Macro Lenses for Canon

travellingcello

travellingcello

Suspended / Banned
Messages
1,841
Edit My Images
Yes
Hi Everyone,

I'm thinking about purchasing a 100mm macro lens but I'm not sure which one to plump for.

So the choices for Canon fit are I think:

Sigma 105
Tokina 100mm
Tamron 90mm
Canon 100mm

I hear that all are not lacking in sharpness, and the advantage of the canon is the USM and the fact it doesn't extend.

Does anyone have any advice for me?

If I am to purchase the Canon I would buy second hand - the others are harder to find second hand I believe.

Thanks!
 
I have the Canon 100mm Macro and it is a superb lens - ultra sharp, with excellent contrast and colour.

But as with any macro lens getting the best from it can take some time as taking macro shots is not like taking most pics.

And a good firm tripod is definitely recommended.

And it is also very addictive - so be warned!

If you look here you will find a large number of pics taken with the Canon 100mm macro (sometimes with Kenko tubes as well for extra magnification):

http://www.flickr.com/photos/20926615@N05/sets/72157623715955928/

And also here:

http://www.flickr.com/photos/20926615@N05/sets/72157623911722582/

However when taking macro shots the USM motor is of minor importance since most people prefer to use manual focussing instead of automatic focussing because the lens tends to "hunt" at the close distances used.

Note this is not confined just to the Canon lenses, all lenses tend to do this when shooting in macro mode.

.
 
Last edited:
I've also good the Canon 100 macro but I tend to use autofocus most of the time because my eyesight isn't good enough, it takes a second or so for me to focus on close things and by that time the insect I'm photographing has moved/flown off. With a steady hand I don't find the lens tends to hunt much at all.

Because I am photographing insects I use flash rather than a tripod because long exposures are not an option with insects and I generally use f/18-f/22 for my macro work.
 
So can anyone explain the difference between the 100mm macro lens and the dedicated MP-E 65mm. There's only about £100 difference. Assuming we're only talking macro here.
 
Byker28i said:
So can anyone explain the difference between the 100mm macro lens and the dedicated MP-E 65mm. There's only about £100 difference. Assuming we're only talking macro here.
Click to expand...

The mp-e goes much closer than 1:1. I think it does 5:1 or something like that.
 
Yup does 5x magnification rather than 1:1 of the other lenses. Just wondering if to buy something as I've ended up doing a few close up's for my course work using extension tubes and my 24-105. I was just wondering why people use the 60 & 100mm lenses rather than the dedicated macro one and what the advantages of either are.
 
The MPE-65 does go to 5:1 but only that - it DOESN'T focus much above that so can only be used for macro photography amd nothing else - not landscapes, portraiture etc.

And at 5:1 the light reaching the sensor is reduced by 32 times so a bright light is needed just to focus on the subject together with a good flash set up to take the photos.
 
I have the Tokina 100mm and I'm more than happy with it for macro work especially now that I've managed to pick up a ringflash last month to use with it.

Luckily for you a moth decided to pose for me this morning :)

IMG_2296.JPG


Bigger size here http://comica.co.uk/TP/moth/IMG_2296-1.JPG
 
travellingcello said:
Hi Everyone,

I'm thinking about purchasing a 100mm macro lens but I'm not sure which one to plump for.

So the choices for Canon fit are I think:

Sigma 105
Tokina 100mm
Tamron 90mm
Canon 100mm

I hear that all are not lacking in sharpness, and the advantage of the canon is the USM and the fact it doesn't extend.

Does anyone have any advice for me?

If I am to purchase the Canon I would buy second hand - the others are harder to find second hand I believe.

Thanks!
Click to expand...

I've only had the sigma and the Canon from those listed but i'd go with Canon - better contrast and colour than the sigma and better working distance, also easier to move on if you want to change later on :).

focusdistance.jpg
 
petersmart said:
The MPE-65 does go to 5:1 but only that - it DOESN'T focus much above that so can only be used for macro photography amd nothing else - not landscapes, portraiture etc.

And at 5:1 the light reaching the sensor is reduced by 32 times so a bright light is needed just to focus on the subject together with a good flash set up to take the photos.
Click to expand...

Cheers that explains a lot.
 
Dont forget there are two canon 100mm macro lenses,the 'old'one and the new one which is classed as a 'L' and has IS.
The non IS is around £400 and the IS is around £700.Depends if you need IS or not.
You should pick up a used non IS for around £3/350.
They also make very good portrait lenses albeit a bit long on a crop.

Chris
 
I've got the 100mm L IS version it a fantastic lens. But can't comments on others apart from a sigma 105 I had a few years back and again it took good macro but very slow lens.
 
petersmart said:
And a good firm tripod is definitely recommended.
Click to expand...

Hmm well that rather depends on what you are photographing. If you are photographing reasonably static subjects or still life, then a tripod is great but if you are after skittish wildlife then a tripod can be a burden and a torment. For these subjects the Canon 100mm with IS really is a boon and as far as I am concerned, worth every penny, but if your subjects don't move then the non-IS Canon or any of the others would probably be fine. They all seem to come very highly recommended by any people.
 
I've got the Canon 100 IS, and I have to say it really is fantastic.
I decided to pay the bit extra because I shoot pretty much all off my macro stuff handheld.
I'd say, if you can afford it treat yourself =op
 
Kwak_Knight said:
I've got the Canon 100 IS, and I have to say it really is fantastic.
I decided to pay the bit extra because I shoot pretty much all off my macro stuff handheld.
I'd say, if you can afford it treat yourself =op
Click to expand...

Just as he says reason why I got one :)
 
Greywolf said:
Hmm well that rather depends on what you are photographing. If you are photographing reasonably static subjects or still life, then a tripod is great but if you are after skittish wildlife then a tripod can be a burden and a torment. For these subjects the Canon 100mm with IS really is a boon and as far as I am concerned, worth every penny, but if your subjects don't move then the non-IS Canon or any of the others would probably be fine. They all seem to come very highly recommended by any people.
Click to expand...



Agree with you on the tripod but I can't agree with you about the IS if you're talking about macro work.... If you're shooting something that's moving/likely to move at any moment, the settings you're going to be using to make sure you get the shot are basically going to render the IS completely irrelevant anyway surely? I've got the non-IS version of the Canon and can't honestly say I've ever wished I'd gone for the IS version....



Back on topic - I'd definitely recommend the Canon. It's a great lens, pin sharp, good colours/contrast, nice working distance, doesn't extend and I think probably the most versatile of the bunch too - particularly if you do end up switching to a full frame body at some point :)
 
I love the Sigma 105mm F2.8. Had mine a couple of years now and it's still just about my sharpest lens. Never had any problems with the focusing speed, but most of my macro work is manual focus. At about £200 second hand, this is a bargain quality lens IMHO.
 
wippers said:
I love the Sigma 105mm F2.8. Had mine a couple of years now and it's still just about my sharpest lens. Never had any problems with the focusing speed, but most of my macro work is manual focus. At about £200 second hand, this is a bargain quality lens IMHO.
Click to expand...

He right it a good lens for the money. Reason I got the 100mm is L is as want use for portraits too
 
What about the Canon EF-S 60 Macro. It has an effective focal length of almost 100mm on a crop sensor body.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top