Advice, please on macro lenses

[Cap'n Fishy]

My mate and I both use Canon 40Ds. We both do a lot of fishing photography, which includes photographing trout flies. These range in size from a few mm to 2 to 3 inches, with most around the one inch mark. They are often quite 3-dimentional, so DoF is an issue, and I use the likes of f22 a lot to get decent DoF. I have a Canon 100mm f2.8 (the old non IS version), which suits the job fine.

Example...

We also go chasing bugs a bit as well...

My mate is now wanting to add a macro lens to his kit and was asking me whether I would recommend the EF 100 mm or the EF-S 60 mm. I have no experience of the EF-S 60 mm. I was trying to get my head round what the difference would be - I guess the 10 cm closer minimum distance in the EF-S about cancels out the lower focal length. However, needing to get closer to bugs might tend to shoo them away???

Also, have heard lots of praise for the Tamron 90 mm macro. Any thoughts?

Grateful for any views on what the best one for the job is. Is the old non-IS EF 100 still available? A grand for the IS version is a bit of a sore one!

Col

 

[Trig's]

Sigma 150mm f2.8 is one that I would recommend to anyone....

I even had a Nikon 60mm AFD but didn't come close to the Sigma so sold the Nikon & brought another Sigma 150mm soon after selling my old one.. This may help Sigma 150mm TP review

 

[bindex]

The EF-S 60mm macro is excellent. It'd be ideal for your trout flies. But you have to get a bit closer. So you're quite right, perhaps not as good for live bugs.

It makes a pretty good lightweight walk around lens though, and doubles up for portraits too.

 

[TCR4x4]

I have an IS 100mm in the classifieds for a lot less than a grand!

But yes you can still buy the non IS too.

 

[Flamez]

Just over £600 for the L IS version from our friendly dealer in Scotland

 

[magicaxeman]

The Tamron is good, very sharp and works well, the only downsides are no IS and no USM.
In use though its a cracker and a damn good portrait lens to boot. The IQ it produces belies its price, its as good as a lens costing £200 more.
The only lens I would buy for macro in preference would be a newer canon. (and will be getting another tamron as soon as funds allow)

Sigma's are fine, if you get a good one, there have always been QC issues and over the years this has put me off sigma's.

The little 60mm canon as said fine for still life or flowers, but too short for bugs and critters really.

 

[squishy]

Sigma's are fine, if you get a good one, there have always been QC issues and over the years this has put me off sigma's.

Much less of an issue with the macro primes. Sigma zooms seem to be much worse than the primes for QC (maybe with the exception of the 50/1.4).

I have the sigma 150mm for insects, and it's a superb lens. Very sharp across the whole aperture range. And a new OS model will be released soon, probably at about the same price as the 100L IS canon.

Also consider the sigma 70mm. That lens is seriously sharp, wide open it beats even the more expensive 150mm (though the two are identical past f/4).