Buying my first MACRO lens

[pmjm]

Hey, I'm not one to discourage manual focus at all, just saying I would miss autofocus if it wasn't there. For live, fast-moving subjects it can make the difference between getting the shot and not. Also, if you want to use your macro lens as a portrait lens, AF will come in handy.

Another case of this-varies-based-on-what-you-use-it-for. Those who do mostly macro photography would probably prefer the extra stops some of these lenses have, especially once you start getting into extension tubes, magnifiers and such.

Personally I couldn't see myself buying a lens where AF wasn't an option. But I'm me, and you're not! ;D

 

[Mr Bean]

Canon 100mm IS works well for me. The IS and AF can be handy for flying subjects.

Horse fly hovering.....

 

[chrysoberyl]

I'm sure you will be happy; many folks have made that decision and appear quite happy. As for me, I haven't touched my 100L since I bought the Milvus 100 Makro.

John

The upside is that I seem to have scored the 100L for $331. That Milvus 100 is a hell of a lens, but don't you miss AF? Are you able to sneak up on insects with MF?

Yes, with patience. The first attached was taken with the Milvus 100. The second was taken with a Sigma 180 2.8, which I prefer for insects. Both are manual. I prefer to place the focus where I want it, rather than where the AF decides. Both subjects are known for their cooperative behavior - ha ha.

 

[chrysoberyl]

Whoops! Looks like my first image was deleted. Anyway, you get the idea.

 

[pmjm]

I just shot this in my back yard on an old Tamron SP 272E 90mm f/2.8 Di AF on my 5D Mk IV. I forgot what a decent lens it is, and it's cheap too. If you're shooting flowers or still subjects in a studio it could be a good choice if budget is an issue.

Stopped down to F11 and used autofocus. The loud, slow, whirring focus motor plus the extending lens frightened my subject for a second, but I'm pretty happy with how it came out.

 

[4mrfannwskptc]

I'm using the EF-S 60mm f/2.8 and I think it's a great lens. If you can get close enough to your subject. You have to be very patient if you want to take shots of beetles or lizards. The first picture below was taken with aperture F16 and 1/10 sec exposure time, the second one aperture F32 and 8(!) sec exposure time.

https://canon.ssl.cdn.sdlmedia.com/image/636089497153537241SI.jpg?height=650
https://canon.ssl.cdn.sdlmedia.com/image/636100735206352962GJ.jpg?height=650

In the same boat about to get a macro lens. Leaning towards the Canon 100L, also considering the brand new Tamaron 90mm 2.8 IS. Was wondering what effect do the regular extension tubes have on DOF? I will be using 5Diii.

 

[Zeidora]

Was wondering what effect do the regular extension tubes have on DOF? I will be using 5Diii.

DOF gets shallower with increased magnification at same effective f-stop. Easy to calculate with DOF formula. Note, that in macro, f-stop set on lens is smaller than the effective f-stop at sensor: f eff = f lens x (magnification +1). A few lenses correct for that on their own (e.g., micronikors); not sure about Canon macros, but don't think so. At any rate, the lenses certainly do not correct for it once you add extension tubes.

 

[NancyP]

Macro lenses tend to be rated excellent to fantastic for the close-up work. Other features that might come into consideration would be utility as a non-macro telephoto. If you like insects, you likely would go for a 100 mm or longer lens. You might also want to consider using flash. I like to shoot snakes and other herps - for the poisonous ones I am happy to have as much distance between me and it, so that it doesn't get nervous (then I am Outta There!). Do you expect to be shooting near/at 1:1 or at lower mag?

I started out using a 60D and 60mm f/2.8, a nice combo for flowers / general use short telephoto. 60 is also a good studio macro length - you don't want to be forced to park the camera in the next room. Sometimes at 1:1 the working distance was short enough that ambient lighting was somewhat of an issue. There's where supplemental flash comes in handy. You can pop the 60 in your pocket, it is light weight. Also, it balances well in the hand on a Rebel. I have been using one on a copy stand at work for about 6-7 years now. A do-it-all APS-C kit for nature photography could be 24mm f/2.8 for landscape, 60 for macro, and if you are into larger insects or birds, 300mm f/4 L IS (used) with option of 1.4x TC. 300 f/4 L IS is an old lens with hilariously loud IS, but it focuses to about 1:3, which is great for dragonflies, butterflies, etc. To some extent it has been overtaken by the 100-400 f/4-5.6L IS II which also focuses to 1:3 mag.

I got interested in insects and finally got the 180mm f/3.5L, very heavy hand-held, but you get used to it. I will say that it is now a somewhat outmoded lens, unless you get a great deal on a used lens. The new 150 and 180 Sigmas are very good. The 180 Sigma is a beast, comparable to the Canon 100-400 in size and weight. 150 balances well and is lighter.

There are some esoteric lenses out there that are fabulous for specialists but lack IS and autofocus (hence less useful for general telephoto). The Zeiss 50mm and 100mm and the Voigtlander 125mm come to mind. All are very expensive.

Don't get the MP-E 65 until you are quite experienced with macro and macro flash at 1:1 or less.

Macro lenses often come up on the used market. If you aren't sure this is for you, get the Canon 60mm f/2.8 at ~ $300.00 (used or less).

