canon 100 is usm macro or a 50 f1.4 prime?

lucky_13

lucky_13

Messages
624
Name
Billy
Edit My Images
Yes
Hi I want to get a fast prime to complement my Canon 15-85 IS USM and to use in low light, i also like doing close-up macro photography and its something i would definitely like to get in too, and i love the shallow depth of field, after much research i have narrowed it down to the following:
Canon 50mm F/1.4 USM £250
Sigma 50mm F/1.4 HSM £310
Canon 60mm F/2.8 USM £296
Canon 100mm F/2.8 IS USM £579 this would also give me more reach than my 15-85 so it would be used as a telephoto too.
or should i just get the Sigma 50-150 F/2.8 EX DC OS HSM £593
Would love to hear ur thoughts.... thank you in advance.
ps: i have considered estention tubes but not something i would be interested in if i can be honest.
 
A 50 or 60mm macro might fill both rolls but personally I think that length borders on being too short for macro even on APS-C but I suppose it depends what you want to shoot and the look you're going for.

Ideally I'd go for (well, went for) a fast prime for low available light and shallow DoF and a longer macro, 150mm f2.8 in my case. I don't think I'd want something the size of a 50-150mm f2.8 on my camera for too long as it's a bit of a lump, and you do know it's not a macro?

PS. I have the Siggy 50mm f1.4 that's on your list and it's a very nice lens IMVHO.
 
lucky_13 said:
Hi I want to get a fast prime to complement my Canon 15-85 IS USM and to use in low light, i also like doing close-up macro photography and its something i would definitely like to get in too, and i love the shallow depth of field, after much research i have narrowed it down to the following:
Canon 50mm F/1.4 USM £250
Sigma 50mm F/1.4 HSM £310
Canon 60mm F/2.8 USM £296
Canon 100mm F/2.8 IS USM £579 this would also give me more reach than my 15-85 so it would be used as a telephoto too.
or should i just get the Sigma 50-150 F/2.8 EX DC OS HSM £593
Would love to hear ur thoughts.... thank you in advance.
ps: i have considered estention tubes but not something i would be interested in if i can be honest.
Click to expand...

hi,
if you want to shoot insects etc,then i wouldn't go shorter than 100mm as the working distance @ 1:1 would be so close,you could scare them off.the 50-150 is not a 2.8 lens,but a 4.5-6.3 lens,and also not a prime lens,but a zoom lens.

if you're serious about macro work,then i would recommend either the sigma 105 macro,the tamron 90 macro,or the canon 100mm macro,all are excellent,in fact,there isn't a bad macro lens out there that i'm aware of...:thumbs:

also,either would make a great portrait lens ;)
 
Last edited:
kokakaste2 said:
Both, 50 and 100 is quite different lenses. :) I have Sigma 50 1.4 and Canon 100 2.8 macro, each lens does different job.
Click to expand...

That depends on the user i suppose and i would use it for close-up, still life, general low light, not really interested in insects. what do u think of the 50?
 
Last edited:
stan the man said:
the 50-150 is not a 2.8 lens,but a 4.5-6.3 lens,and also not a prime lens,but a zoom lens.
Click to expand...

Hi, yes i am aware that its a zoom lens,;) and no it isn't a 4.5-6.3 its a 2.8 through the zoom range. i think u must be getting it confused with the 50-500
 
As you have already got a 15-85 then I'd go for the 100 L macro. Over the last few days of good weather I've had mine on permanently. The macro shots are just amazing, but I have also used it for portraits and a general purpose shoot everything lens too.
 
100L macro and grab a 50mm F1.8 as well as they are so cheap (yet give fantastic results, even in low light)

If you want to try a nifty fifty your welcome to pop round and try mine to see if you like the results.
 
iancandler said:
100L macro and grab a 50mm F1.8 as well as they are so cheap (yet give fantastic results, even in low light)

If you want to try a nifty fifty your welcome to pop round and try mine to see if you like the results.
Click to expand...

Thank you
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top