• 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.

    ------------------------------------------------------------

Which Macro Lens Would You Recommend?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Serious_Paul
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
S

Serious_Paul

Guest
Hello fellow Canon photographers,

I was looking to eventually purchase a Macro lens to add to the arsenal. Just wanted others' opinions on which one stands out among the rest, or is the most versatile. I'm looking for L glass only. Thanks for your help!
 
Well there aren't really many options, really just the 100mm and the 180mm f/3.5. I would strongly recommend the 100mm f/2.8L IS, and I'm sure everyone else would agree. Very versatile lens (works great for portraits), beautiful bokeh, and the hybrid IS works incredibly well. It's just a very fun lens overall.

Now if want really, really amazing optics, the Zeiss 100mm Makro f/2 is absolutely stunning. Incredible resolving power and the separation of subject from the background almost has a 3D-like effect. But at the same time it has no IS, no AF, and it costs 2x the Canon 100mm. Now that I write all that out it is kinda hard to justify the Zeiss, but if you're flushed with cash or shoot video primarily it's a good choice.
 
Upvote 0
For general purpose and versatility, the 100 L IS wins hands-down. The longer working distance of the 180L is an advantage for insects and other skittish subjects.

The least versatile, most challenging, but also most fun (IMO) is the MP-E 65mm 1-5x.
 
Upvote 0
Thanks for all your responses, everyone! Seems like the general consensus leans towards the 100mm 2.8L. I think that's the one I'll end up going with! Definitely looking forward to expanding my creativity with my photography once I add that baby to the arsenal. ;)
 
Upvote 0
I have a Sigma 105mm DG EX Macro and love it to death. Was able to capture this with my first shoot with the lens
http://i.imgur.com/aBj5D.jpg
Its a great lens, not the fastest auto focus but the lens only cost me $300 and for the quality of it, it is definitely more then worth it, it's like a nifty 50 and now almost always have it on my Canon T1i. It goes to 1:1 ratio and has a nice big 2.8 apature.
here is another pic I took with it.
http://i.imgur.com/2hzor.jpg
 
Upvote 0
say yourself some $, and get the Canon 100mm non-L.

its image quality is effing incredible. if the L image is any better it doesn't even matter at that point, there are plenty of other things much more important to worry about. also, IS is great in many situations, but it's useless in many macro situations. i take tons of macros handheld, and by far the most often cause of blur is the damn wind blowing the subject around, or the subject is moving (bugs). if you are going to be doing serious macros you're probably going to be using a tripod is which case there is no point for IS.

i know it has weather sealing and all that jazz, but if you don't NEED IS or weather sealing then seriously get the 100mm non-L. it is an incredible lens.
 
Upvote 0
My vote goes towards the Sigma 150mm, especially since it can be combined with a 2x converter. It's incredible how much detail a 2:1 macro combination captures:

technology_can_be_beautiful_ii_by_xwauforceflow-d3cl1ns.jpg


With the naked eye you can barely really tell that there is a wire connections, much less that it is two differentially colored wires intertwined. I really love that lens. Only bad thing working with the converter is that you loose AF even though it is a 5.6 aperture then. No idea why that is, but Sigma does state so in the manual...
 
Upvote 0
keithfullermusic said:
i know it has weather sealing and all that jazz, but if you don't NEED IS or weather sealing then seriously get the 100mm non-L. it is an incredible lens.

Indeed - the pictures of the 100 non-L are practically as good as the L at the apertures you'll use for macro (i.e. not f2.8) and you can pick it up very cheap used. So if you only need it for indoor macro work - IS dosn't help that much at 1:1 and you might use a tripod often - you can get this one, too.

But the missing sealing is really an issue I personally overlooked, and the aperture on my non-L now broke down twice due to dust/sand from shooting outdoors. I have switched to the L, but really the iq isn't that different.
 
Upvote 0
I have used both canon 100mm macro lenses. For strictly macro work the non L is more than enough, as others have stated the quality of the images is outstanding. 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...and I got a great deal on it too.. You can get the non L for less than $400 used, less than half the price of the L...Either way you go you win.
 
Upvote 0
imkev said:
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.
 
Upvote 0
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/#
 
Upvote 0
Marsu42 said:
imkev said:
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.
 
Upvote 0
Status
Not open for further replies.