What is the best Macro lens for a Canon dslr to take photos of insects?

JuiceSoup

JuiceSoup

Messages
1
Edit My Images
No
Can anyone advise me the best macro lens on the market for a canon 1100d? I want to be taking pictures of insects in their habitat. Mid range budget
 
Or the 180mm f/3.5 L macro.

You might want to be slightly further away from them so as not to disturb them, depending on the subject.

It is a £1200/1300 lens though - not really mid-range budget.
 
Have a look at sigmas 105mm offerings they review consistently well and are much more affordable.
 
I use the Sigma 150mm 2.8 OS. I shoot Nikon, but it is of course available for Canon mount also.

It's a fantastic lens, I prefer it to the Nikon 105mm as it gives me that little bit of extra space between me and creepy crawlies ;) It's also a fine portrait lens. Lovely bokeh.
 
I have a Canon 100mm 2.8 - non is and non L, got it for £280 from the classifieds on here. There is another for sale at the moment for a bit less I think.
 
the canon 100mm macro is good value for money. you might also want to consider the raynox dcr-250, people have had very good results with it.
 
Ive had the Sigma 105mm and replaced it with the 150mm Macro lens, big mistake, the 105mm was a cracking lens, and would probably be in your budget range.

No doubt the Canon lenses are top rate,but pricey perhaps.
 
Cuddy said:
Ive had the Sigma 105mm and replaced it with the 150mm Macro lens, big mistake, the 105mm was a cracking lens, ...
Click to expand...

Cuddy, not wishing to divert the thread (the OP may be interested also):
what didn't you like about the 150mm? I have the Sigma 70mm, and have been lusting after the 150mm for better bug reach.
 
Xjacktar said:
Cuddy, not wishing to divert the thread (the OP may be interested also):
what didn't you like about the 150mm? I have the Sigma 70mm, and have been lusting after the 150mm for better bug reach.
Click to expand...

I just found it a bit unforgiving, struggled with DOF, might add im not a regular macro photographer,no doubt i could persevere, but last summer and so far this summer have struggled to get out doing macro.

I did take a cracking bird photo with it mind. :)
 
I've got the Canon 100 f2.8L Macro and I've HAD the Canon MP-E65 and used a Tamron 90mm and a Sigma 105. The Canon 100mm is the best of the bunch IMO, the IS is helpful (particularly when used as a portrait lens) and it facusses very fast on my 5D3 and 7D.

The MP-E65 is at the other end of the scale, an amazing lens but it does take a while to get the best out of it. I managed to get the eye of a sewing needle measure over 10 inches on screen, but it does need very good lighting. If you want to be creating 'monster' pictures of average bugs then that's the one.

The Tamron 90mm and Sigma 105mm are both very good also. The IQ of the two are very similar but the Sigma I used was the fastest at focussing of the two but they are both slightly slower than the Canon. It all depends on your budget as to which you should go for, the Canon 100 L or non L, Tamron 90 and Sigma 105 will all deliver excellent photos time after time. They are also great for portrait shots as well and the Canon L has a focus limiter (not sure if the others have) for even faster close focussing.

The MP-E65 isn't really a starter macro lens so I would discount that to start with, the Sigma 150 and Canon 180 are fairly expensive if you don't know if Macro will hold its interest for you.
 
another vote for the new model Sigma 105mm f2.8 - its a splendid lens and has Image Stabilisation too - Plus if you add to this a Raynox 250 ( around £40) you'll never look back

Les
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Shaylou, yesterday I got same advise regarding a macro for a Canon, the sales man I trust was very honest and suggest the 100mm with a big pros and cons, I put my hands on it for a while, and I think is my next gift to myself.
 
MP-65 I have not had the the chance to play with it, but I have read its extremely difficult to use, plus 100mm you can use it for portrait and is a lot better to get moving insects in the frame. P,ease correct me if Im wrong, just by reading reviews Im talking.
 
I have the 105 sigma I use with my 7d I love it I couldn't decide weather to get the 100mm L canon or the sigma image quality is nearly the same only the canon is IS better but I can't fault the sigma one other than the audible noise when it's running.

the sigma has 3 focus distance limiters

macro-0.45
0.45-inf
full range

in the end the price one the game for me the price was write at around 380 compared to 600+ for the canon
 
The canon 65mm is the true macro lens
BUT, to get the best results, you need a focus stacking rail, ideally stackshot, which will take control of the difficult multiple stacks that are required to make a good picture .
At x5 the depth of field is pretty tiny, so you take many frames.
Illumination using multiple super led lights seems easier than flash.
It is possible to get

The 100mm 2.8macro is much more versatile, assuming you are happy with x1.

For increased mag., without too much expense, experiment with reversing lens's and old microscope lens's.
 
I've had a play with reverse lens macro photography. Probably not as much control as a proper macro lens but good fun and only a few quid.
 
I'm leaning forward the 100mm. Just because I'm a beginner and seems to much of a challenge the 65mm. I can see a lot of frustration at the end of the tunnel.
 
oscaroque said:
I'm leaning forward the 100mm. Just because I'm a beginner and seems to much of a challenge the 65mm. I can see a lot of frustration at the end of the tunnel.
Click to expand...

It's a good lens with L build quality and can be used as for portraits also. I don't think you can go wrong with it. I had to decide not to long ago and I'm very happy with mine.
 
The MPe is a specialist lens for going to higher magnification than 1:1 it goes up to 5x
the working distance is very close a max of 5cm if I remember correctly
my friend has one and gets amazing images with it
I borrowed it and tried to take shot's of a butterfly egg I couldn't hold it steady enough my friend had to take the shot for me!!
It always gets mentioned on threads like this but I would say that it's something to get once you have got used to using a normal macro lens at 1:1
 
Yes Shaylou, for sure Thats my next present, and I agree with you LCPete, I will try to walk first with the 100mm and see how it goes.
 
