Macro Lens

The Greek

The Greek

Suspended / Banned
Messages
2,092
Name
Chris
Edit My Images
Yes
Would like to try my hand at macro photoghapy. Is the Canon 100mm f2.8 lens a good lens to start with? Don't want to spend silly money on a lens so though a used Canon 100mm on my 40D is my
best option. Any thoughts please.
 
Last edited:
One of, if not the best macro lens you can buy.

I had the IS, L version and was without a doubt the best lens I ever used, either Nikon or Canon. I believe the "standard" one is also optically excellent.
 
TCR4x4 said:
One of, if not the best macro lens you can buy.

I had the IS, L version and was without a doubt the best lens I ever used, either Nikon or Canon. I believe the "standard" one is also optically excellent.
Click to expand...






Thanks, tried to convince the wife that its worth spending a little extra on a L lens.


Her reply was, Does the L stand for Your Having a Laugh! I'm not sure if its a Yes or a No. Women! Lol
 
Thats definately a yes. I looked it up on Google woman translator!
 
I'd have tried: No, it stands for Love and will remind me every time I use it of your love for me ;)
 
I just got the Tamron 90mm, which for about 100mm less performs just as well, if not better optically. The USM focussing is better on the Canon 100mm though.
 
The 100 is macro is amazing and if your the sort of person that wants to use it without a tripod sometimes it is very useful and with the focus limiters its very versatile as a medium telephoto and portrait lens.
 
travellingcello said:
I just got the Tamron 90mm, which for about 100mm less performs just as well, if not better optically. The USM focussing is better on the Canon 100mm though.
Click to expand...


The Canon is in a different leauge to the Tamron.
Optically the Tamron is good, but on built quality, ease of use and everything else, the Canon wins hands down.
 
TCR4x4 said:
The Canon is in a different leauge to the Tamron.
Optically the Tamron is good, but on built quality, ease of use and everything else, the Canon wins hands down.
Click to expand...

I think its rather funny that you say its in a different 'leauge' and in' everything else' (what might that be?) 'Canon wins hands down.'

The Canon is better built and has faster focussing. But as long as the Tamron performs optically, I'm happy saving some money. If I had money to burn I would buy the 100mm 2.8L IS.

In terms of build quality, depending on which way you look at it the fact that the Tamron is lighter and smaller is an advantage.

Its also at least £100 cheaper (based on used prices) and you won't have to buy an optional lens hood.

Also faster focussing speed on a macro lens is a bonus, not a necessity since you will need to use a tripod most of the time.

The only thing which annoys me about the Tamron is the focussing sound - its pretty loud even compared to a lens like the 50mm 1.8!


So OP if you have no money worries buy the Canon 100mm 2.8 but know that the Tamron 90mm is a fantastic choice, and is probably better value for money!
 
The tamron has that god awful clutch system which locks up all the time. Its slow to focus, extends considerably when focusing and its pretty damn noisy. It hunts in anything but great light and feels very cheap.

The Canon doesnt extend during focusing, is fast, silent and is made from much better materials.

Like I said, at everyhting but IQ, the Canon wins hands down.
 
Personally I'd go for the canon very good build quality and much quicker AF when your not shooting macro, buy a used version and you'll be able to move it on with little loss if any, if you want to. With the Canon you'll also get a longer MWD (distance from the end of the lens to subject) than the Tamron, Canon - 150mm & Tamron 99mm which is important for subjects that move. Also you'll need a flash to get the best from any macro lens.
 
Canon 100mm is an awesome lens - used it for several years when I was on Canon gear and it ALWAYS came up with the good. AF is good, as is IQ, and it made a brilliant portrait lens when you wanted some serious OOF background. Bokeh was nice too.

One thing I find with it though is that because of the focal length, I always felt a bit removed from what I was shooting, having a greater working distance. I use a 60mm these days and I much prefer to closer working distance - however, the 100 is great for stuff like insects where you don't want to be breathing down the subject's neck and potentially scaring it off.

Maybe have a look at the 60mm EF-S - it seems to get the thumbs up - and I think it's cheaper than the 100mm, especially the new IS version :)
 
Well what a day!!

Im now the proud owner of a Canon EF 100mm f/2.8 Macro AND a ...........
Canon 70-200 mm F/4.0 L Lens, Both Mint condition as new :love:

Wife going to go Ballistic :nuts: lol



If anyone is after Canon EF 17-40 mm F/4.0 L + EW-83E Lens Hood + Caps £499 or a Canon 24-70 F/2.8 Lens + EW-83F Lens Hood £800 both like new and open to offers, I can point you in the right direction.


Oh, Thanks for your replys guys :thumbs:
 
I asked the same question on here only a couple of weeks ago and bought the canon lens based on the input from other users. I haven't taken any shots worth posting as yet but it is a great lens

My wife has given up asking if anything I buy for a hobby costs more that £50 ;-)
 
Last edited:
wippers said:
There's also the Sigma 105mm 2.8. Going for about £200 second hand. Well built and mine's super sharp.
Click to expand...

Mine too, but I have to say that if money was no object, I'd consider the Canon lens. The Sigma is really nice, but doesn't have internal focusing and is noisy, and feels like it could fall apart if dropped (although I've dropped mine a few times, and once today actually, and it still works!). It does hunt in low light, or on contrasty parts of an image.

Still, it worked fine for this photo today and a few others. I'd forgotten how much I liked the lens as I've been using my newer lenses more recently, so have deliberately spent a week using it :)
 
TCR4x4 said:
Thats definately a yes. I looked it up on Google woman translator!
Click to expand...

stan the man said:
if there was such a contraption..i'd be buying one :lol:
Click to expand...

:nono:




Although I don't use canon, I would still recommend canon over sigma or tamron due to the better build quality, which is why I chose a nikon 85mm macro, as a preference to sigma or tamron equivalents, it was built better.

:)
 
If the Canon is going to stretch your budget, it might be worth checking out the Tokina 100 F2.8 macro. It gets good write-ups.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top