Macro lens recommendation?

Jannyfox

Jannyfox

Suspended / Banned
Messages
5,381
Name
Jan
Edit My Images
No
I enjoy photographing butterflies, damselflies, dragonflies and the like and find my Canon 18-135mm lens is pretty good. Not a macro lens, obviously, but it focuses fairly close at the 135mm end, though not close enough to disturb the subject, is quick to AF, light to hand hold and has what seems to be very good IS. So for the larger (normal butterfly size) subjects it's fine. The other day I came across a small magpie moth. 'Small' is its proper name, but it is also small, about 3/4 in wingspan. I'll post images when I remember to download them from the card - it's a pretty little thing. But it's a bit small for the 18-135 and that started the inevitable 'perhaps I should treat myself to a macro lens'. I thought about extension tubes - I used to use them on my old 35mm kit - but they're going to cost me over £100 for the AF version and with associated light loss I could be stuck with using my Tamron 17-50mm f2.8 with them, which is the same weight as the 18-135 but doesn't have IS. I think if the cost is not too unreasonable I'd be better buying a dedicated macro lens. Any reccomendations, bearing in mind I know nothing about macro lenses? I'm not going to be photographing aphids or anything else that small, just small moths etc. Camera is a Canon 550D, which may or may not be joined by a later model from the same xxxD range.
 
GreenNinja67 said:
Loved my 105mm f2.8 NON L macro lens.

Fantastically sharp.

also superb for portraits.
Click to expand...

Canon? That'll be the 100mm then, I guess. Is yours with or without IS? There's quite a difference in price, although they look to be completely different lenses so I guess the IS version has other improvements too. I could stretch to the non IS one, I think.

Edited just to say Rosie is gorgeous
 
I used to have a Sigma 150mm f2.8 which I thought was excellent, might be worth a look.
 
Non IS I think Jan.

I sold the Canon gear last year but I thoroughly enjoyed using it.

Thanks for Rosie's compliment. She has a very sweet temperament and is a lovely dog all round.
 
The EF 100mm 2.8L (IS) Macro lens is one of the best lenses i've ever used, so so sharp and the detail achievable is simply something else.

One of the few lenses I miss having and one I am always tempted to buy again.
 
I have the 100mm f/2.8 L IS and have compared it to the non-L version. As far as I could tell there's nothing in it for image quality, both excellent. The IS on the L version is very effective and would be missed.
 
Always good to treat your self Jan:). Mate I've got that non is macro,I'd prefer the is L version,but if IS isn't a big deal as Terry states the non is non L 100 is a fine lens,I think mine was around £150/170 second hand. so I guess budget,is going to raise it's ugly head. Jan I don't really do tiny macro,I actually bought my lens to make images of my dart frogs. what you are contemplating is sort of similar Canon also do a bigger macro lens is it 180mm? Jan the biggest of my froggies is say 5 cm the small baby cuties(Oh man I love them ) around 10mm. For moths and erm stuff:D I wonder whether a larger mm might be better?? all depends how close an all that that you want to shoot. I oft, even in a captive environment, wished for a bit more reach, even with a genuine true macro lens.......I wonder if that might also apply to you for your needs ???

Jan a mate has a siggy,(think 100MM ) I only used it very briefly once,but it's also worth you looking there I remember being impressed with how it compared to my own 100mm canon.

HA ha I agree on Rosie:D, lovely image Terry,it's a cracking little lens for the dosh Jan. I wanted the IS version primarily because of light levels for my frogs,but couldn't afford at the time. Jan just for clarity this is the lens I have and believe is the same as Terry's


https://www.mpb.com/en-uk/used-equi...on-fit-lenses/canon-ef-100mm-f-2-8-usm-macro/

seeya

stu
 
Thanks guys - a few good things to think about there. I'm looking to buy new and really can't afford the IS version of the Canon 100 (£899 on Wex - eek!). I could do the non IS, or the Sigma 105 is tempting. However the Raynox looks interesting - I've heard of them before but not known what they were. For the sort of use I'm going to make of a dedicated macro setup, which isn't a huge amount, and the cost............ One review I read seemed to say that manual focus had to be used. I'm assuming this isn't true (Amazon reviews can be a bit uninformed sometimes). Or is it that it knocks a bit of light off like a TC and you can run into the no AF below f8 thing?
 
