macro advice

U

ukphd

Suspended / Banned
Messages
258
Name
Nancy
Edit My Images
Yes
Hi there

I'm saving up to get a 100mm Canon IS macro lens. In the meantime I wondered if anyone had any cheaper recommendations that might do a passable job while I save :)

I've seen these:
http://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=190642342166

Are they any good or a total waste of money?

It would be for use with a Canon 550d and it's for food photography (not professional level just amateur for my blog, but I still want it to be reasonable!) and for insects/flowers etc when I'm abroad in Indonesia.

Thanks very much
Nancy :)
 
They are a cheap way into close up photography. The problems are that as that price the optical quality might not be great and that when use use them, you lose infinity focus.

Close up work is tricky as the depth of field is so shallow and lighting can be a challenge

At the price quoted I think you have little to lose and lots to gain.
 
You dont need to get the IS model, the canon 100 f2.8 macro will do the job just great and its half the money of the IS model.

Other options are the tamron 90mm macro or Sigma 105 macro.
 
Last edited:
I have the Tamron 90mm for my 50d and it produces excellent images, and for the money it is excellent value.

The IS of the Canon would help with careful framing and composition, but I have personally never felt the need for IS for macro.
 
ukphd said:
Thanks

I was concerned about the lack of IS on the other model though? Is it not much of an issue?

I will take a look at the sigma and tamron ones too

thanks
Nancy :)
Click to expand...

I'm not a macro expert, I have not found the lack of IS to be an issue. As the depth of field can be really narrow when close up, I tend to use a tripod quite a bit so the IS would not be used anyway.

The canon 100mm IS macro does have some great reviews but I think it might be overkill for your needs. I'm sure you would not regret buying the IS model, but its not cheap.

I have had the Tamron 90mm and currently have the Canon 100mm f2.8 macro. Both are great lens but for me the canon is better as the lens is internal focus unlike the Tamron, so the lens stays the same length.

I think my canon was around £260 2nd hand and the Tamrons sell for around £180-200 2nd hand.

2nd hand lens don’t lose too much money so If later on you wanted to upgrade to the IS model you will not be out of pocket by much.

The money you will save by getting the non IS could go towards some macro lighting.

This is the lens I have:

http://www.canon.co.uk/For_Home/Product_Finder/Cameras/EF_Lenses/Macro/EF_100mm_f2.8_Macro_USM/
 
I've just got the Canon 100mm 2.8 macro (non IS) and whilst I prefer hand-holding the lens, with the right shutter speed you should be fine. You do notice shake (I do anyway!) which IS would help with but the main issue i'm learning to deal with is slight forward and backward movement, throwing the focus out. The IS won't help this and on a tripod is redundant.

Unless you are going to be hand-holding in low light i'd skip the IS version and get the older one, possible secondhand.

Whilst you are saving get the ebay lens and start playing. You do find the depth of field very shallow though.
 
Possibly get some tubes... AF one are a bit pricey, but the cheap tenner ones should do you. As long as you have a lens with manual focus and aperture. Not sure your 100-400 has this, but if it does might be worth trying these.

Also they can be used with your 1:1 macro in the future too.
 
Tubes or a Raynox are a good start until you can get a macro lens.

If you do not mind manual focus you can get nice M42 Macro lenses for less than £100 such as the Takumar 50mm macro.
 
wow thanks everyone! :)

I think I will be handholding the lens for much of what I do so I'd need to make sure I'm steady and have plenty of light I guess! :)

I need to figure out what to do now!

I am definitely tempted to go for a second hand lens to be honest - either the sigma, tamron or the non IS canon...

I actually have some tubes - I have tried them with my 100 - 400 lens and they do work but they require so much light I really struggled with them.
 
the other thing is, is/os/vr becomes less effective as you get closer to 1:1, I found this out after I got my nikon105 vr, excellent lens, would I change it, no, if I was doing it again I would look at the older no vr lens and get a macro flash and save some money.
 
I just got the Canon 100mm F2.8 macro (non is) & i am over the moon with it.:):thumbs:
 
From my own playings with one of those sets, you might be a bit disappointed with the image quality. If you do decide to go for a close up lens, I'd search out on of the Achromatic ones.
Sigma used to do a 58mm one which sometimes turns up at a reasonable price on ebay.
There's some good info here on the subject; http://fuzzcraft.com/achromats.html
Also keep a lookout for a Canon 500d. If you have a lens with a 62mm thread, the Olympus MCON-35 will fit straight on, or you could use a stepping ring to 58mm.
None of these will get you true Macro, but will certainly get closer focussing whilst retaining decent quality.
 
Hi Nancy,

i too was looking for a mcaro lens (for my nikon), and was looking at either the tamron 90mm or the sigma 105mm.

After looking at lots of reviews / owners opinions, i found they are both very high quality lenses. I found the sigma used locally to me, and have been very happy with it.

regarding IS, for macro it is not much benefit. but for normal handheld use, i would appreciate the benefits, as shutter speeds faster than about 1/200s are needed to get consistently sharp shots.

here's 2 pictures with my sigma:-

6833814765_8ff550b002_b.jpg


6140654642_779a3cb8a4_b.jpg
 
This is also somthing I have researched quite a lot.
It seems the tamron is JUST a step ahead of the SIGMA in a lot of peoples opinions.

I used the screw in macro filters (the £15 set from ebay) for quite some time and had some quite god results on my sigma 17-70 However, in the end I actually bought a set of kenko extension tubes and used with my nifty fifty I am very impressed!

I don't do enough macro to justify having a lens solely for this purpose when the tubes do a great job :thumbs:
 
Thanks for the advice everyone.

In the end I found a second hand Canon 100mm f 2.8 USM lens that I could stretch to. I'm pretty pleased with it but a little worried I should have waited to save up for the IS model. I've only been playing with it for a few days but I'm struggling not to get shake on the images (and I don't want to always rely on a tripod for some of the shooting I'll be doing). Would the IS have made a massive difference? Have I made a big mistake? panicking a bit now!

:)
 
You aren't missing much IMO. I have the IS version, but I find the IS is little use for macro work. It doesn't provide enough stabilisation at high magnification for my shaky hands, and doesn't help at all with "depth" stabilisation when trying to focus with a shallow DOF. A tripod, or at least something to lean on, is still required.

The IS works great when using it as a non-macro lens though.
 
I think I am correct in saying that if using a tripod you would switch the IS off anyway and for macro that would be lot, so probably not worth it!
 
Don't forget you can use a macro lens for non macro stuff ;)

I like the 100mm L IS. Super sharp, has IS when you want to wind the DoF up at longer than macro distances and does help (if only 1 stops worth) at macro distances.
 
Thanks everyone - that's reassuring. I will have to practice my steady hands for when I use it not as a macro then! :) If the IS version wasn't much more I'd have held out for it but it's about double the price even second hand so I just couldn't :)
 
arad85 said:
Don't forget you can use a macro lens for non macro stuff ;)

I like the 100mm L IS. Super sharp, has IS when you want to wind the DoF up at longer than macro distances and does help (if only 1 stops worth) at macro distances.
Click to expand...

argh don't say that ;) I guess I'll just have to save up and trade this in for the IS version when I can :)
 
Thats what I did - having had both the IS comes in handy in the wild using handheld, but if you;re going to be tripod mounted or just stabilised then the non-IS will be fine, and if you find that you see shake in there, just save a bit more and trade in, you'll not have lost much in money terms but will have gained alot in experience.

Now-a-days I tend to see lenses and being on loan - I take the loss I made on selling back on and deem that as rent :)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top