Another Macro lens advise question

[Kaffine]

Hey all

I'll hopefully get all the want questions out of the way quick and start to contribute soon, but for now its want...want...want...


So I'm getting back behind the lens after a long hiatus and due to my current interests macro is going to sit right in. I've just invested in my new-s/h 7D body, I have my sport lens's sorted, now for the macro stuff. I've read many review articles, sat through as many videos and spoke to a few (Perth) camera shop sales guys of which almost every one has a different recommendation this may be due to the group of viable lens's are so close in quality they are hard to distinguish between thus I hear conflicting advise.

Question: So that being said I'm looking for a macro lens (Duh) for insect's primarily with the obvious flower and raindrop thrown in, I'd like to keep the $$ under or around $1K as I'd like to get it right once and with an option of it suiting a full frame camera in the future if at all possible. Quality is key but if I can get a top quality lens and spend less it just means more money for other gear

I'll just add some of the recommended lens's Sigma 105mm f/2.8 EX DG, Tamron SP 90mm, Canon EF 100 f/2.8, Canon EF 100mm f/2.8L and Sigma 150mm f/2.8...

I understand that everyone has a favorite and we are all different people but if I can get it narrowed down to a few I can make a decision from there.. with some tips along the way would be much appreciated

Thanks in advance
Craig

[ameerat42]

Craig. IMO, you wouldn't be making a big mistake at all with any of these lenses.
This point-of-view is based on much reading of reviews on the net, etc, and postings here
and elsewhere.

The basic requirement is that you get 1:1 reproduction AND very good image quality. Now a few
people have more specialised macro lenses here on AP - giving 2:1 reproduction. Mary Anne is one
I can recall, and one of them can advise about that one too.

[Kaffine]

Thanks ameerat42

Generally that's what I wanted to hear, I didn't mind spending the extra $$ if the quality gain was going to justify it, but if I can get 99% of the quality for 50% of the price well I take that too. So my idea was to look at 100mm and above possibly up to the 150mm as I want to capture fly-ie buzzy things so that extra distance will help reduce the spookability level.


Thanks Again
Craig

P.S. I won't be buying for about a week so lots more time for research and reading

[jjphoto]

Craig, consider that the crop factor of the 7D will make the lens much longer and I would suggest that 100+mm lenses might be OK but that a 150mm might be too long.

[Kieran]

Getting the subject well lit is the biggest challenge I think. Perhaps looking for the lens-flash combination that suits you best for a price is worth considering.

[nardes]

I have the Canon 100mm F2.8 macro lens (non-L) and I use off camera flash (1/250 sec, F11, ISO100) which effectively “kills” the daylight as the illumination is supplied by the flash.

This means that I have no need for the IS of the 100mm F2.8L version. I understand that there is negligible difference in IQ between the non-L and L 100mm F2.8 so unless you need the IS, I suspect the non-L version should meet your needs.

http://www.photozone.de/canon-eos/46...n_100_28is_50d

Cheers

Dennis

[Kaffine]

Craig, consider that the crop factor of the 7D will make the lens much longer and I would suggest that 100+mm lenses might be OK but that a 150mm might be too long.

Thanks JJphoto, the 150mm was recommended by the Sales guy that had 2 left in stock at a bargain price but amazingly only for a couple more days, I'm a sales rep so I've seen that strategy many times before.

Getting the subject well lit is the biggest challenge I think. Perhaps looking for the lens-flash combination that suits you best for a price is worth considering.

Cheers Kieren I've got a ring flash and an off camera setup coming so hopefully I'll be able to learn that technique as well as the nuances of macro

I have the Canon 100mm F2.8 macro lens (non-L) and I use off camera flash (1/250 sec, F11, ISO100) which effectively “kills” the daylight as the illumination is supplied by the flash.

This means that I have no need for the IS of the 100mm F2.8L version. I understand that there is negligible difference in IQ between the non-L and L 100mm F2.8 so unless you need the IS, I suspect the non-L version should meet your needs.

http://www.photozone.de/canon-eos/46...n_100_28is_50d


Cheers

Dennis

Fantastic nardes, this one of the things I've heard that the focal quality is very similar but the L does have the best IS in the business. that's a fair few dollar saving

[Cage]

A couple of points to also consider.

A quality lens should last you many camera changes, so if you aspire to a Full Frame camera down the track it is probably advisable to avoid dedicated APS-C lens as they are not suitable for full frame cameras, vignetting being the main issue.

I went through this process a few years back, avoided the short lens, although the Tamron 90mm is reputed to be a very good portrait lens, and ultimately decided on the Sigma 150mm f2.8, albeit the non-stabilised version, which for that reason only, I now regret.

My decision was based on several factors, firstly the MFD (Minimum Focusing Distance) as I could get a bit further away from critters that spit, bit and jumped. I also acquired a set of macro tubes which allow me to reduce the MFD when required. Versatility was the other factor as I found that by adding a 1.4 T/C I had a very sharp short telephoto lens. I actually used that combo for some star shots last night.

Decisions, decisions.

[MissionMan]

I have the Tamron 90mm Macro (albeit for Nikon) and I have to say I am pretty happy with it and would highly recommend it.

It's not quite premium lens quality, but that's more the quality of the build rather than an issue with the optics which are first rate. Optically, it's a specular lens. That said, I have primarily pro nikon lenses (24-70 f/2.8 and 70-200 f/2.8) which are pretty bulky and heavy so maybe the Tamron feels a little light and plasticky compared to those which are heavy robust lenses. The only issue I have with the Tamron is my 1.4x converter doesn't work on it so if I wanted to extend it, I would have to buy the Tamron specific converter. It's not a major issue, but it would have been nice to extend the focal length on occasion as I am running with a full frame.

