Which macro lens (canon)

bass_junkie83

bass_junkie83

Messages
4,367
Name
Dave
Edit My Images
Yes
I'm not going to be making a purchase any time soon, but I know I will want to and it would be good to get an idea of what I need to save now.

I am not going to be getting into macro photography as a genre of interest, but I will have the occasional need for one. Ring shots at a wedding for example.

So I need to balance how much use it is going to get, against image quality and cost.

How much of a difference is there between the canon 100mm f2.8L and the non-L for example. And are there any equivalent third parties that are worth considering?
 
I have the 100 L and it's excellent but it's costly and if you're only going to be using it on a few occasions you'll have to balance the cost effectivness for it. The non L version is very similar optically and may be your best bet if you'r on a budget. There's also the Tamron 90mm f2.8 and the Sigma 105mm non OS versions, but IIRC both of these extend to focus whereas the Canons are internal focussing so you don't end up getting too close to your subject and scaring them off (insects etc). There is a Sigma 105mm OS version http://www.sigma-imaging-uk.com/macro-105mm-f28-ex-dg-os-hsm which is internal focussing although it comes at a premium. After that you get the Sigma 150mm and the Canon 180mm which get even more expensive as well. All the f2.8 lenses give excellent IQ, you'd probably not be able to tell the difference when looking at a print, the two Canon's along with the Tamron and the Sigma OS version are reasonably fast to Af with the Sigma non OS a fair bit slower. With my Canon 100 L I can use AF on both my 70D and 5D3 and it's fast enough to get over 90% of the shots I take, mainly of insects and spiders, but I will use MF if I'm shooting a non moving object indoors and usually using liveview as well.
 
I've got the Sigma 105. It's a damn sharp lens, though a bit slow to focus, but that isn't usually a problem for macro work.
 
I've got the latest version of the Sigma and it's an incredible lens. SO sharp, excellent OS system and takes beautiful portraits as well.
 
I would say that for the OP, a set of macro tubes would do the job he wants them to do.
 
Thank you guys. Sounds like the cannon L will be a little OTT for me then. Sounds like a toss up between the canon 100mm and the sigma then. I shall have a look around at prices and speak to the boss...............
 
FWIW when I compared them a while back, I felt that The Canon 100mm non-L macro was an excellent lens and not much if any difference in IQ from the L version. Plus the non-L version has the fitting for ring flash. The L version needs an adaptor IIRC..
 
If it has to be a dedicated Macro lens, the Sigma 105 and Tamron 90 (both f/2.8) always seem to do very well in group tests against their competition from Nikon and Canon.
 
The Sigma's dirt cheap at the mo (compared to previous pricing and the canon) and doubles up as a decent fast lens for gloomy indoor shots. Still feeling mine out- but very happy with it so far.
 
I bought a Canon L a couple of months back. I have no knowledge of Macro, but thought I fancied giving it a go. I've only taken about 50 shots with the lens so far and I'm finding it hard work. I'm looking forward to the flowers and insects in the summer so I can give it more of a test run. Knowing the way my tiny brain operates, had I bought anything other than L glass I would have blamed the lens for any bad shots and ended up selling it. Buying something near the top means I have to persevere and can't just give up while blaming the kit ;)
 
Unless they happened to have duffer, no one could blame the non L Canon for poor shots. It's a very competent, sharp lens..
 
I have been using the Sigma EX 105 f/2.8 Macro for a few years now, and although my other lenses are Canon L Series, I have never felt the need to move from the Sigma 105 for my macro work, as its 'pin sharp'.

Mine is the older non IS version, but I've never found the lack of IS problem.

Dave
 
Don't discount an older manual lens like the Canon FD 100/4 macro. Granted it'll be manual aperture and focus but it'll do the job nicely and should cost less than £100 with a suitable FD-Eos adapter.

Bob
 
Canon Bob said:
Don't discount an older manual lens like the Canon FD 100/4 macro. Granted it'll be manual aperture and focus but it'll do the job nicely and should cost less than £100 with a suitable FD-Eos adapter.

Bob
Click to expand...

A quick shot taken with my Canon FD 100/4 macro. This lens comes with an extension tube for better magnification, but this shot was without the tube, just for an example.



_MG_2566 by killwilly, on Flickr
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top