Macro Lens Recommendations Please

C

Court Jester

Messages
36
Name
Stuart
Edit My Images
Yes
Hi, I have been lurking on the forums for a while, but this is my first post!

I have a Canon 40d, and I am looking to get into macro photography. Main interests are flowers and car bits! I also like talking portrait shots.

I have been looking at getting a macro lens and would be grateful for a bit of advice. Up until now I have been using a Sigma 18-200mm lens, but it doesn't have a macro ability and I am assuming I need that to make any close macro style look its best (as opposed to just trying to zoom in). I have also been looking at getting a prime 50mm (and the nifty fifty seemed to fit the bill) but I wondered whether in actual fact the Canon EF 50mm f2.5 macro lens was actually my best bet as it covers both the macro and portrait bases, or whether I would feel short changed on the macro bases and I should really be saving for the 100mm macro lens which has a 1:1 ratio (and so I am assuming gives larger and more detailed picture?).

If anyone can help I would be grateful.

Stuart
 
Get a 50mm f1.8 or 85mm f1.8 and a set of Kenko tubes - no loss of IQ and you get better than 1:1
 
Last edited:
The 50 + tubes is a good idea if you want a 50mm prime as well.

The tamron 90mm is another good alternative to the canon 100 macro.
 
I have a Canon 50mm f2.5 and it's a nice lens but...

It's not actually a macro lens, it doesn't give 1:1 without the additional lifersize adapter, plus it's an old design and it's relatively slow to focus. On the plus side it's compact and very sharp and the front is recessed and is protected from physical damage and flare.

It's not a bad choice at all IMVHO unless you need fast focus but I also have a Sigma 150mm f2.8 and I think that I prefer it as a macro and general tele lens. The 150mm gives additional working distance and 1:1 should you wish and the HSM is nice and allows full time manual focus so that you can tweak the focus once the auto has got you somewhere near.

Personally I wouldn't bother with the 50mm f1.8. From what I've read it's a cheapo thing and not particularly nice to use, doesn't has USM plus the out of focus rendering doesn't look all that attractive to me. As a general 50mm I have a Siggy f1.4 which is spectacular and at least matches the Canon 50mm f2.5 for sharpness at every aperture plus it has HSM and full time manual focus. I havn't seen anything to convince me that the f1.8 can mach either the f2.5 or the Siggy f1.4.
 
Last edited:
Thanks for your replies Paul and Adam, much appreciated. I am new to all of this and a bit confused. Are you saying the 50mm lens (which is about £80 or so) and a set of Kenko extension tubes (different sellers seem to call them different things, but I assume they are all the same) and seem to cost about £115 or so from UK sellers (less from Hong Kong) will do the same thing as a dedicated macro lens? If so that is idea, are there any drawbacks??

Cracking pictures by the way Paul - I love the bug in the rain drop that is amazing!!!
 
daugirdas said:
Get Canon 100mm macro (IS if you can afford). I find everything else far too short for macro / portraits, even 100mm is somewhat not as long as I wanted.
Click to expand...

Yeah, but you're using a FF and the OP has APS-C.
 
Thanks for all your replies. I will have a look at the options.

Alan - sorry I think our posts crossed, which Sigma is it you are using - is it the Sigma 150mm f/2.8 EX DG Macro HSM (Canon AF)??

What is the Raynox exactly - does it snap over the end of the lens? What is the effect on quality please?
 
Yes, that's the Siggy. It comes with a tripod mount, hood and case too.

If you want a RAW file taken with the Canon 50mm f2.5 or Siggy 150mm f2.8 just let me know.
 
woof woof said:
Yeah, but you're using a FF and the OP has APS-C.
Click to expand...

I use 1.3x 1D at the moment with that lens, and used to use 40D for a few years. FF makes it far too short.
 
Buying a set of Kenko DG AF tubes is an excellent idea and the 50mm f1.8 is an incredible bargain - sharp and light and the cheapest lens Canon make.

And you can use both of these for other things as well - th 50mm f1.8 is ideal for portraits and kids indoors and the Kenko tubes can be used with any good quality lens:

http://www.talkphotography.co.uk/forums/showthread.php?t=313888

.
 
Court Jester said:
Thanks for your replies Paul and Adam, much appreciated. I am new to all of this and a bit confused. Are you saying the 50mm lens (which is about £80 or so) and a set of Kenko extension tubes (different sellers seem to call them different things, but I assume they are all the same) and seem to cost about £115 or so from UK sellers (less from Hong Kong) will do the same thing as a dedicated macro lens? If so that is idea, are there any drawbacks??

Cracking pictures by the way Paul - I love the bug in the rain drop that is amazing!!!
Click to expand...

Thanks Stuart - Using tubes will not affect the IQ as theres no glass in them, so you will get the quality of the original lens. Using tubes will lose you some light and just like a dedicated macro lens you will get the best out of it using a diffused flash. If your looking for tubes they need to be AUTO tubes so you can retain aperture control from the body and personally I'd make sure they had a metal mount not plastic.

This was taken with a Canon 85mm and a single 36mm tube

Tubes can also be used with a dedicated macro lens , using a full set with with a Canon 100mm macro will get you approx 2:1 and a number of people use them with longer lens 200mm / 300mm to take advantage of a longer working distance for things like butterflies & dragon fly's.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top