macro lenses

[Bstanley]

Good to know as I try to figure out my next lens purchase.

Thanks VVFF.

 

[KarenAylwood]

Well it really does depend on what you want to spend and what you want to shoot. I bought the Canon 100mm f/2.8 Macro lens last year in June. It's incredibly sharp- I absolutely love it and really don't miss it's lack of IS (even though I shoot everything handheld). The regular version is $600, while the IS (L series) version is $1000.

I can post some example shots if you want. It's one of the best rated (if not the best for the price) canon macro lenses they have out there. B&H is showing 5 stars out of 5, 306 reviews. I knew I wanted macro and I spent a lot of time researching before I bought this one.

http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/194451-USA/Canon_4657A006_100mm_f_2_8_USM_Macro.html

 

[KarenAylwood]

I have a ton more I like than this but this is all I had in my photobucket album I use for posting on here. The first is one of my favorites but I guess I uploaded it wrong so it shows in a much smaller size than the others.

This is a raindrop on an outside gazebo that shows the natural starburst effect the lens gives when stopped down:

 

[VVFF]

I have a ton more I like than this but this is all I had in my photobucket album I use for posting on here. The first is one of my favorites but I guess I uploaded it wrong so it shows in a much smaller size than the others.

This is a raindrop on an outside gazebo that shows the natural starburst effect the lens gives when stopped down:

It's worth mentioning that macro photography takes patience. I caution everyone thinking about getting into it for the first time to realize that you (generally) can't just go around and get amazing shots. It becomes very difficult to handhold when you have a small DOF to worry about, framing, possibly the subject moving, and the long focal length.

I will say that the 100mm F2.8L macro I bought is my favorite lens to just play with. Its incredibly versatile as a short telephoto/portrait lens and fantastic as a macro lens. The non IS version is definitely a good value for someone unsure if they will like macro photography. I love it because I can take some very beautiful pictures in not so remote areas. I can walk my backyard with the lens and come out with some very interesting pictures.

 

[KarenAylwood]

It's worth mentioning that macro photography takes patience. I caution everyone thinking about getting into it for the first time to realize that you (generally) can't just go around and get amazing shots. It becomes very difficult to handhold when you have a small DOF to worry about, framing, possibly the subject moving, and the long focal length.
I will say that the 100mm F2.8L macro I bought is my favorite lens to just play with. Its incredibly versatile as a short telephoto/portrait lens and fantastic as a macro lens. The non IS version is definitely a good value for someone unsure if they will like macro photography. I love it because I can take some very beautiful pictures in not so remote areas. I can walk my backyard with the lens and come out with some very interesting pictures.

I fully agree with the above. Understand you're not going to just walk out and snap great pictures. It took some learning and some patience, and sometimes the focusing is hard (lots of holding my breath!). I love macro photos but honestly wasn't sure I'd like actually taking them that much.

The 100mm f/2.8L came out after I got my non IS version. Looking back on it, I doubt I would have gone for the L series just because cash is limited and there were a ton of other lenses I wanted (Tokina 11-16, Sigma 30mm). If you have the money to spend, def go with the IS version. The non IS version is a good deal for the price. Heck, I'm still saving up for the Canon 24-105 f/4L ($1200! ).

 

[DisFam95]

I think I would be using it for things around me, flowers, in my garden, in my house stuff.

That's sort of what I was wondering about was the options in the focal length? I did not think I needed a long focal length but then saw someones shot of a some holiday decor that was further away from them (you could see them in the reflection some distance away).

I'm willing to spend on a good lens. i'd rather save a few more months and get something good than buy a cheap one now and another later.

I'm used to taking my time with the 50mm lens and low light shots w/ being still so hopefully it won;t be that much of a transition. I did a bunch of night shots where I braced against a wall and had elbows tucked holding my breath so I can relate!

keep the comments coming..

what about the shorter focal length lens?

wheres a good place to read reviews?

 

[VVFF]

I think I would be using it for things around me, flowers, in my garden, in my house stuff.

That's sort of what I was wondering about was the options in the focal length? I did not think I needed a long focal length but then saw someones shot of a some holiday decor that was further away from them (you could see them in the reflection some distance away).

I'm willing to spend on a good lens. i'd rather save a few more months and get something good than buy a cheap one now and another later.

I'm used to taking my time with the 50mm lens and low light shots w/ being still so hopefully it won;t be that much of a transition. I did a bunch of night shots where I braced against a wall and had elbows tucked holding my breath so I can relate!

keep the comments coming..

what about the shorter focal length lens?

wheres a good place to read reviews?

