First macro lens

C

Christopher Twell

Suspended / Banned
Messages
18
Name
Chris Twell
Edit My Images
No
Hi all!

i really fancy a macro lens, and as I'm not really clued up on lenses at all, thought id ask for suggestions before i dive in and spend money.

i don't really have a budget as such, obviously i don't want to pay thousands, I've done some digging of my own and seen and heard good things about the Canon EF 100mm. Apart from that I'm really unsure! something that i can get up real close with and can be good for bit further away to capture insects etc that won't hang about if i get too close.

any help would be very much appreciated!

thanks
chris
 
Have you considered trying extension tubes first?
 
Whats your location? If your not to far away you could try mine
 
You could also try close up filters. They are about £15 for a set..
 
I have extension tubes and a Sigma 105mm 2.8 (the old version without vr). The lens is great, a little slow to focus in af, but i tend to manually focus for tiny subject such as insects etc. I think the Sigma with set you back somewhere around the £250ish mark. The extension tubes are a cheaper option, but do a great job. I have the kenko ones with af contacts too. I think they cost me around £80ish if i remember correctly. Extension tubes attach between the camera body and lens. If you got some of those, you could always buy a macro lens later and use the tubes with that too as i do with my lens. Otherwise, i believe the tubes coupled with a 50mm prime may do a good job, but i have no experience with that, someone may be able to advise...
 
Nikon AF-S 105mm f/2.8G ED-IF VR Micro Lens is suposed to be a good lens, had good reviews. As you do not say what camera you have I surmise you have the superior Nikon range over the second best Canon offerings

;):nikon: :wave: :welcome: :snaphappy: :plus1: (y)
 
Last edited:
realspeed said:
Nikon AF-S 105mm f/2.8G ED-IF VR Micro Lens is suposed to be a good lens, had good reviews. As you do not say what camera you have I surmise you have the superior Nikon range over the second best Canon offerings

;):nikon: :wave: :welcome: :snaphappy: :plus1: (y)
Click to expand...

Although I hear you on the Nikon front, he did mention that he's been thinking about a Canon 100mm .... so i'm assuming he's veering towards the other side .... :-)
 
keenan said:
Hi, is this the Canon 100mm f/2.8 USM version?
Click to expand...
When I did a direct comparison, in terms of image quality, there was nothing much to choose between the L and non-L versions. The IS on the L version is nice to have of course, but a lot of macro work is done off a tripod, so IS may not be especially important anyway. On a budget, the EF 100mm f/2.8 USM would be my choice, even though I have the L version.
 
realspeed said:
Nikon AF-S 105mm f/2.8G ED-IF VR Micro Lens is suposed to be a good lens, had good reviews. As you do not say what camera you have I surmise you have the superior Nikon range over the second best Canon offerings

;):nikon: :wave: :welcome: :snaphappy: :plus1: (y)
Click to expand...

Sorry! Noob move from me there, I've got a canon 600D
 
It really depends what kind of "macro" photography you're looking to do. If it's more close-up shots then any of the lenses above. If you're wanting to photograph really small stuff and go past 1:1 magnification then look at the Canon MPE-65. OTOH, it might be smartest to buy a cheap macro lens to begin with and find out what kind of shots you really want to take. Are you planning still life or wild life such as insects etc..?
 
What about the very first Canon 100mm f/2.8? The non L, non USM one? I know the focus would be painfully slow, but is it similar optically?
 
Christopher Twell said:
Sorry! Noob move from me there, I've got a canon 600D
Click to expand...


I feel sorry for you then having a Canon camera. Not a bad make by any means for the price :sorry: but Nikon are just that bit better. Check out the reviews on the new Nikon D500
 
Last edited:
keenan said:
Hi, is this the Canon 100mm f/2.8 USM version?
Click to expand...
Yes. I too looked at the differences between the L and non-L and didn't think they justified the price difference for me.
USM is very quick on this as well. I use it about half the time for macro, manual otherwise.
J
 
realspeed said:
I feel sorry for you then having a Canon camera. Not a bad make by any means for the price :sorry: but Nikon are just that bit better. Check out the reviews on the new Nikon D500
Click to expand...

Don't start getting me thinking on a proper camera for photography :( I use my canon for my astrophotography I'll end up spending loads :LOL:
 
Last edited:
WingTsun said:
It really depends what kind of "macro" photography you're looking to do. If it's more close-up shots then any of the lenses above. If you're wanting to photograph really small stuff and go past 1:1 magnification then look at the Canon MPE-65. OTOH, it might be smartest to buy a cheap macro lens to begin with and find out what kind of shots you really want to take. Are you planning still life or wild life such as insects etc..?
Click to expand...

Most probably insects, flowers, water droplets that sort of thing
 
Christopher Twell said:
Most probably insects, flowers, water droplets that sort of thing
Click to expand...

You'll be fine with a standard macro lens then. Any one that does 1:1. To increase magnification you can put extension tubes between the lens and the camera body and this would allow you to go beyond 1:1. You'd lose metering and autofocus etc.. but you'll generally want to manual focus at this kind of magnification anyways.
 
WingTsun said:
You'll be fine with a standard macro lens then. Any one that does 1:1. To increase magnification you can put extension tubes between the lens and the camera body and this would allow you to go beyond 1:1. You'd lose metering and autofocus etc.. but you'll generally want to manual focus at this kind of magnification anyways.
Click to expand...

