Macro lens

Galaxy66

Galaxy66

Jeremy Beadle
Suspended / Banned
Messages
9,190
Name
My name is Mal not Jeremy :)
Edit My Images
Yes
I fancy having a go at macro photography, and have the cash available to go for the Canon ef 100mm macro lens, At the moment a search of the macro section for that lens does not throw anything up. I would like to see what this lens is really capable of coupled with the 40D so can anyone direct me to a good site or TP gallery with images to view.
Would I be wasting my money without buying a ring flash?.
 
Mal,

This is probably the best lens to go for if you're just starting out in macro (the Sigma 105 is equally good). As far as needing a ringflash....depends what you're shooting and where.
Pretty much any macro lens from the leading manufacturers will be as sharp as required so you don't need to worry there.

The EF100/2.8 is the most popular but the polls can be skewed by price and the 150's and 180's also produce excellent results.

Bob
 
The canon 100 is a great lens and you will love it I'm sure. I use my 430ex or 580ex II on a off camera cord diffused on a bracket and it gives great results. You could do a tag search for 40d 100mm on flickr that will throw up a few results ;)
 
I have the sigma 150 too and I really like it. The 150/180 macro lenses can be quite a handful to use as the longer the focal length, the harder it is to keep movement from ruining your shot.

The little 50 and 60mm macro lenses take away most of the movement issues but don't leave you a lot of working space between the camera and subject.

The 100 and 105 bracket is the goldilocks range and should be just about perfect. The canon, sigma or the tamron (the 90mm) all produce very sharp pics. You pays your money and you chose your label. That said there is a big difference in feel. The canon is nice and solid, the sigma nearly as good and the tamron feels like it came in a christmas cracker. Don't let that fool you though, it's optically excellent.
 
You have a choice depending on your budget from the canon 100, Sigma 105, Sigma 150 and don't forget the Tamron 90mm.

The Sigma 150 looks to be an excellent lens, as well as the three others mentioned.
I personally went for the Tamron, as the image quality is reported to be better than the other two in its class.
If I was buying the lens today, I would seriously take a look at the Sigma 150.
I can report that am very happy with the results I get with the Tamron.

The best thing to do is try them out before you purchase.

You do not need to get a ring flash, although they can prove useful in some situations.
 
Matt said:
A bit harsh Dazz.:nono:
Click to expand...

Come on Matt, you have to admit that it's horrid. It's so light it's hard to believe there's actually any glass in it, let alone a focus motor.

I spent a day with one and I have to say it didn't inspire me to hope for much when I downloaded the card.

BUT.... that's where it blew me away. As I said it was optically excellent and produced some really impressive images. At the very least as good as, perhaps better than the 150 I bought.
 
I can't say its horrid, because of the results it produces!

I think you meant to say, its a little cracker :D
 
I think you meant to say, its a little cracker :D
Click to expand...

I'd happily go along with that. Has got to be the best value macro lens really.

Just don't drop it. ;)
 
The tamron 90mm Is a cracker!..It may not be the heaviest chunkiest lens out there but it does what its meant too for sure..I used to own the 150mm sigma and tbh think the tamron is sharper..doesn't have the build quality granted but optically reckon its got the edge.
 
Thanks guys if I do decide to make a foray into the world of macro it looks like I will to be spending a bit longer wasting the time of a Jessops salesman.
From what has been said about the Tamron this lens needs checking out, but, although optically it may be a cracker of a lens if it does not feel right to me I won't go for it. I made a similar choice when buying the body, the 350/400D Canon is a good camera but the 30/40D was more solidly built, heavier, and felt better in my hands.
 
Partly but not entirely why I went with the sigma. You have to be happy with your choice, however daft the reasons for that choice might seem. :D
 
Leaving aside the pro's and con's of the various manufacturers and build quality for a moment.....

The suitability of any particular prime macro is really down to it's focal length and working distance. An EF-S60 is wonderfully sharp lens but it isn't going to get you many grasshopper shots...you'll be much too close. Similarly, the EF180L is sharp and can provide stunning subject isolation from the background but it's a difficult beast to hand hold if a ringflash or twin-light isn't in you kit list.

All of the lenses will do the job to a certain degree but the FL chosen needs to reflect the style required and the weaker points are hopefully good enough to maintain some flexibility.

Bob
 
I've ordered a Sigma 105mm from Kerso. Can't wait!
 
Canon Bob said:
Leaving aside the pro's and con's of the various manufacturers and build quality for a moment.....

*snip*

Bob
Click to expand...

Very much agreed. I use a Sigma 150mm f2.8 which I love. For insects (which is what I tend to shoot the most) its great, and the working distance helps me get quite a few shots. It is however an art to handholding it using only natural light and avoiding camera shake. As my insect stalking technique has improved, im tempted to get a shorter (~60mm) macro lens and give that a spin. Id really like to give the Nikkor 85 mm f2.8 PC Micro lens a go as ive got an idea of using tilt shift for inect photography. :)
 
Can't reccommend the 60mm highly enough, it's so good for flowers and as i've mentioned before insects that don't move. It's also a great portrait lens.

And on your recommendation on previous thread about macros I'm giving the 150mm Sigma serious consideration, can you advise just how close you're having to get to insects for your images?
 
The 60mm Macro is a lovely lens on a crop body and doubles as a portrait lens. Was sorry to see that go, in my opinion the 100mm was never quite as good, the 180mm Macro is just a bit too long and a little slower. If I were you I'd go with the 60mm :)
 
Just ordered the ef 100mm I did a flickr search loads of pics came up (30K+) it was a toss up between that and the ef-s 60mm but chose the 100mm cos it can be used on 1D series cams when I can upgrade, thats always a consideration when buying ef-s lens... 100mm macro search on devArt brings up examples too.
 
h4rri said:
..... the 180mm Macro is just a bit too long and a little slower.....
Click to expand...

If you mean slower as in f/3.5 v f/2.8 then it is not really an issue as most macro shots would be taken with an aperture value much higher.....f/8 or beyond, to get enough DOF.

If you mean slower as in AF, then that is also pretty much irrelevent as most true macro work would be manually focussed....hence the generally slower AF performance of most of the macro lenses available.

Bob
 
Canon Bob said:
If you mean slower as in f/3.5 v f/2.8 then it is not really an issue as most macro shots would be taken with an aperture value much higher.....f/8 or beyond, to get enough DOF.
Click to expand...

When using natural light, im lucky if I ever see f5.6, but I agree in as much as f2.8 at 1:1 results in silly thin dof.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top