Macro lens circa £400-£500

A

AdamcMWCK

Messages
152
Name
Adam
Edit My Images
No
I am looking at getting into macro photography but having read forums and online reviews I can not decide what lens to go for.

I have £400/£500 to spend on a lens and wondered if you would be kind enough to let me know your thoughts.

It would need to be canon d500 compatable.
 
Canon's EF100mm f2.8 macro is an excellent lens (and excellent value for money) and you should have something left in the kitty.
 
AdamcMWCK said:
But is the L version I saw in jessops worth looking at?
Click to expand...
Not with your budget!

Image quality of the 100mm Macro is excellent. Image quality of the 100mm L IS Macro is beyond excellent. But in real life you might be pushed to tell the difference.

Personally I'm unconvinced of the "benefits" of IS in a macro lens, but maybe some people here with more macro experience than I have can explain it.
 
Another vote for the Canon 100mm F2.8 its a great lens - Get a used one, and use the rest of your money to get a flash.
 
StewartR said:
Not with your budget!

Personally I'm unconvinced of the "benefits" of IS in a macro lens, but maybe some people here with more macro experience than I have can explain it.
Click to expand...

I would love to get IS on mine, but it does cost a bit more than I am willing to pay. IS is useful for taking portraits, composing that macro shot, and having a clean shot at 1/60s instead of raising the ISO by 4 stops or opening up the aperture and losing DOF. Sometimes there is high wind, and then nothing helps.
 
AdamcMWCK said:
I was told the L model is £799 so was thinking second hand I might be able to pick one up at the top end of my budget.
Click to expand...

As your shooting very small apertures at macro (1:1), usually around f11-f16 to maximise DOF you will struggle without a flash, so unless you have a flash you may struggle , especially with bugs - I'm another one who's not convinced of the benifits of IS at 1:1 macro especillay at at extra £250 - £300.
 
Love my 100 2.8 Macro,which i just recently bought.:):thumbs:
 
Dogfish_magnet said:
As your shooting very small apertures at macro (1:1), usually around f11-f16 to maximise DOF you will struggle without a flash, so unless you have a flash you may struggle , especially with bugs - I'm another one who's not convinced of the benifits of IS at 1:1 macro especillay at at extra £250 - £300.
Click to expand...


Is the built in flash on a dslr not adequate for macro photography do you need something more substantial?
 
100mm macro is an excellent quality lens for close-up work and it doubles up lovely as a portrait lens, but I've always felt the working distance too much. After using a 60mm for a few years now I much prefer these shorter focal lengths with a closer working distance, although that may not suit if you're photography living objects that need you to give them a bit of breathing space.
 
mjb123 said:
Is the built in flash on a dslr not adequate for macro photography do you need something more substantial?
Click to expand...

The built in flash is difficult to diffuse and the lens can cast a shadow over the subject, you really need a diffused hot shoe flash. Have a look here for examples
 
You could look at the 50mm F2.5 macro which is a comparative steal at £235 new and would leave money left over for a flash :) I have both the 50mm macro and the 100mm L macro so could do a comparison later on if you would like
 
Looks like its the canon 100mm then. I had narrowed it down to this lens and replies here have nailed it for me.

I need a flash, tripod and macro lens. Roll on tax rebate in April.
 
Iris said:
You could look at the 50mm F2.5 macro which is a comparative steal at £235 new and would leave money left over for a flash :) I have both the 50mm macro and the 100mm L macro so could do a comparison later on if you would like
Click to expand...

I have just got the nifty fifty for taking snaps of the kids so couldn't justify buying another 50mm lens.

I have the nifty fifty, kit 18-55 mm, the cannon 70-300mm and just want a macro to complete things. It's only a past time at present so shouldn't really need anymore lenses for a while.
 
How does that wrk then, I though the camera was attached to the tripod. Sorry I am a complete novice and aware that my questions looks rather stupid.
 
Last edited:
AdamcMWCK said:
How does that wrk then, I though the. Akers was attached to the tripod. Sorry I am a complete novice and aware that my questions looks rather stupid.
Click to expand...

Assuming you made a typo and were asking if the camera body is usually mounted to the tripod...larger and heavier lenses require a tripod mount to balance properly because the setup would be too front-heavy if the camera body was mounted.
 
Just to add another one in to the mix i have a Tokina 100mm Macro, and its a cracking lens
 
grotty said:
Assuming you made a typo and were asking if the camera body is usually mounted to the tripod...larger and heavier lenses require a tripod mount to balance properly because the setup would be too front-heavy if the camera body was mounted.
Click to expand...

Thanks grotty so I am assuming larger lenses require an additional tripod to help with stability.
 
Not additional, you just attach the lens to the tripod instead. This way puts less force on the lens mount.
 
No, the camera body/lens combo are mounted to one tripod, but mounted onto the (larger/heavier) lens rather than the body to balance the weight.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top