First Macro lens

[AnzacPride]

Im looking to get into macro work and would love some advice on whta I should pair with my 550D, I would be looking to pay between $6-800 and was thinking about maybe the Canon 100m 2.8 USM. Has anyone got any other sugestions or experience with that lens?

[Bennymiata]

I have the Canon 60mm macro lens, and it works a treat, however, you do have to get quite close to the subject (especially insects) if you want a true 1:1 size on your sensor.
I think the 100mm is a good choice, but if you are going to do a lot of your photos hand held, then I would save up for the L version of this lens (or buy used) which has IS built in.
You'd be amazed at how shaky your hands are when doing hand held macros and you're only a few mm's away from the subject.

I got the 60mm lens because of work, where I use it in my small studio, and for taking pictures of buckles and small fittings, it's fine, but if I had bought it for myself to use on insects and flowers, I would have bought a longer lens. Having said that, it is still very good for flowers and insects and the results are crisp and clear.

For my next macro lens, I'm looking at the soon to be released Sigma 150mm macro, which has their OS system built into it.
I figure the 100mm and 60mm are fairly close, so I think an even longer macro lens would suit me well.

Canon also make 180mm macro, but the price is a bit too much for me, and it doesn't have IS, which for macro lenses, I feel is important to have as you aren't always mounting the camera on a tripod.

The MPE 65mm macro is a very specialised lens and if you are just getting into macro, I wouldn't advise it, although it is very good, but it can't be used for anything else, whereas all the other good macros make fine lenses for portraits and general photography too, if the length of the lens suits you.

Then there are other alternatives to Canon, and i have heard good stuff about the Tamron 90mm and Sigma 105.

[Captured frame]

I have the Canon EF 100mm f2.8, a solid well built lens which is very sharp and for the price would be one of the best on the market in this focal range. The bonus with this lens is that it is also a very good lens for portrait work - it is not a Canon "L" lens but it comes very close with the results it can give.

[AnzacPride]

Cheers folks,
I had though about the "L",
Alot of what I would like to do will be critters and fungi/plants out in the field, From what I have read the L may not be worth the extra coin for the type of shooting Id mainly be doing.

[fabian628]

the image stabiliser would be pretty handy if you are shooting in natural light. The new 4 stop IS is nice if you need more dof, and dont want to push the iso too much.

[AnzacPride]

From what I have read in macro situations the IS only delivers more like 1 stop(better than none) rather than 4, However I think it will cost me about $300 more for the L(not as much as I expected), so it might pay to wait a bit longer

Cheers Dan

[Cheryl A]

I purchased a Nikon 105mm f/2.8 G-AFS ED IF VR Micro (Macro) Lens and I'm thrilled with it. The Sigma 105mm is also an excellent lens, from all reports and I tossed up between the Nikon and the Sigma. The 105mm gives you the opportunity to capture some critters without having to get so close that you scare them away I think you would be very happy with the Canon 100mm Macro. Happy shopping!!

[rbat]

I have the 100mm f/2.8 and love it. It is wonderfully versatile. I would recommend it in an instant. I have a 450D.

[matt22]

I also have the Canon EF 100mm f2.8. Its a great lens, and as mentioned it's great for portrait work. You will not be disappointed with this lens, great lens for the cash

Id also recommend it

[pod3009]

Hi!
Surprised that no-one has put in a vote for the Tamron 90mm. I have this lens and it, like the Canon 100 is a very sharp lens. It also costs a fair bit less than the Canon. I certainly think it is worth checking out.

[Tricky]

Quite frankly, there's very few bad macro lenses out there... the EF-S60mm and EF100mm are both excellent starting points, as is the Tamron 90mm.

[petercee]

I second the Tamron 90. I have both the Tamron and the Canon 100 f2.8 in question. Images are on par. Both are spectacular. There is the all but inconsequential 10mm shorter focal length with the Tamron being cheaper and slightly less impressive build quality. All keen macro photographers will support their efforts with a tripod, so the advantages of an "L" version are moot.

[Mary Anne]

Another vote for the Tamron 90mm here I loved that lens and have used it non stop for 6 years it was as sharp as a tack on the Canon 20D and 40D

Hubby buys me the 5D last May and I had no end of trouble with the Tamron 90mm as my FF Canon camera keep giving me error 1 messages, one of them was use a Canon Lens.
Comes Christmas hubby buys me the Canon 100mm L IS Macro lens its works with the 5D though is a lot heavier than the Tamron so the IS does Help if hand held
Especially when taking butterflies on the move, you cannot use a Tripod for those kind of captures and I am a very keen macro person.
Having said that I do use my Monopod most of the time these days. And the only time I use my Tripod is if the insect does not move and I can get it in amongst the plants or shrubs..

If you are going to stay with a Cropped Sensor camera like your one, its your choice.
If you think further down the track you will get a FF camera, then stick with the Brand your camera is.

[mbundock]

I have both of the 100mm Canons, my biggest drawback is that the L series one doesn't fit the ring flashes without a stop down ring, so it will cost another $75 dollars on top of the $300 extra! Great thinking Canon!!

[PH005]

Another tick here for the Tammy. Mind you I would have no hesitation in buying the Canon 100 if on came along at the right price.

[andylo]

I would go either the Tammy or the L.