http://www.talkphotography.co.uk/threads/macro-lens.572635/
Not sure if this helps, as I have just asked a similar question
Also at the top of this forum is a very good equipment review thread.
Hope it helps.
Cheers
If you could explain your thinking why you specifically want a macro lens for baby/wedding photography, then people might be able to point you at what your options are and what would be the best for your needs.
You don't need a macro lens to shoot any of the things you mentioned, unless you want fingerprints and detailed images of the hallmarks on the rings, a 70-200 would do the job perfectly and you wouldn't have to be on top of your subject to get the required shot. If you are shooting weddings you should already have one of these.
You don't pay through the nose for stabilisation with the Sigma 105.Tamron 90mm f2.8 1:1 lens has been a great lens for me and worth every penny. It is my most-used lens.
It is not stabilised, if you want stabilisation you pay double. In which case the Canon L option starts to sound appealing.
I have an extra one so willing to sell it if you want to get one cheaper than usual.
I was not saying macro is wrong i was saying it it not necessary for what the op stated they wished to do, if they want to buy a macro then do it but they could manage perfectly without.Unfortunately, Muzzieman, you are implying macro is a bad idea.
Unfortunately, Muzzieman you are wrong.
A 90mm f2.8 macro lens can give you a wonderful portrait, a nice shot of a couple from a distance including an interesting cut of the background (nature, sunset, waterfall, you frame it), a wonderful baby shot (I have LLLLOADS of my son), very nice details with baby shots (fingers, hands, feet, mouth, eyes, which are quite desirable), or interlocking bride/groom hands, details on location, and DID I MENTION DETAILS ON THEIR CLOTHES... oh... and amazing photos of wedding rings, provided you know how to take good product/still life shots.
A 70-200mm can only give you two of the options above. I'm not saying it is a bad lens, far be from it; but horses for courses.
Avoid short-focal length macro lenses like a plague they are not for weddings or people. You need to be very very close, uncomfortably close to frame a shot, and you will get more barrel distortion on somebody's face if you use one.
I recommend 90 to 105 mm macro lenses as all rounders, or 150mm macro lenses for distant macro shots but I seriously doubt you will do any of those in a wedding/portrait/baby session.
That said, I just realised I have on top of the extra Tamron 90mm, I also have a Sigma 150mm macro lenses that I do not use. Time to advertise those lol
The closer minimum focus distance alone makes a massive difference with newborn photography. I have been cropping shots of my new son from my 85mm as I simply can't get the frame filling images I want a macro lens would instantly correct this and is what a lot of newborn pro's do to keep working distance to a minimum.You don't need a macro lens to shoot any of the things you mentioned, unless you want fingerprints and detailed images of the hallmarks on the rings, a 70-200 would do the job perfectly and you wouldn't have to be on top of your subject to get the required shot. If you are shooting weddings you should already have one of these.