Which Macro Lens Would You Recommend?

[Marsu42]

Another vote here for the Canon 100mm Macro L Lens!

Your site says you're using the "Canon EF 100mm f2.8L IS USM II" ... there is no such lens :-p

[paul13walnut5]

It's hard to buy a bad macro lens these days, I use the Sigma 70mm f2.8 DG EX.

At the time I bought it (and perhaps even still) it was outresolving anything else in the category, including the canon f2.8 100mm.

It's got slow and noisy AF, but then for macro I tend to set my preferred scale and then focus using a manfrotto 454  micro adjust.

It works on full frame or cropped sensor (the EF-s 60mm does not) and it also makes for a very nice portrait lens on a cropped sensor as well (equiv 110mm) towards that end of the focus range, with the limiter on, it's actually ok AF.

But as I say, the clincher for me was the resolution.
http://www.flickr.com/photos/scott1shpau1/1026640641/#

[adamfilip]

Ive owned the 100 2.8 USM non IS, 180mm 3.5 and MPE-65 and my vote goes for the 180
its awesome.. my fav lens of all time. super sharp

Cant wait for them to release a new version with IS. and hopefully at 2.8

[ideaworx]

100mm f2.8L IS.... love it

[neuroanatomist]

The only reason I picked up the L version is because I want to use it as an additional portrait lens to go along with the 85L and the IS helps out a bit for the non macro shots...

Since I've got the L now, can you tell me how often you use the 100L or 85L for portraits and why? I wonder if adding 85mm and a wider aperture is really that necessary or if the 100L alone does the job, too.

I have both, and when I intend to shoot portraits, I always grab the 85L or 135L. The 100L is used for opportunistic portraits, for example when I take my daughters to a botanical garden. 

[Marsu42]

I have both, and when I intend to shoot portraits, I always grab the 85L or 135L. The 100L is used for opportunistic portraits, for example when I take my daughters to a botanical garden.

Yes, if you've got lots of lenses lying around I guess that's the clever choice. But since I only got the 100L, I'd be obliged if you could tell me how much difference there is in the actual shots between 100/2.8 and the non-macro primes. Does "opportunistic" mean that the 100L would by no means serve say as a wedding/portrait lens, or is it just the added minimal dof that makes the 135mm and 85mm lenses attractive?

I'm asking because I'd like to get some lenses for professional use, but my next one would be the 35L and my budget doesn't extend to the 85L or 135L next to the 100L I just bought...

[Michael_pfh]

The 85L's bokeh cannot be matched by the 100L macro. The 100L is alright for portraits but you just don't get those stunning portrait shots the 85L is capable of...

[neuroanatomist]

But since I only got the 100L, I'd be obliged if you could tell me how much difference there is in the actual shots between 100/2.8 and the non-macro primes. Does "opportunistic" mean that the 100L would by no means serve say as a wedding/portrait lens, or is it just the added minimal dof that makes the 135mm and 85mm lenses attractive?

The DoF is substantially thinner, and the bokeh of the 85L and 135L is better.  If there's decent physical separation between subject and background, f/2.8 is ok - my 70-200mm f/2.8L IS II does a good job for portraits.  But if you want to isolate a subject from a close, busy background, f/2 or wider makes a big difference.

[Marsu42]

The DoF is substantially thinner, and the bokeh of the 85L and 135L is better.

Thanks, I suspected as much. But as for the better bokeh, I'll really have to look through sample shots sometime because it's already excellent on the 100L and the like, though maybe not as blurred as with a thinner dof.

Personally, I don't like the "complete cut-out" look that much anyway, it looks like the object was actually cut out with photoshop and then pasted in front of a blur. But the thin dof of course is good for effect portrait shots where the face itsself isn't completely in focus.

[knkedlaya]

+1 for canon 100mm f2.8L. Earlier I had Tamron 90mm and was very impressed.

[imkev]

The only reason I picked up the L version is because I want to use it as an additional portrait lens to go along with the 85L and the IS helps out a bit for the non macro shots...

Since I've got the L now, can you tell me how often you use the 100L or 85L for portraits and why? I wonder if adding 85mm and a wider aperture is really that necessary or if the 100L alone does the job, too.

I will usually carry the 100L with me when I I go out just in case it's needed. The 85 I will only bring if i know I will be shooting someone, or to a family holiday get together.The bokeh on the 85L is obviously one of the great reasons to go for it, it's just not a very versatile lens as opposed to the 100L. Eveyone knows its main weaknesses, extremely slow to focus and it weighs a ton. Portraits are great with the 100L but awesome with the 85L. This is just a hobby for me and I am still learning more every day and I am sure others will have better info to offer, but this is just my take on it.

[Imagination_landB]

http://www.sigmaphoto.com/shop/apo-macro-180mm-f28-ex-dg-os-hsm here ;s an very interesting lens ,theres almost no information about it and nmo release date price announced..

[Bennymiata]

I have owned or extensively used all the Canon macro lenses, bar the 180mm version.

My favourite macro lens?

The Sigma 150mm F2.8 with OS.
It's the sharpest of the lot, the OS is very handy and the bokeh is gorgeous, as is the colour and contrast.

The 100L is also excellent, but the Sigma is just a liitle better, and because of the extra reach, you don't need to be on top of the bug you're photographing, and the extra distance also allows you more lighting options.

[Axilrod]

I've got the L now, can you tell me how often you use the 100L or 85L for portraits and why? I wonder if adding 85mm and a wider aperture is really that necessary or if the 100L alone does the job, too.

Honestly the 85mm 1.8 would be an excellent lens to get a feel for how you like the focal length.  You can pick them up used pretty cheap (I saw one listed for $200 the other day, almost got it just because that's such a good deal) and it's a very solid lens for the money.  The 100L is great for portraits but sometimes it can feel a bit tight.

[briansquibb]

I have owned or extensively used all the Canon macro lenses, bar the 180mm version.

My favourite macro lens?

The Sigma 150mm F2.8 with OS.
It's the sharpest of the lot, the OS is very handy and the bokeh is gorgeous, as is the colour and contrast.

The 100L is also excellent, but the Sigma is just a liitle better, and because of the extra reach, you don't need to be on top of the bug you're photographing, and the extra distance also allows you more lighting options.

By your logic the Canon 180 should be best then? Which is what I use - the 580EXII on the hotshoe lights the object meaning you dont need the MT24