy to work with, and it can be had for under $400 new. I heartily recommend it.

R.

Canon 12x IS USM (S3 IS built-in Lens) -- 36-432mm (35mm EQ)

08/07/2009 08:47:00 AM · #7

Like Robert, I'd wholeheartedly recommend the 60mm macro on an APS camera. It's small, light, sharp as hell, and a little less expensive than the 100mm. Now I don't want to dismiss the 100/2.8 macro, it's a great little lens as well. You can't go wrong choosing either. And you will be amazed at what either one can do as a portrait lens :-)

GeneralE

Canon PowerShot S3 IS

08/07/2009 12:02:18 PM · #8

Read the reviews on this Close-Up Lens (which I was just doing myself), which seems to be an inexpensive way to turn your 300mm into a macro lens ...

BeefnCheez

Canon EF 100mm f/2.8 USM Macro

08/07/2009 12:23:32 PM · #9

Ebay is where us frugal photog go. I got a new 100mm Macro for $450 with free shipping.

Message edited by author 2009-08-07 12:23:52.

gys

Canon EOS-7D

Sigma 18-200mm f/3.5-6.3 DC OS for Canon

08/07/2009 12:44:28 PM · #10

The Tamron SP AF 90mm f/2.8 Di is a great lens. Take a look at the samples here and also for the same lens in the Nikon mount.

Canon EOS-5D Mark IV

Canon EF 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6L IS

08/07/2009 01:17:57 PM · #11

Save for the 100mm. There's nothing better (except maybe the 180 mm macro).

totaldis

Canon EOS-400D Rebel XTi

Canon EF 50mm f/1.8 II

08/07/2009 02:38:50 PM · #12

I agree, the Canon 100mm usm is fantastic.

Canon 12x IS USM (S3 IS built-in Lens) -- 36-432mm (35mm EQ)

08/07/2009 02:49:54 PM · #13

Originally posted by GeneralE:

Read the reviews on this Close-Up Lens (which I was just doing myself), which seems to be an inexpensive way to turn your 300mm into a macro lens ...

I actually have a 500D, and of the add-on close-up attachments it is best-in-class, along with it's brother the 250D. That said, what it will provide is a very limited range of magnifications, and it will not get you anywhere near 1:1. So it's nice where you just want to augment close focus and not carry an additional lens... but it is not at all a substitute for a macro lens.

GeneralE

Canon PowerShot S3 IS

08/07/2009 02:59:01 PM · #14

I have the 250D (but should get the 500D) -- am I correct that it let's you focus up closer-than-usual with a telephoto lens? How is the magnification different than in Macr/SuperMacro mode? From the reviews, it seemed you get the same magnification holding the camera farther away.

Canon EF-S 18-135mm f/3.5-5.6 IS STM

08/07/2009 04:49:18 PM · #15

Originally posted by GeneralE:

I have the 250D (but should get the 500D) -- am I correct that it let's you focus up closer-than-usual with a telephoto lens?

Yes. But do recognize that your focus ring will essentially become useless, or at least very limited. You will have a narrow range of distances over which it will focus, and AF will probably be pretty useless.

Originally posted by GeneralE:

How is the magnification different than in Macr/SuperMacro mode? From the reviews, it seemed you get the same magnification holding the camera farther away.

With the diopter in place, you get an increase in the maximum magnification that the lens was originally capable of, so what you get as a "new" maximum magnification depends on what the "old" max. magnification was. I'm going from memory, but for most lenses, you *might* achieve 1:2 magnification at best, which is still 4x the area within the frame of 1:1.

SteveJ

Canon EOS-7D

08/07/2009 05:00:37 PM · #16

Originally posted by gys:

The Tamron SP AF 90mm f/2.8 Di is a great lens. Take a look at the samples here and also for the same lens in the Nikon mount.

I had this lens with my Pentax cameras and it was great, sharp and quick to focus. When I changed to Nikon I bought the lens again and it was a dog. Perhaps I got the Friday afternoon one, but it was slow to focus and stuck between Macro and Prime. Sent it back and got the Nikon 105mm Micro(Macro) instead. I feel if you want good Macro, then buy manufacturer's model, costs more, but it is worth it. The Nikon is damned sharp!

GregoryB

Canon EOS-1D Mark III

Canon EF 100mm f/2.8L Macro IS USM

08/07/2009 05:29:15 PM · #17

I suppose when it comes down to basics....you get what you pay for.
The 100mm is just a fantastic lens and very, very sharp. I had to wait to buy mine and have never regretted it.

Paul

Leica SL

Voigtlander Ultron 35mm f/1.7 Aspherical MF Wide Angle - Black

09/02/2009 04:45:15 PM · #18

I plumped for a 180mm f/3.5 - albeit the Sigma clone. However, there is a new kid on the block. I wish I had waited for this one - the IS makes this a very attractive proposition:

Canon EF 100mm F2.8L IS

Pricey but a bargain compared to the 180mm.

Tez

Canon EOS-5D Mark II

Canon EF 70-200mm f/2.8L IS USM

09/03/2009 03:57:17 PM · #19

have a look on fredmiranda.com or any other respected used equipment sites.

I would stick with good brands because when it comes to resale and reliability, it is money well spent.

So you know, there's a Canon 100mm 2.8 on FM used for around $450 right now. It's $25 to join but you can have a look without buying.

Photologist

Apple iPhone 15 Pro Max

09/03/2009 04:40:02 PM · #20

What about these? . . .

Canon EF 50mm f2.5 Compact Macro Autofocus Lens

$274.95 (USD)

Tamron AF 18-200MM f/3.5-6.3 XR Di-II LD Aspherical (IF) Macro

$239.95 (USD)

Tamron Zoom Wide Angle-Telephoto AF 28-200mm Super f3.8-5.6 XR Di Aspherical IF Macro

$249.95 (USD)

Canon EF 70-200mm f/2.8L IS USM

09/03/2009 04:56:30 PM · #21

Originally posted by AperturePriority:

What about these? . . .

Canon EF 50mm f2.5 Compact Macro Autofocus Lens

It's a good lens, but it is EF-S only, so careful if you ever intend to move to full frame. It also only goes to 1:2, not 1:1. An additional adapter is needed to get to 1:1 with this lens

Originally posted by AperturePriority:

Tamron AF 18-200MM f/3.5-6.3 XR Di-II LD Aspherical (IF) Macro

Not a true macro lens at all, but a normal lens with some "close-up" capability. Marketing speak gone amok.

Originally posted by AperturePriority:

Tamron Zoom Wide Angle-Telephoto AF 28-200mm Super f3.8-5.6 XR Di Aspherical IF Macro

See comments on the Tammy 18-200.

Photologist

Apple iPhone 15 Pro Max

09/03/2009 05:08:50 PM · #22

Originally posted by kirbic:

Originally posted by AperturePriority:
What about these? . . .

Canon EF 50mm f2.5 Compact Macro Autofocus Lens

It's a good lens, but it is EF-S only, so careful if you ever intend to move to full frame. It also only goes to 1:2, not 1:1. An additional adapter is needed to get to 1:1 with this lens

Are you sure about this lens? When looking at the official Canon site, there is no mention of it being an EF-S lens, unless I'm missing something.

Paul

Leica SL

Voigtlander Ultron 35mm f/1.7 Aspherical MF Wide Angle - Black

09/03/2009 05:46:25 PM · #23

I have this lens and a full frame camera. It isn't an EF-S lens and works fine.

It isn't a full macro though.

The quality is pretty good though, even if the motor is a little noisy.