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
Have a look at sigmas 105mm offerings they review consistently well and are much more affordable.
Ive had the Sigma 105mm and replaced it with the 150mm Macro lens, big mistake, the 105mm was a cracking lens, ...
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.
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.
Any comments about MP-65?
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.
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.
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.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
Just curious on what is "proper" macro photography.
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?
Nope, best on the market presently by far is the Sigma 105mm HSM OS II.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.
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 macroThe 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.
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!