So what's the difference between getting a 100mm lens and 50mm. Might be a stupid question but just so I know
 
Christopher Twell said:
So what's the difference between getting a 100mm lens and 50mm. Might be a stupid question but just so I know
Click to expand...
The main difference for macro is the distance the lens will be from the subject at 1:1 reproduction. The increased standoff with longer focal lengths will help with lighting and not scaring small critters.
 
Cuchulainn said:
The main difference for macro is the distance the lens will be from the subject at 1:1 reproduction. The increased standoff with longer focal lengths will help with lighting and not scaring small critters.
Click to expand...

So am I right in thinking that I would be stood further away from what I'm taking a picture of if I had 100mm lens oppose to a 50mm
 
Christopher Twell said:
So am I right in thinking that I would be stood further away from what I'm taking a picture of if I had 100mm lens oppose to a 50mm
Click to expand...

Basically, yes. What you might want to do, however, is look in the macro forum on hear and look at the images posted and ask about them if the info is not there. There's a huge difference between an image shot 1:1 at distance to one shot at 2:1 or 3:1 up close but it all depends on what you're expecting.
 
WingTsun said:
Basically, yes. What you might want to do, however, is look in the macro forum on hear and look at the images posted and ask about them if the info is not there. There's a huge difference between an image shot 1:1 at distance to one shot at 2:1 or 3:1 up close but it all depends on what you're expecting.
Click to expand...

I'll do that for sure. I don't know what I'm expecting really I just know I don't want to be getting too close for things to be end up being scared away etc
 
Christopher Twell said:
I'll do that for sure. I don't know what I'm expecting really I just know I don't want to be getting too close for things to be end up being scared away etc
Click to expand...

You'll be surprised at just how close many critters will let you get, actually. In THIS recent shot of a spider's face, using a microscope 20x lens, the lens was 7mm away from the subject. Obviously, not everything is going to allow you to do that but plenty use 60mm lenses in the field, though 100mm is more common.
 
Moey said:
I have extension tubes and a Sigma 105mm 2.8 (the old version without vr). The lens is great, a little slow to focus in af, but i tend to manually focus for tiny subject such as insects etc. I think the Sigma with set you back somewhere around the £250ish mark. The extension tubes are a cheaper option, but do a great job. I have the kenko ones with af contacts too. I think they cost me around £80ish if i remember correctly. Extension tubes attach between the camera body and lens. If you got some of those, you could always buy a macro lens later and use the tubes with that too as i do with my lens. Otherwise, i believe the tubes coupled with a 50mm prime may do a good job, but i have no experience with that, someone may be able to advise...
Click to expand...
All macro lenses have slow AF.
 
realspeed said:
I feel sorry for you then having a Canon camera. Not a bad make by any means for the price :sorry: but Nikon are just that bit better. Check out the reviews on the new Nikon D500
Click to expand...
Is this a real, genuine, serious post?
 
  • Like
Reactions: RIR
...anyway, back to the OP, it tried both Canon 100mm, a Tamron 90mm and the Sigma 105mm OS.

I bought the Sigma, for me it was the best of the lot. And it was the least expensive :)
 
odd jim said:
...anyway, back to the OP, it tried both Canon 100mm, a Tamron 90mm and the Sigma 105mm OS.

I bought the Sigma, for me it was the best of the lot. And it was the least expensive :)
Click to expand...

How much does the OS help in real world use?
 
keenan said:
How much does the OS help in real world use?
Click to expand...
IMO quite a bit as you're shooting stopped down at 1:1. Sigma say it's worth up to 4 stops. They don't sell the non OS mk1 anymore though, but of course you can get them used. Optically the OS version is supposed to be slightly better too.
 
Last edited:
Thanks for the info. Now to figure out if the price justifies it ;)
 
WingTsun said:
You'll be fine with a standard macro lens then. Any one that does 1:1. To increase magnification you can put extension tubes between the lens and the camera body and this would allow you to go beyond 1:1. You'd lose metering and autofocus etc.. but you'll generally want to manual focus at this kind of magnification anyways.
Click to expand...
Buy auto extension tubes and focus + metering still work.
 
keenan said:
You could also try close up filters. They are about £15 for a set..
Click to expand...
The likes of a Raynox is much better quality
 
I've got the Tamron 90mm f2.8 VC Macro (though there is a brand new version of this out now). I bought this as it's quite close to the 85mm portrait focal length, so I can use it for that if I like. It was also a bargain, so much cheaper that the Sigma 105 OS.
The Tamron 90mm VC is also weather sealed, which is handy if you're out in the garden ;) And the lens doesn't extend when focusing.

Here's a couple of samples:
drops on a leaf
Little balls of water by Alistair Beavis, on Flickr

water dripping from a tap, with paper behind and flash used
Every drop by Alistair Beavis, on Flickr


Before I bought the Tamron macro lens, I did buy a set of extension tubes (second hand about £20). They have no glass in them, but they enable you to get your lens closer to the subject. My extension tubes had electronic contacts so the camera and lens can communicate, so I did have AF (if wanted), aperture control and metering.
This was taken with an extension tube and the Canon 50mm f1.4 on it.
Drawn in by Alistair Beavis, on Flickr

Buying the extension tubes allowed me to try a bit of macro stuff to see if it interested me enough to buy a specific lens. And as I said, the 90mm is closer to the classic 85mm portrait focal length so it has more than one use.
Some have said that the AF on macro lenses tends to be slow, but with the Tamron I find it fine when using it as a normal (non-macro) lens because I can limit the focal range with a switch, so it's not hunting for subjects close to the lens.
Overall I'm very happy with it.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top