macro lens

Flying giraffe

Flying giraffe

Messages
1,189
Name
Neil
Edit My Images
No
thinking of doing a bit of macro soon, question is, what lens would i need? by which i mean there are a lot of lenses with macro after the name, but are they the best option, im thinking 60mm, or 100mm canon at the moment which offer 1x if im correct, is that going to give me a good close up?
 
The Canon 100mm L IS macro is a sublime lens. One of the best Ive ever used. The non IS is also suppoesedly very good.
Other "true" macro lenses are

Sigma 105mm
Sigma 150mm
Sigma 180mm

Tamron 90mm

There are probably others too from Tokina and the like.

They are all 1:1 which is macro standard. If you want even closer, either add tubes or really splash out on the Canon MPE 65mm
 
I have the Siggy 150mm f2.8, it's a lovely lens :D

A 50mm macro might be worth thinking about as a duel use lens... macro and general purpose. I'm sure Sigma do a 50mm f2.8 macro. Canon do a 50mm f2.5 and it's a lovely lens but not true macro without the lifesize adapter.
 
I suppose it depends what you want to shoot and the look you want to achieve.

If you are just shooting flowers and "stuff" then a 50mm might be ok but if you are shooting something that might fly or run away you may want the additional working distance that a longer lens will give you, plus with a longer lens if shooting up close you'll get a shallower DoF look, if that's what you're after.
 
Also, light is a major factor in macro, as to get any usable shots, you need maximum DOF.
Up close, F/8 is only a few mm thick, so you need f/16 or more to get a full bug in focus.

Example, this was shot at f/22 on my siggy 150mm and look at the tiny amount actually in focus. This was shot at 1/40th at ISO 800! Thankfully I had a tripod and no wind.


Independance by TCR4x4, on Flickr
 
When i was a canon boy I had the 100mm 2.8L and it was amazing!!! build quality was exceptional, the IS was defo a big help for me as I didn't have a tripod at the time but aswel as taking exceptionally sharp macro images it also was a superb portrait lens!

If you can justify the money I would recommend it all day every day!

Wish they made the same lens for Nikon :(
 
duttytd said:
When i was a canon boy I had the 100mm 2.8L and it was amazing!!! build quality was exceptional, the IS was defo a big help for me as I didn't have a tripod at the time but aswel as taking exceptionally sharp macro images it also was a superb portrait lens!

If you can justify the money I would recommend it all day every day!

Wish they made the same lens for Nikon :(
Click to expand...

The Nikon 105 VR is close, but agreed, the IS on the canon was much better.
 
duttytd said:
When i was a canon boy I had the 100mm 2.8L and it was amazing!!! build quality was exceptional, the IS was defo a big help for me as I didn't have a tripod at the time but aswel as taking exceptionally sharp macro images it also was a superb portrait lens!

If you can justify the money I would recommend it all day every day!

Wish they made the same lens for Nikon :(
Click to expand...

been looking at that one, just wanted a little advice first, need to save one thinks
 
Flying giraffe said:
thanks.... i think, may have cost me a few quid lol
Click to expand...

lol you don't actually have to get the 100mm 2.8L you could go for the 100mm 2.8 (non L) (non IS) it all depends on if the IS is a big thing for you and worth the extra money plus the build quality is better but not let that fool you in to thinking the build quality of the non L model is poor because its far from it... oh yeah and for he extra money you get a nice bit of red ;)
 
Both the 100mm Canon offerings are wonderful lenses Neil. The choice depends on your pocket. I use the standard non-L example and love it. Often spoken of as being one of Canon's best bang for buck lenses it is light, sharp, fast focusing, fun to use and great value. It has just passed it's baton to the newer one with the red line which sourced wisely still represents a lot of quality for the asking price. I had thought of upgrading to the L too and would have done so had I not decided recently to introduce a compact to my bag for the occasions when a DSLR would be out of place.
 
Last edited:
TCR4x4 said:
Also, light is a major factor in macro, as to get any usable shots, you need maximum DOF.
Up close, F/8 is only a few mm thick, so you need f/16 or more to get a full bug in focus.

Example, this was shot at f/22 on my siggy 150mm and look at the tiny amount actually in focus. This was shot at 1/40th at ISO 800! Thankfully I had a tripod and no wind.


Independance by TCR4x4, on Flickr
Click to expand...


Here are a few examples from my Sigma 150mm to show the depth of field.

F/2.8

10 bob note f/2.8 by stormcrowuk, on Flickr

F/8

10 bob note f/8 by stormcrowuk, on Flickr

F/22

10 bob note f/22 by stormcrowuk, on Flickr
 
I've got a 100mm L macro and it's awesome. The build quality is the first thing you notice but when you get it on camera amazing things happen. The IQ is fabulous and the IS really helps in tricky situations. I got this photo while hanging 8ft up from a tree branch, one handed, using a 7D on liveview with AF turned on and the camera at full stretch from me.
6841954794_8fdb6bca0b_z.jpg
[/url][/IMG]
It's possibly the most awkward photo I've ever taken and apart from cropping it's a Jpeg SOOC.
 
I have used the Tamaron 90mm and Sigma 150mm both are great lenses I have also read good reviews on the canon 100mm ans sigma 105mm and seen some great photos taken with all these lenses.

One way of starting of if you not sure what lens to get is use a 50mm if you have one and tubes, it will work out cheaper than buying a macro lens and if you get in to shotting macro then get a macro lens and maybe even still use the tubes with it. Tubes can work with other lenes but I have found they work best with primes and 50mm is ideal starting point.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top