I use a Sigma 105 non-IS on my X-Pro1. I have owned that lens before on a Canon (years back) and rate it very highly. Get a decent one s/h and you can save a lot over the newer ones with IS. I don't see the point in IS for proper macro photography anyway - all it does for me is add unnecessary cost to the lens.

Not sure about Canon mount but the Nikon mount I bought was about £200. For a decent 105mm macro that in top condition that does 1:1 I'd say that's a bargain. The only thing up from that, as others have mentioned, are things like the 180mm with is going to be >£1k.

There's also the Tamron 90. I don't know if you can get that one in a Canon mount though. I've never used one but they're highly rated.

There's always the option of older lenses. I'm not sure of the practicalities of mounting older lenses on a Canon though but it should be straightforward. There's some bargain older macro lenses about. Plus, IMO, autofocus is as worthless as IS on a lens that you just want to use for proper macro anyway.
 
richardm said:
I use a Sigma 105 non-IS on my X-Pro1. I have owned that lens before on a Canon (years back) and rate it very highly. Get a decent one s/h and you can save a lot over the newer ones with IS. I don't see the point in IS for proper macro photography anyway - all it does for me is add unnecessary cost to the lens.

Not sure about Canon mount but the Nikon mount I bought was about £200. For a decent 105mm macro that in top condition that does 1:1 I'd say that's a bargain. The only thing up from that, as others have mentioned, are things like the 180mm with is going to be >£1k.

There's also the Tamron 90. I don't know if you can get that one in a Canon mount though. I've never used one but they're highly rated.

There's always the option of older lenses. I'm not sure of the practicalities of mounting older lenses on a Canon though but it should be straightforward. There's some bargain older macro lenses about. Plus, IMO, autofocus is as worthless as IS on a lens that you just want to use for proper macro anyway.
Click to expand...


Just curious on what is "proper" macro photography. :thinking:
 
turbominij said:
I have the 105 sigma I use with my 7d I love it I couldn't decide weather to get the 100mm L canon or the sigma image quality is nearly the same only the canon is IS better but I can't fault the sigma one other than the audible noise when it's running.

the sigma has 3 focus distance limiters

macro-0.45
0.45-inf
full range

in the end the price one the game for me the price was write at around 380 compared to 600+ for the canon
Click to expand...
I've been considering the Sigma as an alternative to the Canon, but your reference to "the audible noise when it's running" got my attention.
Is that the Sigma 105mm F2.8 EX DG Macro OS?
Are you talking about the Sigma's IS ("OS") system?
If so, just how noisy is it, and will it scare off any bugs or other subjects when you are working close to them?
 
shaylou said:
Just curious on what is "proper" macro photography. :thinking:
Click to expand...

Generally the term macro has been misused a lot and is often used to refer to close focusing.

There's a big difference between lenses which will shoot,say, 1:3 and the type of photography involving 1:1 and >1:1 , which is what I refer to as 'proper' macro photography. There is a entirely different set of skills, techniques, and specialist equipment, between the two.

I'm not saying there's anything wrong with taking nice pictures at >1:2, but that has more in common with the world of everyday photography than the very complex and specialist world of 'proper macro'.

I felt it relevant to make the distinction because if the OP is interested in this type of photography then things like IS and autofocus are redundant. Again, for 'proper' macro photography things like focus stacking, lighting, tripod heads, etc are going to be of increasing importance.


EDIT: I'm just going off what the OP said: "insects in their habitat". Which to means there's no need for AF and IS.
 
Last edited:
Brian G said:
I've been considering the Sigma as an alternative to the Canon, but your reference to "the audible noise when it's running" got my attention.
Is that the Sigma 105mm F2.8 EX DG Macro OS?
Are you talking about the Sigma's IS ("OS") system?
If so, just how noisy is it, and will it scare off any bugs or other subjects when you are working close to them?
Click to expand...

yer thats the one Sigma 105mm F2.8 EX DG Macro OS
this a Review that talks all about it the image quality is as good as the canon and also mentions the IS/OS sound
http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/Sigma-105mm-f-2.8-EX-DG-OS-HSM-Macro-Lens-Review.aspx

to date i have not scared off anything with it, its audible but not loud enough to worry them id say a shutter release is far louder. its like a faint clicking noise.
BUT.... If you were doing video with it it would be picked up by the built in microphone other than that id say its nothing to worry about.
 
nigpd said:
What do you call mid range? The best on the market is the Canon EF 100mm f2.8L Macro IS USM Lens. If you can't afford that one, go for the non IS version.
Click to expand...
Nope, best on the market presently by far is the Sigma 105mm HSM OS II.

Half the price of the above Canon and has performed better in all recent media comparisons.

Bought one myself and I'm pretty much blown away with it!
 
The sigma 105mm certainly looks like a very strong contender to the 100L, having looked at reviews and forum feedback.

But I'd say the MPE 65 is probably still the 'best on the market' for hardcore macro.
 
Fussyfez said:
The sigma 105mm certainly looks like a very strong contender to the 100L, having looked at reviews and forum feedback.

But I'd say the MPE 65 is probably still the 'best on the market' for hardcore macro.
Click to expand...
yes you're right its the best tool for extreme close ups but as I said above in my opinion is that its not suitable for someone starting macro:)
 
odd jim said:
Nope, best on the market presently by far is the Sigma 105mm HSM OS II.

Half the price of the above Canon and has performed better in all recent media comparisons.

Bought one myself and I'm pretty much blown away with it!
Click to expand...

:agree: plus it takes the Sigma 1.4 converter very well indeed and thats my walk about set up.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top