Macro Lens

AMac

AMac

Suspended / Banned
Messages
203
Name
Alex
Edit My Images
Yes
Hi everyone,
Well I have some some Christmas money to spend yippe!

With these frosty morning I have been having a go at some close up shots. Which got me thinking about a macro lens, as you do!

I was looking at:
Canon 60mm 2.8
Canon 100mm 2.8
I normally do landscape type stuff, but would like to try some new things. I like the idea of trying to pick out small aspects of a scene, rather than the whole thing, if that makes sense.

I was thinking that both these lens would also be suitable for trying some portrait shots too.

I have a 17-40L lens which I have used for years on my walking hols and been very pleased with, also more recently a 70-300 more due the smaller size/cost and the reviews seem to indicate a pretty good level of image quality compared to the L lens .
I would consider pushing the boat out for the 100mm 2.8 L if I thought the image quality was going to be that much better.

So I wondered what you guys views or experience was?
Thanks for any help or advice.
 
I haven't used the 60 but I own the 100 and love it. If you want to do macro you won't be disappointed with this lens.

The 100 is a little long for a portrait lens for me, but you can use it and it would do a very good job. That's more personal preference.
 
We've the Sigma 50mm Macro lens and for what we use it for it's a great lens. Another option to look at for you.

I would recommend at least 100mm if you were looking at shooting insects etc
 
I had a Sigma 105mm macro as a Christmas pressie from my wife.:)

The image below is one of the first with the lens on my 7d, also looking forward to using it on my M

IMG_3400_Fotor by killwilly, on Flickr
 
Last edited:
Either of the Canon 100mm macro lenses are very good. If you can't afford the L version, you only really loose the IS capability as there is virtually no difference in image quality.
 
Cheers guys, it will be mostly flowers/leaves that sort of thing I think, I have not really done very much of that type of thing yet.
I will be using it on my 550D if that makes any difference.
I am just reading the online reviews, sometimes too much info ha ha
 
Once you start finding insects among those flowers the extra reach of the 100 or 105mm comes in handy :). 100mm is also a very nice length for a portrait lens provided you have enough working distance between you and the model depending the type of shot you want.

I 'upgraded' to the L version of the Canon after using the non-L extensively. Image quality wise virtually nothing between them, I wanted the IS and red ring.
 
Cheers Sharky, I was thinking about the IS but I an hoping with 2.8 I might not need it to start with. Wow Pieterv great pic.
I was having a go this morning with my 17-40, I can get pretty close but I have to keep uping the ISO to get the shutter speed to keep things still.
 
With macro, shooting at f/2.8 gives a VERY thin DOF. So IS is useful, but as its common to shoot macro off a tripod, IS isn't a must have at all. The non IS Canon is a very sharp lens.
 
AMac said:
Cheers Sharky, I was thinking about the IS but I an hoping with 2.8 I might not need it to start with. Wow Pieterv great pic.
I was having a go this morning with my 17-40, I can get pretty close but I have to keep uping the ISO to get the shutter speed to keep things still.
Click to expand...
No problems. As Glenn noted the dof can be razor thin with macro work even at relatively small apertures (f8+). As with photography in general the closer you are to a subject the thinner the dof e.g. shoot something 10cm away at f8 and you might have a few mm's in focus, shoot the same thing from 30cm and you might be near 1cm or 2 in focus.

Light is key, nothing wrong with natural light macro work but in a lot of cases flash is king when natural light vs f stop just won't cut it.
 
Sharky said:
No problems. As Glenn noted the dof can be razor thin with macro work even at relatively small apertures (f8+). As with photography in general the closer you are to a subject the thinner the dof e.g. shoot something 10cm away at f8 and you might have a few mm's in focus, shoot the same thing from 30cm and you might be near 1cm or 2 in focus.

Light is key, nothing wrong with natural light macro work but in a lot of cases flash is king when natural light vs f stop just won't cut it.
Click to expand...

There are pictures on here of some great gaffer-tape constructed macro flash rigs.. I have used a ring-flash in a past 'life' for macro work, but don't have one myself. Might have to break out the gaffer tape sometime..
 
And if your subject is in no danger of running/flying off then you can try focus stacking for the ultimate in depth of field................
 
cheers guys, you information has been very helpful, I was not so aware of the close to subject/dof, I might have to have a think about the IS, as often I am out walking when I spot interesting plants flowers. I might pop into town and have a look and feel, the size of the L lens might steer me towards the 100 non IS.
Is there a macro section on here, might give me some ideas? I guess they will be in the nature section
 
The Sigma 105mm OS HSM 2 beats all the lenses mentioned in your OP, and at a better price :)
 
What Odd Jim says. I also have the Sigma 105 IS Macro lens. I doubt you would notice the difference in image quality compared with the Canon 100mm (IMO the Sigma would probably win) You would certainly notice the difference in you wallet though.