You can use autofocus with the Raynox (although I always manual focus with any macro as it's a lot more precise) and it makes no difference to your light. It really is the best way to get into macro (IMO) and if you do decide to buy a dedicated lens at a later stage then you can put the Raynox on that to give extra magnification. It will be next to useless from about 18-75mm but from then on you should get good results.

Just for fun I put mine on a 135mm prime just after posting the pics and took this ... a little cropping to tidy up but it almost filled the frame at 135mm.


, just for a change ... A fly by Mike.Pursey, on Flickr
 
There's also the Tamron 90mm f2.8 Macro. The current and previous versions both have VC (their version of IS). I have the F004 version (not the latest version) and you can find them for £250-300ish secondhand. Image quality is great, though I don't do lots of close focus insects. It's a much newer lens than the Canon 100mm f2.8 (non L) and it has stabilisation for a lower price than the Canon 100mm L.

As for extension tubes, the don't have to cost £100. I have a set of AF tubes that I got for less than £20 secondhand. They have no glass, so they don't wear or break really. You don't lose light due to extension tubes, that does happen with tele-converters though.
What does happen is that as your subject gets closer to the lens, you need more light because they effective f-stop changes with focal distance. (see here: https://www.cambridgeincolour.com/tutorials/macro-lenses.htm)
 
I've had both the IS and non-IS. Unless you NEED the IS then save the money and buy the non-IS one. Saying that, now I have the IS I wouldn't change back. I tried the Tamron and Sigma but, for me, I prefered the Canon versions, they just felt better in my hands. You can add the Raynox on the front as well if you want to go bigger than 1:1.
 
I also use the Canon 100mm F2.8 Macro (non IS) and cannot fault it. The L (IS) model looks an handles nicer but I could find no advantage in IQ.
 
Hi janny, I have the tokina 100, no vr on it but it really is a cracking lens for not too much money. Very sharp too.
 
So I filtered the Wex site on Canon fit macro prime 100-200mm and every 100/105mm lens they have has a recommendation from someone here. Looks like I can't go wrong whatever I get, which is well worth knowing. Thanks again guys.
 
ABTog said:
You don't lose light due to extension tubes.
Click to expand...
Have the laws of physics changed? A smaller effective aperture = a loss of light
Jannyfox said:
So I filtered the Wex site on Canon fit macro prime 100-200mm and every 100/105mm lens they have has a recommendation from someone here. Looks like I can't go wrong whatever I get, which is well worth knowing. Thanks again guys.
Click to expand...
Absolutely, 'macro' lenses are designed to perform their best at near Minimum Focus Distance as regards corrections and sharpness with a flat field, somehow this also seems to mean they perform pretty darned good overall. It really is difficult to go wrong in the 100mm area so choose one that you are most comfortable with and like the feel of, personally I am quite fond of the non IS canon.
 
Last edited:
Jannyfox said:
So I filtered the Wex site on Canon fit macro prime 100-200mm and every 100/105mm lens they have has a recommendation from someone here. Looks like I can't go wrong whatever I get, which is well worth knowing. Thanks again guys.
Click to expand...

That's true - there is no such thing as a bad macro lens. They're all good optically and differ more in spec and price.

But I'd second the suggestion of a Raynox Macro Adapter lens. It'd do what you want at a relatively bargain price and they're so easy to use - keep it in a shirt pocket and just clip it on the lens when needed.

The DCR-250 is popular for tiny bugs, but the DCR-150 is better for butterflies and moths https://www.amazon.co.uk/Raynox-DCR...&qid=1529144440&sr=1-1&keywords=raynox+dcr150

Edit: the Raynox retains full autofocus though manual is often favoured for macro. Also try focusing with the zoom ring! A good technique to master is to frame things up roughly, then rock your body gently back and forth while watching the plane of sharp focus as it moves over the subject. Note that with the Raynox (and extension tubes) you lose distant focus further than a few feet away, so they're for close-up only.
 
