Macro Lense-If money were no object.

[Bluffspring]

So now that I'm buying a 5D Mkiii and not the 1DX. I have a little cash on hand to buy a macro lense.

What would you buy given these parameters.
Mainly nature photography
Already have the Canon 100mm EF 2.8 (love it even if it is a little old)


Lenses: 24-70 Canon 2.8L, 70-200 Canon 2.8L IS, 100-400 Canon 4.5-5.6L IS
Bodies: 1DS Mkii, 5D Mkiii (hopefully this week-fingers crossed)

Thanks in advance

[Joellll]

100L, or the non-L variant works too.

Reverse mounted lenses are fun to use too, but is it weird that I REALLY like using the Tokina fisheye zoom as a non-dedicated macro?

[Quasimodo]

If I had the money now, I would have bought the MP-E65, with the Macro twin flash, and the extra railing for your tripod. I have never tried it, and it is supposedly a steep learning curve (given its manual focus only, and 1-5 zoom). But the pictures I see from it are amazing. I have the 100 F2.8L HIS, and it is awsome, but it has 'only' 1-1, and not 1-5:)

[etg9]

Another vote for the amazing MP-E65. Hard to get the goods but amazingly worth it when you do. This lens is the reason that macro boards are 90% Canon.

[Pyrenees]

I'd love to get my hands on the Zeiss 100mm Makro. Having seen some samples and various figures, it looks awesome. Apart from that, Canon's 180mm would be fantastic for additional reach for insects and the like.

[briansquibb]

I have the Canon 180 macro as it gets me further away from the subject when taking a macro. Particularly good for flighty things such as insects. Also takes the 1.4 converter

[TexPhoto]

MP-E65 all the way.  IF you can handle the fact that it is Manual focus, and pretty much must be used on a good macro rail, on a tripod. 

[Forceflow]

Well, since you already have the 100 I would also suggest the MP-E65, though I hear it's really difficult to photograph with it. (No idea though, never worked with one myself)
Personally I really like my Sigma 150mm f/2.8 macro OS. It offers quite a bit more reach than Canon's 100 and is faster than Canon's 180. The image stabilization is nice, though I find it not that necessary for macros. (Which I almost always use a tripod for) The IQ is also really nice and all in all it's still fairly affordable. Not cheap, but sitting nicely between Canon's 100 and 180.

[T3Heavyshop]

I have the MP-E65 and "Manual Focus" is a bit misleading.  There is no separate focus ring.  Focus is achieved by either moving the camera, or adjusting your zoom from 1X to 5X magnification.  It is a pain to use without a rail, but can be done.  I wouldn't recommend it for living insects however, unless you have a real long period to wait for them to get exactly where you want them.

[zim]

MP-E65, I drool at the thought of the fun that can be had with that amazing lens.

[well_dunno]

One more vote for MP-E 65,  perhaps combined with a Macro Twin Lite MT-24EX Flash...

[awinphoto]

I would go with the 180... it allows you more room between you and your subject... sometimes focusing the lens inches from the subject can freak the subject out... Also is sharp and very well built.  If you want super macro shots, the MPE-65 is awesome but you aren't afforded much room between you and your subject... the 65 is only manual focus which is good for macro work, but means it doesn't lend well to being a multipurpose lens, but it really boils down to what you're shooting, how often, and what you want out of your lens. 

[AJ]

Zeiss 100/2

[kaz]

The Voigtlander APO-macro 125mm is a 1x macro, unlike the ZE 100mm makro-planar, which is only 0.5x.

It's expensive, and is out-of-production. I've seen it going for $2000-3500 on eBay.

I haven't done a shootout yet, but my feeling so far is that, although the ZE 100mm makro-planar may have a very slight sharpness and contrast advantage, the Voigtlander is way more apochromatic (doesn't have the nasty longitudial chromatic aberration), which I find is very important for making pretty macros.

[FOB2009]

I love my Zeiss 100/2.0, which is more versatile than just macro.