50,60 0r 90mm macro lens

I would say going for a longer macro lens is better on the whole as it gives you a longer working distance. This means less chance of disturbing the insect & a better chance of the subject not falling within your shadow. I would actually recommend the Sigma 150mm macro if funds allow.

Phil
 
I recomend that lens too, I have had it for a year and i have used it in many situations apart from jsut macro work. It does make a decent short telephoto lens!
 
philthejuggler said:
I would say going for a longer macro lens is better on the whole as it gives you a longer working distance. This means less chance of disturbing the insect & a better chance of the subject not falling within your shadow. I would actually recommend the Sigma 150mm macro if funds allow.
Click to expand...

I don't know anything about the Sigma lens Phil mentioned, but I agree with his assessment. Having a longer focal length is definitely an asset with macro in giving you more room to work in.

Nigel
 
After looking at prices of tubes I am thinking of these, How much difference in quality of pics is there between tubes or a lens, Planning on doing lots of various flowers. Would a lens be a better long term investment?
 
Tubes are great and can get you some stunning images. The downside is that you'll often lose some functionality and certainly some light, costing you precious shutter speed for hand holding.

If the funds allow and certainly if you have a gap in your lens range, then a macro lens is a great idea.

Longer is better from the perspective of working distance but shorter lenses are easier to hand hold. hence most people tend to buy in the 100mm region, rather than the short lenses like the 50mm's or the longer 150/180mm varieties.

The 105 sigma is excellent and feels great but the tamron is probably the best in terms of image quality vs ££'s
 
As has been memtioned in a few posts the longer the better, if you doing flowers then it not so important but if you doing insects then a longer lens is better unless you really jump in at the deep end and get the 65MPE? (if you a canon user of course. :lol:

I have used the Tamaron 90mm and is a good lens, images are sharp, it can hunt a bit if you using auto focus but think that the same for most lenses when it comes to macro. I have also used a set of Jesop exention tubes on it and still work ok. I have a few months ago got the sigma 150mm which as someone else said is a nice lens. I do use a full frame camera. If you got a crop body then of course getting a 50 or 60 mm will give you slightly more reach so to speak. I would either go for the Tamrom 90 or sigma 105, go into a shop and see if they got any in stock and see what you like best.
 
Even on a 1.6x format camera, I consider the 50-60mm lenses a bit short. The lens to subject distance is very small; scaring little creatures and making lighting difficult. Additionally, the Canon 50mm f/2.5 lens will not focus for 1:1 imagery without an adapter.

Although the 150-180mm range gives you great lens to subject distance; these lenses are pretty heavy to hand-hold and are also relatively expensive.

I like a 90-100mm lens because it is light enough to easily hand hold, gives decent lens to subject distance and is not astronomically expensive.

I personally use the 90mm f/2.8 Tamron SP Macro lens and love it but, I know that I would also like the 100mm Canon macro. Both these lenses can double as short telephotos and portrait lenses.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top