Macro Lens

[Kyle72]

What macro lens should i be looking at for a canon 50d, and do i need any other equipment to match it such as a special flash or light box or reflector.. Any info would be much appreciated

Cheers
Kyle

[jjphoto]

It depends on what you want to shoot. Macro is anything from product shots to Insect mug shots!

Personally I like to use enlarger lenses on bellows for products and close up work (not really insects or anything like that), but that's certainly not the simplest way to do things. A canon 100/2.8 USM macro is a fine lens and quite cheap these days having been superceded by the "L" version. It might be a bit long on a crop body but again it depends on what you want to shoot.

JJ

[Bromeo]

Get an old pentax mf lens and an adapter

Get the Canon 100mm 2.8 or the L IS, there's not much difference

get the 180mm if you're serious.

get a twin flash kit or atleast devise some way of mounting you flash off camera. If the latter, you'll want a 580 or equivalent and a diffuser which can be made at home and is usually better.

don't buy the ef-s model it's horribly shit.

[fabian628]

you could try the EF-S 60mm macro, 100mm L or non L or 180mm macro.

I would consider the 60 or 100 as they are smaller and cheaper than the 180, plus i think they are more versatile for taking general shots.

I think the general consensus is that both 100mm f/2.8 and 60mm macro are of the same very good optical quality. The 60mm is smaller and lighter. Also if you want to increase the magnification by adding extension tubes, a shorter focal length will give you a higher magnification.

I would get the lens and use it a while till you feel you may need a flash. I only started using a flash when going higher magnification than 1:1.

[Bennymiata]

I have the Canon 60mm Macro on my 60D, and I find it a very sharp lens, and the auto focussing is also very good, even in quite low light.
I use it mainly for product shots at work, but often take it home and play with it.
I've gotten some fantastic videos of tiny ants with it too.

The problem with the 60mm Macro, even on a cropped body, is that you need to get quite close to the thing your photographing, especially if the thing is quite small.
I'd love the 100mm L lens, but as this is not suitable to use in my work studio (it's too small), I settled on the 60mm, and find it works really well for not only macro, but general photography too.

Here's a couple of shots I've taken using the 60mm Macro.

IMG_3691aLR.jpg

IMG_3697.jpg

The spider was taken hand held, auto focus, late at night, using my 580EXII flash.

[Tricky]

Another vote for the EFS60mm as a first macro lens. Cheap to buy ($300 second hand), light, very sharp, good portrait lens, use with tubes for higher magnification... can't beat it as a starter. The EF100 is also very good and allows you to shoot from a bit further away, though less useful as an all-round lens.
I would just use natural light as a starting point. Then maybe use a normal 430 or 580 flash, either with a home-made light diffuser (google it) or a cheap eBay ring-light ($30). Eventually you might move onto a dedicated macro ring flash or twin lite.

[Lucard]

I use the MP E-65mm 1-5x macro and have made pinheads the size of basketballs.
I would recommend this lens to any but it is a bit pricey.

[Pine]

I like the the focus and clarity of the flowers.

Regards

[Max]

I chose the 100 2.8, because I already had a 50prime. So didn`t need the 60 then for normal photography. You need to be closer to the subject with the 60macro. Also a flash is useful, but the build in does a reasonable job.
Without a hood the 100 works well enough with the build in flash on the 7d, but I stick the flash on for better results.

If you aren`t likely to buy a 50prime, maybe get the 60 and if you really get the macro bug go up to something like the Sigma 150 2.8 .

[pod3009]

Hi! As I posted on a similar question on this site, I think the Tamron 90mm f2.8 is a very good alternative. It is also very sharp and costs a few hundred less than the 100mm Canon.

[Bennymiata]

If you really like doing macro, a ring flash is a really good thing to have.
The Canon and the Sigma ones are very expensive, but a web site called Dino Direct has a very good one for just $120 odd.
I got one a few weeks ago, and it works really well with my 60D and is a true ring flash.
You can adjust the flash settings through the camera menu too as all the flash has on it is an on-off switch.

It also comes with lots of adaptors to fit a multitude of different lenses, but my Canon 60mm Macro screws straight onto it.
I carry it in my bag all the time, as it's also very good for portraits.

[larrywen]

The spider is great.

[Kyle72]

Thanks all for the replies, My main use will be taking photos of all types of insects, i was looking at the 100 canon 2.8 both the standard and L version, and basicly doubles in price just by getting an L, so my question is. Is it worth getting the L version?

But looking at the other models mentioned i will have to do some research?

I also own a 430 flash..

Once again thanks for the advice.

And great photos Benny

[Xenedis]

When I was in the market for a macro lens I opted for the Canon EF 180mm f/3.5L Macro USM.

Fantastic lens. Ridiculously sharp. The 100/2.8L IS didn't exist back then, but the 180 is excellent. I wanted the longer working distance.

The 100/2.8 (non-L) is also a fantastic lens. You would not be disappointed with that.

[Ratmick]

I have the 100mm f/2.8 USM lens, great piece of kit. Not really sure if the 100mm L version is worth the extra bucks, but it does have a nice red ring .

Mick

[Kerro]

100mm F2.8 macro, is what I have. Nice

[davomate]

Is it worth getting the L version?

According to the-digital-picture review, image quality is about the same, and you get image stabilisation, but it is only about 1 stop at 1:1 magnification distances. I would rather put the difference in price towards another lens.

P.S. I had the 60mm, took very nice shots of flowers, but too close for flying insects like bees. Also an awkward length for anything but portraiture. Since I had bought it 2nd hand on e-bay, sold it again for almost the same amount, and bought the 100mm (not L). Much better for insects etc, and for me also useful as a low-light medium telephoto.

[Kyle72]

Thanks guys, i think i will give the non L a go, much appreciated for all your help, might just check ebay out and see what pops up.

cheers
kyle

[13ulletz]

Ive had both the 60mm and 100mmL version.

They are both GREAT lenses. I used the 60mm for portraiture as well.
I upgraded to the 100 as the focal length wasn't enough. Got the L version as i wanted IS since i handhold alot of the time.
The 100mm is my dedicated macro lens now, i havnt found another use for it. Not long enough for birding, too long as a walk around.
I have sold my 60mm and bought a sigma 24-70hsm as my walkaround.
I have just recently bought a cheap ringlight and waiting for it to arrive.

When i go FF i may sell my 100mmL off and purchase the 180mmL as i feel 100mm focal length will not be long enough for my shooting style.

[dragons girl]

I have the 2.8 100mm Macro its a fantastic lens great for insects and portraits