which macro lens? (canon fit)

[Scho]

presumably it's better to get a longer lens so you're not in the way of lighting ect?

prob the smallest thing i'll be photographing is jewelry.

anything else i should be looking out for? new to this sort of thing.

thanks,

rick.

[SamHH]

Depending on what system you're using, working distance might not be a problem for lighting. The main advantage of a longer lens with more working distance is for animals that will be scared away if you get too close. Obviously not an issue with jewellery. The disadvantages of a longer lens are price and weight. 50mm is about the shortest you get, 100mm is mid-range and 180/200mm is about the longest. How much do you want to spend?

The Canon 100mm USM lens is always highly recommended. I've got the Sigma 105mm lens which is supposedly optically as good as the Canon but the autofocussing is very poor. However, for macro photography most people focus manually, so it's only a problem if you want to use the lens for non-macro photography.

Hope this helps.

[4hero]

+1 for the Canon 100mm f2.8, love mine!!

[filski666]

I have the 100mm Canon lens too - can't fault it!

[Brink]

Canon 100mm is the one.

That's three PH votes now. So get one.

[Scho]

SamHH said:

Depending on what system you're using, working distance might not be a problem for lighting. The main advantage of a longer lens with more working distance is for animals that will be scared away if you get too close. Obviously not an issue with jewellery. The disadvantages of a longer lens are price and weight. 50mm is about the shortest you get, 100mm is mid-range and 180/200mm is about the longest. How much do you want to spend?

The Canon 100mm USM lens is always highly recommended. I've got the Sigma 105mm lens which is supposedly optically as good as the Canon but the autofocussing is very poor. However, for macro photography most people focus manually, so it's only a problem if you want to use the lens for non-macro photography.

Hope this helps.

cheers sam,

Will be going on a 5D.

Can't really see me photographing insects tbh.

prob spend up to £500.

is the image quality much higher on the 100m to warrant the extra cost over the 50?

I have a 110L prime and a 50 1.4 so i don't think i'l use either at all for non macro stuff.

[4hero]

100mm, well within budget No experience of a 50mm macro, only the 65mm (which is of no use for jewellery).

[hilly10]

Tamron Macro 90mm f2.8 fantastic lens macro and portrait

[SamHH]

Scho said:

cheers sam,

Will be going on a 5D.

Can't really see me photographing insects tbh.

prob spend up to £500.

is the image quality much higher on the 100m to warrant the extra cost over the 50?

I have a 110L prime and a 50 1.4 so i don't think i'l use either at all for non macro stuff.

Well the Canon 50mm lens is not a true macro; it requires Canon's 'Life Size Converter' to make it into one. The Canon 60mm is EF-S mount. Sigma do a true macro 50mm lens for about £200 though. As for the 100mm lenses, if you don't need the autofocus speed and don't have a problem with third-party manufacturers then the Sigma 105mm or Tamron 90mm will save you a bit of money. Otherwise the Canon 100mm costs about £330. Anything longer than 100mm probably isn't worth the extra if you don't need the working distance. From what I've read and seen, the optical quality of all macro lenses is pretty high, it's the build quality, autofocus speed and working distance that you pay extra for.

Edited by SamHH on Tuesday 16th December 15:02

[bramley]

filski666 said:

I have the 100mm Canon lens too - can't fault it!

You've never tried to take pics of anything moving faster than a glacier then

Great lens optically, but desperately slow focussing. People often say it's a good portrait lens but it's useless at taking kids pics IME.

[filski666]

bramley said:

filski666 said:

I have the 100mm Canon lens too - can't fault it!

You've never tried to take pics of anything moving faster than a glacier then

Great lens optically, but desperately slow focussing. People often say it's a good portrait lens but it's useless at taking kids pics IME.

I'll have you know my portfolio of glacier close ups is highly sought after!!

Edited by filski666 on Tuesday 16th December 15:20

[Scho]

filski666 said:

bramley said:

filski666 said:

I have the 100mm Canon lens too - can't fault it!

You've never tried to take pics of anything moving faster than a glacier then

Great lens optically, but desperately slow focussing. People often say it's a good portrait lens but it's useless at taking kids pics IME.

I'll have you know my portfolio of glacier close ups is highly sought after!!

Edited by filski666 on Tuesday 16th December 15:20

some of your best work:

[filski666]

Scho said:

filski666 said:

bramley said:

filski666 said:

I have the 100mm Canon lens too - can't fault it!

You've never tried to take pics of anything moving faster than a glacier then

Great lens optically, but desperately slow focussing. People often say it's a good portrait lens but it's useless at taking kids pics IME.

I'll have you know my portfolio of glacier close ups is highly sought after!!

Edited by filski666 on Tuesday 16th December 15:20

some of your best work:

oi you thieving bar steward - that is copyright!

[4hero]

filski666 said:

Scho said:

filski666 said:

bramley said:

filski666 said:

I have the 100mm Canon lens too - can't fault it!

You've never tried to take pics of anything moving faster than a glacier then

Great lens optically, but desperately slow focussing. People often say it's a good portrait lens but it's useless at taking kids pics IME.

I'll have you know my portfolio of glacier close ups is highly sought after!!

Edited by filski666 on Tuesday 16th December 15:20

some of your best work:

oi you thieving bar steward - that is copyright!

lovely shot, it's an amazing lens

[malc350]

Just picked up the Canon USM 100mm Macro today from Ebay (used but mint) and am dead anxious to try it out.

Huge advantage is that it doesn't extend when focusing close which maybe makes it unique. USM is dead fast and quiet though macro subjects often call for manual focusing anyway.

This could be a winner. I've had the "buzz, buzz, hunt hunt, Sigma 105mm on a Nikon before though the results were pretty crystal.

You can get a used Canon 100mm F2.8 USM for close to or the same price as a new Sigma which kind of makes it no contect. In use the Canon is leaps ahead of the Sigma.

Just make sure you get the USM Canon, the older non-USM is supposed not to operate as nicely as this, though it's supposed to have the same IQ.

Malc

[SamHH]

malc350 said:

You can get a used Canon 100mm F2.8 USM for close to or the same price as a new Sigma which kind of makes it no contect.

Or you could get a second hand Sigma for less again.

[malc350]

And you can get a second-hand S-Class for the same price as a new Mondeo....Performance-wise, especially stopped down to F8 or so, they're probably equal.

Canon: http://www.photozone.de/canon-eos/166-canon-ef-100...
Tamron: http://www.photozone.de/canon-eos/282-tamron-af-90...
Tokina: http://www.photozone.de/canon-eos/270-tokina-af-10...
Sigma: http://www.photozone.de/canon-eos/301-sigma-af-105...

However (and I don't work for Canon) having a lens that doesn't extend excessively when focusing on small closeup objects makes all the difference, especially if you're using flash or don't want to scare little critters like insects!

[cbcbcb]

The Canon link is for the wrong lens. The correct link is http://www.photozone.de/canon-eos/167-canon-ef-100...

[SamHH]

No doubt the Canon lens is better, I was just pointing out that you ought to compare like with like when considering value.

Edited by SamHH on Thursday 18th December 00:22

[Yellabelly]

Tamron SP90/2.8 Di looks a good choice per the above review

....."In fact optically it is every bit as good, maybe even slightly better than the Canon EF 100mm f/2.8 USM macro"......

at the price it is a good lens for most macro situations and with extension tubes will take you in real close, but no where near what 4hero gets with his Canon 100/2.8!!!!!
YB