Ok well, first you may not need a macro lens for things like flowers and such. Flowers are fairly large and you can get a decent picture with even the 18-55mm kit lens that has a magnification of .31(macro is defined as 1:1 or 1.0)

There are also some other options. You can take a decent lens at "macro" such as the aforementioned kit lens and add a "close-up" filter or a extension tube. These will let you dabble in some macro for little initial cost.

If you are sure that you want a true macro lens, then there are a number of options and all are good. Off the top of my head:

Sigma 105mm macro
Tamron 90mm macro(I believe)
Tokina 100mm macro
Canon 100mm F2.8 Macro
Canon 100mm F2.8L Macro
Canon 180mm F3.5L Macro
Canon 60mm EF-S F2.8 Macro

There might be some more I am not thinking of at the moment. The main differences here are first USM and internal focusing.

The Sigma, Tamron and Tokina all don't have USM(quiet and quick focusing). They are however cheaper.

The Canon's all have USM and internal focusing. The only other difference is IS and focal length. IS can help in some situations get you a bit slower shutter speeds at macro distances and works at longer distances as well. The focal length just determines how far away you can be and get 1:1 reproduction of the subject. It also has a big influence on size of the lens as well.

 

[KarenAylwood]

I think I would be using it for things around me, flowers, in my garden, in my house stuff.

That's sort of what I was wondering about was the options in the focal length? I did not think I needed a long focal length but then saw someones shot of a some holiday decor that was further away from them (you could see them in the reflection some distance away).

I'm willing to spend on a good lens. i'd rather save a few more months and get something good than buy a cheap one now and another later.

I'm used to taking my time with the 50mm lens and low light shots w/ being still so hopefully it won;t be that much of a transition. I did a bunch of night shots where I braced against a wall and had elbows tucked holding my breath so I can relate!

keep the comments coming..

what about the shorter focal length lens?

wheres a good place to read reviews?

Cheap Depends on what you call cheap! If I had unlimited funds, yea I probably would have sprung the extra $400 for the IS on the 100mm. Well, no that's a lie- I probably would have just gotten the Canon 180mm f/3.5L for $1400. I don't consider $600 "cheap" but everyone is different. If macro photography is something you seriously want to get into, then yes I think springing for the IS or the 180mm may be worth it.

I would look at the longer focal length as opposed to the shorter but it depends on what you're looking to shoot. For things around you and in your "house stuff" the shorter focal length might be fine. When I was trying to shoot insects I really wished I had the 180mm. Although the 100mm is a bit more versatile if you want to use it for portraiture as well.

Ok well, first you may not need a macro lens for things like flowers and such. Flowers are fairly large and you can get a decent picture with even the 18-55mm kit lens that has a magnification of .31(macro is defined as 1:1 or 1.0)

There are also some other options. You can take a decent lens at "macro" such as the aforementioned kit lens and add a "close-up" filter or a extension tube. These will let you dabble in some macro for little initial cost.

If you are sure that you want a true macro lens, then there are a number of options and all are good. Off the top of my head:

Sigma 105mm macro
Tamron 90mm macro(I believe)
Tokina 100mm macro
Canon 100mm F2.8 Macro
Canon 100mm F2.8L Macro
Canon 180mm F3.5L Macro
Canon 60mm EF-S F2.8 Macro

There might be some more I am not thinking of at the moment. The main differences here are first USM and internal focusing.

The Sigma, Tamron and Tokina all don't have USM(quiet and quick focusing). They are however cheaper.

The Canon's all have USM and internal focusing. The only other difference is IS and focal length. IS can help in some situations get you a bit slower shutter speeds at macro distances and works at longer distances as well. The focal length just determines how far away you can be and get 1:1 reproduction of the subject. It also has a big influence on size of the lens as well.

OP, if it were me I'd choose between the three bolded above. You've already stated that you're looking to spend more money, so you'd probably want to spring for the USM/internal focusing.

If you're looking to go the close up lens route- depending on the size of your lens, the Canon 500D close up filter would cost you $75-$150. Bryan Peterson spoke very highly of it in his "Understanding Close-Up Photography" book.