Last edited:
HoppyUK said:
That's true - there is no such thing as a bad macro lens. They're all good optically and differ more in spec and price.

But I'd second the suggestion of a Raynox Macro Adapter lens. It'd do what you want at a relatively bargain price and they're so easy to use - keep it in a shirt pocket and just clip it on the lens when needed.

The DCR-250 is popular for tiny bugs, but the DCR-150 is better for butterflies and moths https://www.amazon.co.uk/Raynox-DCR...&qid=1529144440&sr=1-1&keywords=raynox+dcr150
Click to expand...

Thanks for that info. It's the smaller butterflies and moths that interest me, not the tiny things. I'm tempted to get one to see if I do enough to justify a dedicated lens.
 
Jannyfox said:
Thanks for that info. It's the smaller butterflies and moths that interest me, not the tiny things. I'm tempted to get one to see if I do enough to justify a dedicated lens.
Click to expand...

Did you see my edit to the post above Jan?

Reading between the lines, I think the DCR-150 will do the job nicely, then progress to a pukka macro lens if and when. Macros have excellent optics (and focus to infinity so dual-purpose use) and are designed with low distortion and a 'flat field' meaning that if you shoot flat subjects like stamps or coins they will be a) properly square or circular, and b) sharp right to the edges without needing high f/numbers. But that's less important with wildlife macro where the subject tends to be in the centre and everything around the edges is out of focus anyway :)
 
PhilH04 said:
Have the laws of physics changed? A smaller effective aperture = a loss of light
Click to expand...
My point was that the extension tubes don't automatically equal a loss of light, unlike tele-converters (eg: a 2x tele-covnverter turns an f2.8 lens into an f5.6 lens). It's the distance from the lens to the subject that changes the effective aperture, as I pointed out and linked to a relevant article.
IE: using a lens with extension tubes is going to lose no less light than using a macro lens would IF the distance from lens to subject (and aperture) is the same.
 
Last edited:
ABTog said:
My point was that the extension tubes don't automatically equal a loss of light, unlike tele-converters (eg: a 2x tele-covnverter turns an f2.8 lens into an f5.6 lens). It's the distance from the lens to the subject that changes the effective aperture, as I pointed out and linked to a relevant article.
IE: using a lens with extension tubes is going to lose no less light than using a macro lens would IF the distance from lens to subject (and aperture) is the same.
Click to expand...
Nope... simple physics of optics... when extending to twice the focal length with an extension tube the same length as the focal length, two stops are lost. There is a loss of light.
 
Another vote for the Canon 100mm f/2.8 (non-IS/L) I bought mine used several years ago now & after about 2 years sold it for a touch more than I paid for it iirc!!

IQ was terrific & the weight/size/feel was nice too. I didn't miss any IS.

EDITED to add....... I no longer own Canon but I have a set of tubes that I can/could/should use with an old Yashica ML50 - IQ with that is more than good enough but it is a pain that the focus range is somewhat limited!! At least with something like the Canon 100mm you can simply use it as a standard lens without any faffing about!!
 
Last edited:
ABTog said:
My point was that the extension tubes don't automatically equal a loss of light, unlike tele-converters (eg: a 2x tele-covnverter turns an f2.8 lens into an f5.6 lens). It's the distance from the lens to the subject that changes the effective aperture, as I pointed out and linked to a relevant article.
IE: using a lens with extension tubes is going to lose no less light than using a macro lens would IF the distance from lens to subject (and aperture) is the same.
Click to expand...

Extension tubes do reduce light, same as macro lenses. The f/number and focal length are only true at infinity focus and while they stay much the same down to quite close range, at around 1:4 or so a significant light loss grows. At 1:2, it's exactly one stop, and two stops at 1:1 life-size. Nikons* report this (which is correct), but Canons don't (which is wrong, but perhaps less confusing).

There is no light loss with supplementary close-up lenses though, like the Raynox.

*An f/2.8 Nikon macro lens should read f/5.6 at 1:1, but they often read a bit lower than this because the focal length also reduces as part of the optical focusing system to keep the lens more compact and assist fast AF drive.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top