Go on the Macro section and ask there they are are a good helpful bunch.
 
Cheers guys still looking and thinking, all thou the canon is a bit cheaper at the moment at 385.
I am still thinking as I want to have a play around with macro, but also hoping to use it as a general faster lens, as I do not have a lens at the moment to blur out the background so fully.
Do you guys use the lens for other subjects rather than just macro?
I was looking at the 60 too, but read somewhere , which made sense you can end up too close to the subject and block out the light.
Or buy the 100, then get the cheaper 50mm lol ha ha what to do!
 
AMac said:
Cheers guys still looking and thinking, all thou the canon is a bit cheaper at the moment at 385.
I am still thinking as I want to have a play around with macro, but also hoping to use it as a general faster lens, as I do not have a lens at the moment to blur out the background so fully.
Do you guys use the lens for other subjects rather than just macro?
I was looking at the 60 too, but read somewhere , which made sense you can end up too close to the subject and block out the light.
Or buy the 100, then get the cheaper 50mm lol ha ha what to do!
Click to expand...
The Sigma is £379 new from Amazon with the extended guaranteed.

Seriously, it's the best lens by far.

I use mine flew portrajts and landscapes as well as Macro.
 
Cheers for the help and advice, I have not got any fixed lens, do you think there is a noticeable difference in quality over a zoom.
Do you think a macro lens is one of those lens, once you start using you just use more and more if that makes sense!
I was sort of thinking with it being fixed, a bit faster and macro would make me to something different to my normal stuff!
Oh Jim you don't find 105 too long for other stuff?
 
Im happy with the sigma 105mm too, very very sharp and for macro you wont be shooting at 2.8 anyway, you'll be wanting F8 and above at least (i normally shoot between F11 and F14, others shoot as high as F22).

What I found, was getting a raynox dcr250 (for under £40) and popping it on any of your lenses (works fab on a mk2 canon f1.8) will get you macro images and a 10th of the price, long as your lens thread is below 62mm i think) it clips on and you've got an instant macro lens. If you have a zoom lens, it'll go onto that or a prime fixed lens. Since I bought the sigma, I even pop it on there for bigger than 1x magnification. Check out @Tintin124 macro thread on equipment, you'll find it invaluable
 
As others have said the Sigma 105 is a great lens. Going beyond macro and portrait use, I occasionally use mine for landscapes if it happens to suit the required focal length, example below, and the OS is helpful for the non macro side

https://www.flickr.com/photos/67355694@N05/15051434630/

Sigma appears to win out in macro lens comparison reviews in magazines over canon and nikon equivalents. Just have a think about what you could spend the £250 difference between the canon and sigma on and get at least as good if not better image quality.
 
AMac said:
Cheers for the help and advice, I have not got any fixed lens, do you think there is a noticeable difference in quality over a zoom.
Do you think a macro lens is one of those lens, once you start using you just use more and more if that makes sense!
I was sort of thinking with it being fixed, a bit faster and macro would make me to something different to my normal stuff!
Oh Jim you don't find 105 too long for other stuff?
Click to expand...
Prime lenses have massive IQ benefits over zooms, different beasts.

I don't find the Sigma limiting for portraits or even landscapes. I use it mainly on FF though, so if you're on a crop 105mm might be too long for portraits.

But it's primarily a macro lens (stating the obvious!), and if that's what you want, it's the best lens.
 
Last edited:
A quick question for you guys with the Sigma 105mm macro. The instruction leaflet that came with the lens says that the OS should be turned to "off" before removing or attaching the lens, do you do that?
 
No.

Can't see how it would make a difference either, as the OS wouldn't be functioning with the camera off?
 
Last edited:
I use the the Canon 100mm F2.8 IS L and the image quality is stunning. The thing to note about any macro lens is they have to be sharp, any in-perfections will stand out a mile due the to magnification.

Bear in mind, as others have said that you will really need a flash when working at higher apertures and some sort of diffuser.

If your just putting your toe in the water with macro then maybe a set of extension tubes could be a good starting point for you, then commit to the lens once you decide it's for you.

Good luck with your choice and I look forward to seeing the results here regardless of which path you choose.
 
An inexpensive place to start is the Canon 50mm f/2.5. It's slow and without and adaptor only produces half size images, but it's very sharp. FWIW, I have a 100mm f/2.8 IS L and like it very much, cracking lens. Not cheap though.
 
Another vote for the Sigma 105, had all the others and this one comes out tops for me, even takes the 1.4x converter well for a bit more working distance.
 
Another one here who owns and loves the Sigma 105.
It is a truly fantastic lens.
 
As already said you may as well get the sigma 105
You won't be able to tell any difference in real life shots between any of the current macro lenses they are all excellent
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top