 

[dcg0317]

I also have the Canon 100mm macro lens and love it, but I wanted more reach because I like to shoot insects and they can be very skid-dish, I looked at the Sigma 105mm which has a very good rating but decided on getting the canon 180mm macro lens for more reach.
Shooting macro takes lots of practice and many missed shots, it is also best to use manual focus instead of AF, also a good tripod with a cable release is a must unless you use a off shoe flash bracket because of the slow shutter speeds, also make sure you have your mirror locked up so you don't have any vibration from the mirror slapping up when taking the shot. I also use single focus point.
To get a lot in focus you should also step down on the aperture, I start about f/11 and go to f/16, try and keep the focal plan in line with what you are shooting as to get as much of the subject in focus.
I manly shot very early in the morning when the bugs are still grounded and not moving much and no wind,, even the slightest breeze is not good.
For Butterflies I have better luck using my 300mm f/4 IS lens, only because they are harder to find in the early morning.
Here are some shots using the Canon 180mm lens.

 

[ssanders79]

The cheap alternative if you are not ready to make the investment is a reverse mount ring which would allow you to reverse your 50mm on your camera. I just picked one up on ebay for $5 w/ shipping. I have an old tele that extendeds to a Macro, but not to 1:1 so I wanted to play around. So far I have not had much time, but from my few test shots it is producing acceptable shots.

Here are some reverse mount rings at B&H

 

[tiger95]

Seeing the other post on Canon, I thought I would ask, what would be the best option for Nikon. I would use the lens mainly to take flower type shots. Here are the two I have been looking at.

Nikon 85mm f/3.5G AF-S DX ED VR Micro Nikkor Lens for Nikon Digital SLR Cameras

Nikon 60mm f/2.8G ED AF-S Micro-Nikkor Lens for Nikon DSLR Cameras

JD

 

[PhotographyDR]

Speaking from a Depth of Field only perspective the f2.8 is always better. Some advice from Scott Bourne is get the fastest (lowest f number) you can afford. You can always bump it up if you need but you cannot bump down a slower lens. For Flowers this will give you a blurrier back ground and will make the subjects pop more. Don't have any experience on either lens for clarity but I have to believe they are similar.

 

[VVFF]

Speaking from a Depth of Field only perspective the f2.8 is always better. Some advice from Scott Bourne is get the fastest (lowest f number) you can afford. You can always bump it up if you need but you cannot bump down a slower lens. For Flowers this will give you a blurrier back ground and will make the subjects pop more. Don't have any experience on either lens for clarity but I have to believe they are similar.

It should be pointed out that, if using the lens strictly for macro use, the lower apertures(F2.8) will hardly ever be used.

 

[tiger95]

I currently have the kit lens (18-105) the 70-300 and the 50 1.8, all of which do great for me. I am just looking for something to allow me to get up close nature type shots, not wildlife more flowers and such.

Thx

 

[Gdad]

Between those two I would go for the 85mm. The little longer focal length will help with pictures of insects and things- plus be a little less redundant in your kit next to the 50mm. Keep in mind also- most (all?) macro lenses stop down at minimum focal distance so it won't be f/2.8 close up anyway. Some others you may consider...

Tamron makes a nice 90mm macro in that price range I have read good things about.

And the Sigma 150mm is popular as well but more expensive.

 

[Ju Ju Bean]

I own the tamron 90 mm 2.8 and it is a fabulous lens. Of the few lenses I have (18-55, 55-200, 35mm 1.8) it is my favorite. I wanted Nikon lenses only but my local photo store convinced me to try it out and the selling point for me was how much lighter it was than Nikon's 105 mm. The cheaper price helped too.

 

[AKVTiger]

I just received this lens on Friday. Here are a couple of shots I’ve taken so far. The flower is at f5, 70mm and the bird is a 100% crop at f11, 270mm. Both photos are handheld. Overall I am pretty happy with the lens and VC is amazing. The best I've seen in image stabilization yet.

Now if May could only get here sooner!

 

[eeyore7360nc]

I am thinking this may be my next lens. Glad to see some pictures taken with it. Is it very heavy?

 

[mom2rtk]

My Canon mount is heavier than I expected at around 1.2 pounds. (Previously I had the 18-250 without VC). But compared to other big zooms, turns out that's not heavy at all.

 

[AKVTiger]

I am thinking this may be my next lens. Glad to see some pictures taken with it. Is it very heavy?

Personally if you are looking for that all in one super zoom the Tamron is the right choice. I have been pretty impressed with it so far. When stopped down to say f8 it is just as sharp as the Tamron 17-50mm. The image stabilization is unbelievable on this lens.

I believe it weighs a tad over 1 lb. It does feel a little heavy when an external flash is mounted but not unmanageable. I would have no problem walking around Disney with it.

If you decide to purchase this lens I doubt you would be disappointed. With the $80 mail in rebate going on right now it made it a no brainer for me.