Macro Lense-If money were no object.

[Axilrod]

The Zeiss 100mm Macro is sick.

 

[Daniel Flather]

Canon needs to add the new HIS to the 180 macro. I have the 100 macro USM non-L, awesome lens, bought it and the new 100L was announced about a month later.

 

[Jettatore]

If for flowers and products go 100mm 2.8L IS if can afford it, it also doubles as an awesome non-macro prime with IS and has amazing quality. If for bugs, do exactly what this guy says, cheap and better suited according to everything I've read.

An Introduction to High-Magnification Macro Photography

Someone here a while back suggested something similar when I asked about putting the 100mm on ext tubes, told me to do what that guy above says to do, and I almost ignored the advice completely because of how bad I want the 100mm for it's variety of uses and amazing quality. But I'm glad I had time to think about it, because I am short on cash and my primary intent with macro is photographing insects ultra close, and for that the cheapo custom rigs are said to be much more effective according to all reports I've seen, unless possibly you can afford that MP-E thing + Flash and rail and so on. I will likely be back with first hand experience with a setup like the above in about a month give or take. So take everything I say here based on extensive reading and studying and ZERO first hand experience with macro photography.

 

[Quasimodo]

If for flowers and products go 100mm 2.8L IS if can afford it, it also doubles as an awesome non-macro prime with IS and has amazing quality. If for bugs, do exactly what this guy says, cheap and better suited according to everything I've read.

An Introduction to High-Magnification Macro Photography

Someone here a while back suggested something similar when I asked about putting the 100mm on ext tubes, told me to do what that guy above says to do, and I almost ignored the advice completely because of how bad I want the 100mm for it's variety of uses and amazing quality. But I'm glad I had time to think about it, because I am short on cash and my primary intent with macro is photographing insects ultra close, and for that the cheapo custom rigs are said to be much more effective according to all reports I've seen, unless possibly you can afford that MP-E thing + Flash and rail and so on. I will likely be back with first hand experience with a setup like the above in about a month give or take. So take everything I say here based on extensive reading and studying and ZERO first hand experience with macro photography.

Awsome video, and very inspirational. I would love to see your postings when you have them. I am borrowing the mp-e65 next week and I will have it for three weeks. I am sooooo looking forward to it

 

[D.Sim]

If you have the money, get the MPE65... might not be the most suitable lens for nature macro though...

if you wanted a lens you carry around with you as you trek, and can shoot outdoors handheld, and money was no object, I'd say get the 180mm for the reach outdoors, not as good as the 100mm, so since money is no object, get that too. =P

Also, a good tripod and macro rail. you might not get to use it a lot outdoors, but its useful to have especially when money isn't an issue

 

[prayharder]

I have the 100L macro and the MP-E 65.

You already have the 100 macro, but I do agree that the 100L is a great upgrade.

But if I could only have one for macro, I would get the MP-E, there just isn't anything else like it.

I use studio lights with mine or a cheap ring flash. I really should buy the twin flash, it's so much better.

Have fun shooting!

 

[Bennymiata]

Chack out the Sigma 150mm F2.8 Macro with OS.
I've got the Canon 60mmEF-S macro and have used the 100L, but the Sigma is just wonderful.

Sharper than the 100L, and the colours, contrast and bokeh are to die for.

With the OS, it works really well hand held too.