-
UPDATE
The forum will be moving to a new domain in the near future (canonrumorsforum.com). I have turned off "read-only", but I will only leave the two forum nodes you see active for the time being. I don't know at this time how quickly the change will happen, but that will move at a good pace I am sure. ------------------------------------------------------------
all around Macro lens
- Thread starter Ryan85
- Start date
For 'all around' I would choose the 100L. IS alone makes it worth it in me eyes, but I also think the 100mm focal length is better for all around.
Upvote
0
Hi Ryan!
You forgot to mention if you're using an APS-C or a FF body.
I'd give the same recommendation below for FF for APS-C even the 100L begins to turn into a specialist (160 mm equiv.).
You forgot to mention if you're using an APS-C or a FF body.
I'd give the same recommendation below for FF for APS-C even the 100L begins to turn into a specialist (160 mm equiv.).
+3Don Haines said:
Upvote
0
Hi Ryan
Well, one big question, handheld or tripod? If tripod, the 180mm is, in my opinion, a bit sharper than the 100mm. If handheld and EF, the 100mm is the better choice.
As an alternative, the Sigma 2.8 150mm with IS is a very good lens, with a 2X TC you have enough reach to shot flying dragonflies, even with FF.
Best regards Helmut
Aeshna_V1 by Helmut Gloor, auf Flickr
Well, one big question, handheld or tripod? If tripod, the 180mm is, in my opinion, a bit sharper than the 100mm. If handheld and EF, the 100mm is the better choice.
As an alternative, the Sigma 2.8 150mm with IS is a very good lens, with a 2X TC you have enough reach to shot flying dragonflies, even with FF.
Best regards Helmut
Aeshna_V1 by Helmut Gloor, auf Flickr
Upvote
0
Maximilian said:
+4. If you want to go higher in magnification then you'll end up with the MP-E 65mm eventually. The 180L will allow you have a longer working distance and a narrower AOV, which will help diffuse the background, but the 100L has IS, is lighter and is a more general lens. The 100L and MP-E 65 make a good combo. ;D
Upvote
0
L
Loswr
Guest
Ryan85 said:
Certainly the 500D is a cheaper option, it gets you to 0.78x. However, close-up lenses are not as convenient to use, as you're essentially limited to a fixed working distance. IMO, they're a good option if you're looking to take an occasional close-up image and are tight on funds or space (e.g. travel when you're already bringing a high IQ telezoom). But if you can afford it, a dedicated macro lens is a much better option.
Upvote
0
It sounds to me like you are not totally sold on macro photography in which case the close-up filter is a good interim to see how serious you are. The plus side of the 100mm macro is, like all L lenses, it holds its price well so you will not lose much in resale if you decide to move it on (less if you buy second hand).
The 100mm lens also makes an excellent portrait lens if you are interested in that as well.
The 100mm lens also makes an excellent portrait lens if you are interested in that as well.
Upvote
0
Keep in mind that the IS on the 100L has been optimized for macro work and that the 100L has MANY more steps of focus than regular lenses...Ryan85 said:
Upvote
0
I am a macro-holic. ;D
For increasing magnification on short focal length lenses, use extension rings, and cheap ones are fine - Kenko air has the same optical properties as Canon air.
For increasing magnification on long focal length lenses, use teleconverters.
For cheaper and more compact option at normal and telephoto lens focal lengths, a compound diopter screw-on lens is good. I have one I use for a fixed-lens compact camera.
Choice of macro lens depends on your choice of subject.
You will be unhappy if you do product photography indoors and get a 180mm macro lens. Your subject may be outside reaching distance. People who do product photography in the 1/4 to 1/2 x range often find a 50 to 100 mm lens the ticket. An old Canon 50 f/2.5 1:2 macro lens could be the ticket for a few full frame camera-using photographers. (Actually, the Zeiss 50mm f/2 would be the REAL ticket).
For most people, 90 to 100 mm FL is the best macro focal length for full frame, and 60mm is a good length for APS-C. Insect hunters may prefer 150 to 180 mm, or large insect hunters (butterflies and dragonflies) may even use the old 300mm f/4 L +/- 1.4x teleconverter or the new 100-400 f/variable L IS II.