Here is a sample. Bare in mind that I am not a macro person so the DOF is too shallow in this but it's more of an indication of the sharpness

[William W]

. . . macro is going to sit right in. I've just invested in my new-s/h 7D body,

Question: So that being said I'm looking for a macro lens (Duh) for insect's primarily with the obvious flower and raindrop thrown in, I'd like to keep the $$ under or around $1K as I'd like to get it right once and with an option of it suiting a full frame camera in the future if at all possible. Quality is key but if I can get a top quality lens and spend less it just means more money for other gear. . . .

Have a close look at the EF 50 F/2.5 Macro, plus Life Size Converter:

> the WD at 50mm will typically suit the 7D;

> one of the sharpest lenses in the Canon line-up;

> one of the (if not the) Flattest Lenses Canon has made rendering it excellent for copy & records work;

> not expensive;

> EF Mount;

> very flexible uses when combined with a set of Extension Tubes;

> makes a great companion/compliment for a specialist macro kit when combined with any of the EF100/2.8Marco Lenses and/or the EF 180/3.5L Macro, should you (or should you not) move to attaining a 135 Format Camera later.

WW

[ktoopi]

I have the canon 100mm 2.8 L and I love it....

[arthurking83]

..... So my idea was to look at 100mm and above possibly up to the 150mm as I want to capture fly-ie buzzy things so that extra distance will help reduce the spookability level.

.....

For this reason, I'd also recommend the 150mm or so focal length.
While it's not critical, it can help get more keepers I reckon.

I personally have the Nikon 105mm VR, not my most favourite lens. It's not bad(although it does have very heavy chromatic aberration issues).
But I tried the Sigma 150mm(non OS version) once and immediately it felt nicer to use, and the images(only brief use tho) looked nicer overall too.
I think the images looked pleasant mainly due to lack of any CA issues in what I captured that day with it.

I realise that the Nikon is not a lens on your radar here .. but the point is that the Sigma is such a good lens(by way of comparison).

I reckon I'll get one soon myself too .. the OS version of course.

So my recommendation is a +1 for the Sigma 150 OS.

[s1l3nt]

Personally I love the Tamron 90mm. Has never done me badly, for the extra close up shots I use kenko extension tubes. Which you may eventually get anyway. I think 150 may be alittle long based on the crop factor as someone mentioned above.

Though in all honesty, you wouldn't go wrong with any of the lenses you mentioned above.

Looking forward to seeing your macro shots in the near future!

[tandeejay]

I have the Sigma 105, and I love it. It is also suitable for a FF camera. Since I have it on an APS-C camera, I use the supplied APS-C hood extension which makes the hood stick out far enough that the minimum working distance is about 1.5 inches in front of the hood. Without the hood that would be closer to about 5.5 inches in front of the lens. Now that is the absolute closest you can focus. One thing to keep in mind is that "minimum focus distance" is the distance from the sensor, not the distance from the front of the lens. I somehow never understood this, until after I got the Sigma. ( I read it, but it never sunk in that that MFD was from the sensor not front of lens. Working Distance is from the front of the lens...)

I also use the Sigma for more than just Macro, and currently have the lens on the camera most of the time. I think I'd find the 150 a bit long for doing that.

[MEK]

04-05-2016, 6:20pm

B​it late for a reply , but for anyone else reading this .
Lower focal length lenses will be easier to learn to use ( Say 50mm or 60mm )
90 to 105 lenses are probably the hardest to use well ( good results )
Moving to something like a 150mm Sigma , this is a good lens that offers a lot of options ( much like the 50 )

There are a lot of options out there and if you are really new to macro , I would suggest some close focus filters .. This way you can find out if macro is something you wish to pursue for little $$ invested .
I don't own every single lens available , but with so many 28-200 lenses that offer close focus , I would suggest screwing on some close focus filters and seeing how you go .
Even the often cheap kit lens ( 18-55 ) is a brilliant place to begin with a +4 or +8 filter .

Things to bear in mind :

Cost obviously
Long term goals ( How long are you giving yourself to achieve the goal )
How macro ?
How interested are you ? ( is the lens going to end up on Ebay if you don't get the results you want ? )
Camera ? ( Pentax - Canon - Nikon )
Legacy Lenses ( how far back in the time machine do you want to go ) Canon = Forget about it , Nikon = AIS , Pentax = M42 ( I hate M42 lenses - they are good glass but no auto aperture ) For macro you want auto aperture .

????????

An awful lot of macro glass is locked away in cupboards and camera cases gathering mold / fungus .
Some of it ends up on Ebay and such , unfortunately some ends up in landfill . ( moldy oldies )
Just saying , lots to think about .

[Fedgrub]

I'm a Canon 100mm 2.8 fan - so sharp and a decently priced lens too for how great it is!

[Fettator]

I have the Canon EF 100mm f/2.8L. I have had it for about 12 months. I cannot fault it but I am biased for Canon....though I am still trying to figure the whole macro thing out

GB

[REV]

I used a Sigma 105 for years and was very happy with it. The only reason I changed to a Canon 100 is because of the image stability. I don't have to lug my quite heavy tripod through the bush to do my native orchids.

Cheers Rev.

[Mark L]

I don't have to lug my quite heavy tripod through the bush to do my native orchids.

You need to consider a light weight monopod then. With a tilt head it helps so much to keep the camera still.

[graham68ktm]

I have the canon 100 f2.8 L on a 7D and think its a great lens , i use some Kenko extension tubes to get a bit closer for tiny little jumping spiders with an aftermarket ring flash and find it a great setup which i will use on a FF camera in the future !