Recommend a good starter macro lens

S

studioworks

Messages
800
Name
Mark
Edit My Images
Yes
I`ll be the first to admit i dont know the first thing about the various macro lens so i was hoping for a bit of advice, ive been asked what would be a good macro lens to start off on for a Canon 550D.
Its to be a christmas present for my father so obviously buget does come into play a bit, it`d mostly be used to take photos of flowers.
Thanks.
 
For flower shots maybe a 50mm? I have a Canon 50mm f2.5 (not true macro) which is good but I think that Sigma do a 50mm f2.8 macro that looks like a bargain.

I also have a Sigma 150mm f2.8 which is lovely but costs more and is of limited use for general photography.

I've heard good things about the Tamron 90mm too.
 
Personally I'd wouldn't bother with anything less than 90mm focal length due to the working distance limitations - You will only end up changing it in the future. If you have the budget a Canon 100MM macro approx £300 ish used for a minty boxed item on here or look at a Tamron 90mm or Sigma 100mm or if you have the cash a sigma 150mm Macro but its heavy to handhold.

If you all ready have a 50 / 85mm a set of auto tubes is a good bet at about £100
 
Last edited:
Dogfish_magnet said:
Personally I'd wouldn't bother with anything less than 90mm focal length due to the working distance limitations -
Click to expand...

Working distance might not be too much of an issue if it's mostly for flower shots. I do a lot and they tend to ignore me rather than running or flying away as beasties tend to do :)
 
woof woof said:
Working distance might not be too much of an issue if it's mostly for flower shots. I do a lot and they tend to ignore me rather than running or flying away as beasties tend to do :)
Click to expand...

Yes I've seen that line on thought on here loads of times................








Followed by the lens appearing in the Sale / Trade forum when someone decides that they would like to take a macro shot of something that can run or fly away as beasties tend to do :)

Why limit yourself with a lens with a small working distance ?
 
Last edited:
I find that a rolled up newspaper or a slipper solves that problem.

Why limit yourself? Because a 50mm macro like my Canon f2.5 or the Sigma 50mm f2.8 can be used as a general purpose lens. You can go out for the day and use it as your only lens and take some close up shallow DoF flower shots too if you spot anything worth shooting. I love my Sigma 150mm but I just can't use it as a walk about and occasional macro lens.

Anyway, I'm just not into wee beasties.
 
Last edited:
woof woof said:
Working distance might not be too much of an issue if it's mostly for flower shots. I do a lot and they tend to ignore me rather than running or flying away as beasties tend to do :)
Click to expand...

+1.. I use a 60mm for still-life macro and it does the job perfectly...

Sure, I may not have to kneel as much with a longer one but nothing wrong with a short lens for still-life...
 
woof woof said:
I find that a rolled up newspaper or a slipper solves that problem.

Why limit yourself? Because a 50mm macro like my Canon f2.5 or the Sigma 50mm f2.8 can be used as a general purpose lens. You can go out for the day and use it as your only lens and take some close up shallow DoF flower shots too if you spot anything worth shooting. I love my Sigma 150mm but I just can't use it as a walk about and occasional macro lens.

Anyway, I'm just not into wee beasties.
Click to expand...

So why bother with a macro ? - just slap some auto tudes onto a nifty :shrug: as you need a converter on your canon to go macro (1:1) any way - neither is that sigma a macro lens by the look of it.
 
Last edited:
Tubes on a nifty? No thanks :shrug: I'll take the 50mm f2.5 any day over that combination (I also have a Siggy 50mm f1.4) even if it isn't true macro as it's a great lens and it'll focus pretty close. It does just fine as a general 50mm and for things like flower shots.

You might not think that that Sigma 50mm f2.8 is a macro but Sigma do... :naughty:

http://www.sigma-imaging-uk.com/lenses/macro/50mm.htm
 
woof woof said:
Tubes on a nifty? No thanks :shrug: I'll take the 50mm f2.5 any day over that combination (I also have a Siggy 50mm f1.4) even if it isn't true macro as it's a great lens and it'll focus pretty close. It does just fine as a general 50mm and for things like flower shots.

You might not think that that Sigma 50mm f2.8 is a macro but Sigma do... :naughty:

http://www.sigma-imaging-uk.com/lenses/macro/50mm.htm
Click to expand...

I stand corrected - i was looking at the wrong one - i see it has a massive working distance of 4 cm's at 1:1 , when working at such close focus distances not only is it difficult for anything other than still life it's also very difficult to light.
 
Ok thanks for all the suggestions, as i`d be looking for around 100mm focal length ive narrowed it down to these 3.

Tamron SP AF 90mm f/2.8 Di Macro £255

Sigma 105mm f/2.8 Macro EX DG £305

Canon EF 100mm f/2.8 Macro USM £390

Now as theirs quite a price diffrence between them i`d like to know if the canon is worth the extra £135, although budget does play its part i know they`ll only want to buy once so i dont want to suggest to just get the cheapest if the canon or the sigma would be the better long term investment.
 
Both the sigma and tamron extend quite considerably when at full focus. The Canon doesnt, so for me yes its worth the extra. I had the L version of that lens and it was quite frankly stunning. Ive also owned both the others.
The Canon is also much better built then the Sigma and Tamron. I also couldnt stand the Tamron's clutch mechanism, although all lenses are very sharp. I;d still choose the Canon for ease of use and build quality.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top