 

[chrysoberyl]

The new 150 and 180 Sigmas are very good. The 180 Sigma is a beast, comparable to the Canon 100-400 in size and weight.

Well-stated. The Sigma 180 is a brick - really! The AF is really only good for stationary or steadily moving subjects. But it is sharp.

 

[illadvisedhammer]

Lots of good advice and enough to convince anyone that there are few to no rules (like AF vs MF) that apply to everyone. Also, if you get into macro you won't use just one lens, and as your technique and tastes change you can sell and buy different lenses, so this isn't your last decision. I'll just chip in two things. First, for insects, flash may be as important as the lens, and will influence your lens choice. John Kimbler (dalantech, nocroppingzone) has a lot of very helpful posts on his various websites and forum posts on how flash is needed to freeze detail in insect portraits. I attach a picture, not that it's great but I took it today, with an M2, (an awful camera for macro, but it was the only way I could stuff the lens and flash in a small bag while taking children to the playground), and a macro twin flash. Money may be no object but budget for flash and diffusion, either ready made or home made. The second point is that short focal length has advantages as well. The lens on this shot was the EF-S 60, which is great because 1) sometimes fast AF is useful even at 1.5:1 and the MP-E 65 never gives that option 2) shorter focal length means flash duration can be shorter and can freeze detail 3) shorter length means that extension tubes give greater magnification effect [this was with 20mm extension, 37mm extension gets you to 2:1 on the 60 2.8]. I guess I don't have strong advice, except maybe go one price down, like a used 100 2.8 non-L and spend the rest on lighting.

 

[chrysoberyl]

Lots of good advice and enough to convince anyone that there are few to no rules (like AF vs MF) that apply to everyone. Also, if you get into macro you won't use just one lens, and as your technique and tastes change you can sell and buy different lenses, so this isn't your last decision. I'll just chip in two things. First, for insects, flash may be as important as the lens, and will influence your lens choice. John Kimbler (dalantech, nocroppingzone) has a lot of very helpful posts on his various websites and forum posts on how flash is needed to freeze detail in insect portraits. I attach a picture, not that it's great but I took it today, with an M2, (an awful camera for macro, but it was the only way I could stuff the lens and flash in a small bag while taking children to the playground), and a macro twin flash. Money may be no object but budget for flash and diffusion, either ready made or home made. The second point is that short focal length has advantages as well. The lens on this shot was the EF-S 60, which is great because 1) sometimes fast AF is useful even at 1.5:1 and the MP-E 65 never gives that option 2) shorter focal length means flash duration can be shorter and can freeze detail 3) shorter length means that extension tubes give greater magnification effect [this was with 20mm extension, 37mm extension gets you to 2:1 on the 60 2.8]. I guess I don't have strong advice, except maybe go one price down, like a used 100 2.8 non-L and spend the rest on lighting.

That shot speaks well for both the EF-S 60 and your technique. Mentioning Dalantech is also an excellent idea.

 

[LesC]

Been wondering about getting the EF100 F2.8L myself but it did come out in 2009 and the new Tamron gets good reviews, in fact a recent review I read in Digital Camera Magazine gave it a clear advantage over the Canon.

However that doesnt seem to be the case looking at the comparisons here: http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=1046&Camera=453&Sample=0&FLI=0&API=6&LensComp=674&CameraComp=453&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=0&APIComp=0 The Canon appears noticeably sharper here.

Think I'm veering towards the Canon. Always the chance of compatibility issues further down the line with non-Canon lenses too I guess.

 

[chrysoberyl]

Been wondering about getting the EF100 F2.8L myself but it did come out in 2009 and the new Tamron gets good reviews, in fact a recent review I read in Digital Camera Magazine gave it a clear advantage over the Canon.

However that doesnt seem to be the case looking at the comparisons here: http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=1046&Camera=453&Sample=0&FLI=0&API=6&LensComp=674&CameraComp=453&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=0&APIComp=0 The Canon appears noticeably sharper here.

Think I'm veering towards the Canon. Always the chance of compatibility issues further down the line with non-Canon lenses too I guess.

The 100L is a nice lens. Mine has become a paperweight since I got the Milvus 100 Makro, but that's because I like sharp a lot.

Please study other 100L reviews, especially at LensTip and Photozone. Some sites seem to lack objectivity, but these two are very objective.

 

[jeffa4444]

The Canon EF100mm 2.8L IS USM lens is one of my all time favourites. Great as a macro lens for insects and flowers etc. but equally a brilliant lens for portraits and as a regular 100mm.

 

[jolyonralph]

"me too" to the voices in support of the Canon 100mm 2.8L

super lens, not just for macro but for everything else.

 

[Ryananthony]

I recently purchased this the 100L. I love it. If your budget can afford it, I think it is the way to go. Like mentioned above, not even for macro (which it is obviously) but for general walk around if that focal length works for you. I just took it street shooting downtown Vancouver two days ago, and it was great. Focus is fast, and the option to focus close (non macro distances) can add a lot to a photograph.

 

[greger]

100L You will fall in love with it! You want a macro for shooting insects and flowers. It is a fantastic lens for these kind of shots. IS is great.