Canon macro lens?

[Mini1275]

Hello, i am thinking of getting a macro lens for my 450D and dont know which one to get?
Any ideas, i've mainly been looking at the Canon 100mm and the Canon 60mm which is best? the 100mm is dearer but is it any better?
If you have any photos taken with any of the lenses please could you post them,
thanks

[Snapper7]

Go for the 100mm Macro lens, because it is the better option, the 60mm gets to close and often blocks out the light

[Bernie-the-bolt]

10mm 2.8 is a good lens to add to your collection - used with kenko extension tubes and it's a really goo lens



and closer looking down into the lead....

[Andy M]

The 100 macro is a very nice lens, and good for portraits too (best when used on a full frame sensor).

[SamHH]

Mini1275 said:

Ok thanks, i read that with the 100mm you can see more detial than the human eye is that true?

I don't know how exactly you define what that means so I don't know if it's true. It's not something that I've ever heard mentioned in relation to photographic lenses.

One thing to point out is that most true macro lenses will give you the same maximum magnification; i.e. the subject will be the same size in the viewfinder with the 60mm and 100mm lenses. The difference is that the 100mm lens will be further away from the subject.

[jon-]

4hero, this is your thread

[4hero]

There was a post recently, the same goes for the 450D.

I would personally go for the 100mm over the 60mm, greater all round lens!

[Mini1275]

I would mainly be hoping to shoot insects, would i need an aditional flash?
I also read that you would need a tri-pod with this lens, is this true?

[SamHH]

Mini1275 said:

I would mainly be hoping to shoot insects, would i need an aditional flash?

No, it's possible to take good photos without a flash. However, a flash can help in some circumstances. This is especially so because the very small depth of field you get when focussing very close often necessitate small apertures like f16 or smaller.

Mini1275 said:

I also read that you would need a tri-pod with this lens, is this true?

Again, you don't need a tripod in the sense that it is possible to take good photos without one, but in certain circumstances a tripod can be useful. Insect photography is probably where a tripod is least useful because it would be difficult to set it up without scaring the subject away. I never use a tripod for insects.

[Zod]

the macro flashes are very useful. Sometimes without them you just won't get enough light onto the subject, even outdoors.

The reason tripods are important is that the focus plane in macro is so shallow - if the eyes of an insect are in focus, nothing else will be. To get a photo of a particularly jumpy insect, I usually focus manually and fire off a succession of shots in motor drive to try to get one that is focused on the right part.

[Kermit power]

All the shots on my thread here were all taken with the Canon 100mm f/2.8 and ring flash if that helps give you an idea of the sort of thing it'll do.

[Gemm]

I've found that tripod is more of an obstacle in most insect photography. You have much more freedom without it (unless you are photographing something like aphids). Probably 99% of my macro pics are taken without it.

[Starfighter]

If you want to shoot butgs then a 100mm over a 60mm any day. AF is a wast of time for macro work so keep and eye open for a used 100mm Canon lens. The optics are better that USM versiona dn it included a leans hood.

For flash, try a regular gu using a flash bracket (Manfrotto 233B or similar) etc. This will allow you to put the head very close to the end of the lens and angle it towards the subject matter. You will need an off shoe cable as well to connect the camera and flash gun. This gives a close light / lens setup to avoid harsh shaddows but gives more flattering lighting than a ring-flash.