Good/Better/Best Macro for T3i

[sanjosedave]

What are your opinions for Good/Better/Best Macro lens for a T3i?

Shooting mainly flowers

[neuroanatomist]

Canon EF 100mm f/2.8L Macro IS.

[Mt Spokane Photography]

I certainly like my 100mm L on my 7d. 

Truthfully though, if you are a deliberate and careful photographer, any of the macro lenses by Canon, Sigma, Tamron, tokina, Zeiss, etc are going to fall in the excellent range.

The reason I like the 100L is because I can get reasonably good results while handholding it, and I don't have the patience to do it properly. 

[sanjosedave]

Will the T3i be able to resolve the Canon EF 100mm f/2.8L Macro IS fully?

[neuroanatomist]

Will the T3i be able to resolve the Canon EF 100mm f/2.8L Macro IS fully?

Absolutely, yes.

[Joellll]

Extra vote for the 100L here.

I'm using a 500D right now, and I must say the 100L is a really good walk around lens if you prefer snapping further than 50mm. IS helps keeping pictures steady and the bokeh is lovely. It also makes a pretty decent portraiture lens.

[Marsu42]

Extra vote for the 100L here.

... but since you weren't only asking for "the best" which is "the most expensive" most of the time: the older "golden ring" 100/2.8 macro is very cheap to get used and the sharpness is nearly up par with the more expensive version. If you really shoot macro objects you might be using a tripod anyway (i.e. IS won't help) and at very close distance IS doesn't help much or not at all. The one drawback of the non-L version is missing weather sealing, so you have to watch out for dust or sand.

[facedodge]

The Tamron 90mm Macro is just as sharp and even has a bit more contrast than the 100L. However, the AF is a bit slower and motor is a bit noisier. For nearly 1/2 the cost, it's the better bargain IMO.

[AJ]

Some very good macro lenses for shooting flowers:

Canon 60/2.8
Sigma 70/2.8
Tamron 90/2.8 (I own this one, excellent lens)
Canon 100/2.8
Canon 100/2.8 L IS

All are exceedingly sharp and produce beautiful bokeh.

Think about secondary uses (e.g. portraiture) and how the lens would fit into your collection.  Then pick a focal length accordingly.

[Kernuak]

I'm yet to hear of a bad macro lens. They are typically among the sharpest lenses of any manufacturer. I usually say that around 90-105mm is probably the best focal length for general purpose macro photography. It's basically an all round length. It gives you a bit of working distance (although more is better) if shooting insects, but isn't too long to make botanical macro work awkward, particularly in more confined spaces. However, if you are only intending to photograph flowers, then it's probably also worth considering a shorter focal length. For one thing they are less expensive, but also, some gardens aren't particularly large, so you may be limited on space. That's ok for 1:1 macro work, but if you need to back up to photograph a larger area, to produce a closeup, rather than a true macro, then you may find yourself running out of room with around 100mm. As AJ said, think about the areas you are likely to be photographing in and factor in any potential secondary uses.

[wickidwombat]

Canon EF 100mm f/2.8L Macro IS.

Absolutely and it also makes a fantastic portrait lens

[Tijn]

Canon 100L, unless you're using a tripod for mostly all your shoots and you're short on cash. In that case, the Canon 100mm non-L (without IS) is almost as sharp as the L version. The difference in pictures will be indiscernible. If you're shooting hand-held, IS is recommended and then the 100L is just awesome.

[Bennymiata]

I have a 60d and also have the Canon 60mm macro, the 100L and the Sigma 150mm with OS.

As you can see, I like macro photography!

However, for flowers, I find the 60mm lens to be the best.
With the 100 and 150, you have to stand too far away for flowers.
Insects are a different matter however, and you need all the distance you can get, hence the 150mm Sigma.

The 60mm is very sharp with great colours and contrast, and the focussing is very fast too, in fact, it is so close the 100L in shaprness that it really doesn't matter.

Here'sa shot taken withthe 60mm macro for you.
The flower is about 1/2" diameter and is an Australian native called a muraya.

[rj79in]

The 100mm 2.8 is the best bet. You can choose the IS or non-IS without any difference in image quality. Both are razor sharp and have great bokeh. Having tried both I can just wish all lenses were this good!

[Jamesy]

A cheap entry level macro lens would be the 50/2.5 which is a 1:2 lens rather than the majority of the ones mentioned here which are 1:1.

To the OP original question

*All Canon*
Good = 50/2.5
Better = 100/2.8 or 60/2.8 EF-s
Best = 100/2.8 L

A buddy of mine has the Tamron 90 and says it is good.