Macro lens

[jamesmartin]

Again for my brother. Wanting a good, reasonably priced macro lens.
I've found a few online that sound ok
Canon ef 100mm F/2.8 macro for around $600 (not the L series)
Tamron SP 90mm f/2.8 Di Macro 1:1 VC USD for $720

Any thoughts on these or others would be good

[nardes]

Hi James

I have used the Canon 100mm F2.8 USM and the 100mm F2.8L and have been extremely satisfied with both.

The only pixel peeping difference I have seen in my photos between the non-L and the L version, is that there appears to be slightly more scope for pushing the micro contrast with the L version files, but otherwise the non-L is a fantastic lens and I can 100% recommend it. I do not use the IS on the L version as I use Canon Speedlites for macro work, so the flash duration is short enough the freeze any motion.

Cheers

Dennis

[Geoff79]

I haven’t used it but seen good reports on it, and therefore when I was looking for a macro lens, I was looking for those two above as well as the Sigma 105mm lens.

If the prices above are correct I’d definitely favour the Canon. If you’re happy with secondhand, I got the canon lens (not L series) for $300. I got a bit lucky (not without well over a year of looking and hiccups along the way) but you can get some good prices secondhand with a bit of searching. Great lens.

[jamesmartin]

Hi James

I have used the Canon 100mm F2.8 USM and the 100mm F2.8L and have been extremely satisfied with both.

The only pixel peeping difference I have seen in my photos between the non-L and the L version, is that there appears to be slightly more scope for pushing the micro contrast with the L version files, but otherwise the non-L is a fantastic lens and I can 100% recommend it. I do not use the IS on the L version as I use Canon Speedlites for macro work, so the flash duration is short enough the freeze any motion.

Cheers

Dennis

Thanks Dennis, the canon non L one sounds like a good option. I'll let him know

- - - Updated - - -

I haven’t used it but seen good reports on it, and therefore when I was looking for a macro lens, I was looking for those two above as well as the Sigma 105mm lens.

If the prices above are correct I’d definitely favour the Canon. If you’re happy with secondhand, I got the canon lens (not L series) for $300. I got a bit lucky (not without well over a year of looking and hiccups along the way) but you can get some good prices secondhand with a bit of searching. Great lens.

Thanks for the tip Geoff

[Cage]

Sigma also make some great macro lens.

I am currently on my second Sigma 150mm f2.8 Macro lens (the first was a Pentax mount) and the lens is brutally sharp. I prefer the longer length because it gets you that little bit further away from them little critters that spit, bite, sting etc. I have a Sigma 1.4 TC APO EX DG more or less permanently attached to my lens with no real noticeable loss of detail.

[jamesmartin]

Sigma also make some great macro lens.

I am currently on my second Sigma 150mm f2.8 Macro lens (the first was a Pentax mount) and the lens is brutally sharp. I prefer the longer length because it gets you that little bit further away from them little critters that spit, bite, sting etc. I have a Sigma 1.4 TC APO EX DG more or less permanently attached to my lens with no real noticeable loss of detail.

Thanks kev, it's good to hear peoples thoughts on gear rather then sales people / reviewers. It may be a bit out of his price range but good point about the extra length

[Cage]

I bought mine second hand off eBay for around $700.00, including the TC. Just have to watch the listings.

[William W]

. . . Any thoughts on these or others would be good.

My initial thoughts wander off as to firstly whether or not your brother has settled on a 90~105mm FL Macro lens - or are other FL in the offing?

However - that stated: between the two lenses mentioned, I have the EF 100 F/2.8 Macro and I have second hand experience with the Tamron (the new model that you cited). My view is that both are excellent:

> the Canon is a tad sharper wide open but if your using at F/4 or smaller there's little difference.
> (I believe) the Tamron will NATIVELY mate with Tamron Extenders, on the other hand you'll need to plonk and extension tube between the Canon and the camera.
> the Canon has an excellent Tripod Mount and it sits in a really handy position, not sure what arrangements you'd need for the Tamron.
> the Tamron has VC, my experience is that's excellent for using the lens a a typical Prime Lens, but for Macro (1:1) and reasonably close "Close Up" it gains about the equivalent of 1 Stop, to my mind that can be countered by 1 Stop more ISO and a modern camera will eat that.
> pedantically if the Tamron stuffs up on a Canon Camera, then Canon won't want to know you - if the EF100/2.8 stuffs up then you have much more traction (though you might have to be aggressive), though lens/camera stuff ups are rare, they're more common, or seem more common, with third party lenses.

My bottom line is that if the lens is being bought for an equitable dual purpose, then the Tamron, because of the VC, is a better choice, on the other hand if it is being bought for mainly Macro and Close-up use, then the less expensive, value for money Canon is a much better purchase, that is stated with a bias that I don't need the little assistance that VC (or IS) provides for Macro shots.

I have no experience with the Sigma mentioned.

***

If your brother is not decided on that FL, (and I mean decided as a result of specifically thinking through and selecting that 90~ 105mm is what he requires), then the question as to what to buy is much, much broader and that requires more information on his present Kit and his intended uses for the new lens.

WW

[jamesmartin]

My initial thoughts wander off as to firstly whether or not your brother has settled on a 90~105mm FL Macro lens - or are other FL in the offing?

However - that stated: between the two lenses mentioned, I have the EF 100 F/2.8 Macro and I have second hand experience with the Tamron (the new model that you cited). My view is that both are excellent:

> the Canon is a tad sharper wide open but if your using at F/4 or smaller there's little difference.
> (I believe) the Tamron will NATIVELY mate with Tamron Extenders, on the other hand you'll need to plonk and extension tube between the Canon and the camera.
> the Canon has an excellent Tripod Mount and it sits in a really handy position, not sure what arrangements you'd need for the Tamron.
> the Tamron has VC, my experience is that's excellent for using the lens a a typical Prime Lens, but for Macro (1:1) and reasonably close "Close Up" it gains about the equivalent of 1 Stop, to my mind that can be countered by 1 Stop more ISO and a modern camera will eat that.
> pedantically if the Tamron stuffs up on a Canon Camera, then Canon won't want to know you - if the EF100/2.8 stuffs up then you have much more traction (though you might have to be aggressive), though lens/camera stuff ups are rare, they're more common, or seem more common, with third party lenses.

My bottom line is that if the lens is being bought for an equitable dual purpose, then the Tamron, because of the VC, is a better choice, on the other hand if it is being bought for mainly Macro and Close-up use, then the less expensive, value for money Canon is a much better purchase, that is stated with a bias that I don't need the little assistance that VC (or IS) provides for Macro shots.

I have no experience with the Sigma mentioned.

***

If your brother is not decided on that FL, (and I mean decided as a result of specifically thinking through and selecting that 90~ 105mm is what he requires), then the question as to what to buy is much, much broader and that requires more information on his present Kit and his intended uses for the new lens.

WW

Hi William, sorry about the late reply. Thanks for the detailed response, very useful info. This will be his first dslr camera/lens, trying to give him a rough idea on prices & what ones he should be looking around for