I have the Canon 180mm f/3.5L, it is a heavy beast and needs tripod, monopod, or decent light + high ISO + excellent hand-held technique. Sometimes I use it with the 1.4 x teleconverter - great for shooting snakes, especially poisonous snakes. The thing is, I don't use this lens for much other than macro. If you want general purpose lens, go for the Canon 100 f/2.8 L macro, or if you are using APS-C and if you want to save money and get a good APS-C portrait lens, the Canon EF-S 60 mm f/2.8 . All macro lenses, even vintage film lenses adapted to EF mount, are pretty sharp. I have used an old AIS Nikkor 55mm f/3.5 (inherited) or an old Mamiya 60mm f/2.8 preset aperture film-era macro lens (my own lens from days of yore) as a just-in-case lens when I am doing serious gram-counting.
For increasing magnification on short focal length lenses, use extension rings, and cheap ones are fine - Kenko air has the same optical properties as Canon air.
For increasing magnification on long focal length lenses, use teleconverters.
For cheaper and more compact option at normal and telephoto lens focal lengths, a compound diopter screw-on lens is good. I have one I use for a fixed-lens compact camera.
Choice of macro lens depends on your choice of subject.
You will be unhappy if you do product photography indoors and get a 180mm macro lens. Your subject may be outside reaching distance. People who do product photography in the 1/4 to 1/2 x range often find a 50 to 100 mm lens the ticket. An old Canon 50 f/2.5 1:2 macro lens could be the ticket for a few full frame camera-using photographers. (Actually, the Zeiss 50mm f/2 would be the REAL ticket).
For most people, 90 to 100 mm FL is the best macro focal length for full frame, and 60mm is a good length for APS-C. Insect hunters may prefer 150 to 180 mm, or large insect hunters (butterflies and dragonflies) may even use the old 300mm f/4 L +/- 1.4x teleconverter or the new 100-400 f/variable L IS II.
I have the Canon 180mm f/3.5L, it is a heavy beast and needs tripod, monopod, or decent light + high ISO + excellent hand-held technique. Sometimes I use it with the 1.4 x teleconverter - great for shooting snakes, especially poisonous snakes. The thing is, I don't use this lens for much other than macro. If you want general purpose lens, go for the Canon 100 f/2.8 L macro, or if you are using APS-C and if you want to save money and get a good APS-C portrait lens, the Canon EF-S 60 mm f/2.8 . All macro lenses, even vintage film lenses adapted to EF mount, are pretty sharp. I have used an old AIS Nikkor 55mm f/3.5 (inherited) or an old Mamiya 60mm f/2.8 preset aperture film-era macro lens (my own lens from days of yore) as a just-in-case lens when I am doing serious gram-counting.
Upvote
0
Bennymiata
Canon Rumors Premium
I love macro too, and have the Canon ef-s 60mm (for my 70D and upcoming M5), the Canon 100mm L and the Sigma 150mm with OS.
For all around use, the 100mm is really the one I go to first.
The 60 is great on crop, but the 150 is only brought out on special occasions, as it is heavy to hand hold, yet gives spectacular results.
I also use Kenko extension rings on various lenses, and they work well too, but if you suddenly need infinite focussing, it's a hassle to pull them off when you don't want them. I've been experimenting with tubes and my new Tamron 85 1.8, and the photos of small flowers are gorgeous.
I also use the 100mm macro for portraits (before I got the Tamron), and it is also a good walk around lens.
If you can only have one macro lens, the 100mm L gets my vote.
Here's a photo of some very small flowers (about 10mm (1/2 inch) across, taken with my Tamron and a 12mm Kenko tube.
For all around use, the 100mm is really the one I go to first.
The 60 is great on crop, but the 150 is only brought out on special occasions, as it is heavy to hand hold, yet gives spectacular results.
I also use Kenko extension rings on various lenses, and they work well too, but if you suddenly need infinite focussing, it's a hassle to pull them off when you don't want them. I've been experimenting with tubes and my new Tamron 85 1.8, and the photos of small flowers are gorgeous.
I also use the 100mm macro for portraits (before I got the Tamron), and it is also a good walk around lens.
If you can only have one macro lens, the 100mm L gets my vote.
Here's a photo of some very small flowers (about 10mm (1/2 inch) across, taken with my Tamron and a 12mm Kenko tube.
Attachments
Upvote
0
+1neuroanatomist said:
When I can just bring 2 lenses, I'll take the 17-40 and the 100 macro. Really versatile and great IQ. No experience with the 180 here.
Upvote
0
Similar threads
