Which Macro Lens Would You Recommend?

[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...

 

[Loswr]

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

 

[bdunbar79]

I agree wholeheartedly that the 100mm and 180mm are the two best Canon macro lenses. I just wanted to add that if you ever buy the 50mm macro lens, that sucker is really sharp, especially in the center. I'd say at f/4 it competes heavily with the 50 f/1.2L and 50 f/1.8. Plus, it's cheap. Since I don't need 50mm at really wide apertures, that's my 50mm prime lens choice.

 

[Marsu42]

I just wanted to add that if you ever buy the 50mm macro lens, that sucker is really sharp, especially in the center.

I nearly bought the 50mm macro, but after trying it refrained from it because the "80's" noisy, non-usm af and build style. It's phased out by Canon btw, if you want it new you'll have to buy it now, but if you can live with the drawbacks it's a bargain.

 

[bdunbar79]

I just wanted to add that if you ever buy the 50mm macro lens, that sucker is really sharp, especially in the center.

I nearly bought the 50mm macro, but after trying it refrained from it because the "80's" noisy, non-usm af and build style. It's phased out by Canon btw, if you want it new you'll have to buy it now, but if you can live with the drawbacks it's a bargain.

Did you find that it focused slowly? Did you have any dependability issues? I read nightmares about AF quitting on the 50 f/1.4 but I really want that lens' image quality. Do you have experience with it? Thanks.

 

[Marsu42]

Did you find that it focused slowly? Did you have any dependability issues? I read nightmares about AF quitting on the 50 f/1.4 but I really want that lens' image quality. Do you have experience with it? Thanks.

I just read reviews and tried it in the shop. The micro usm of the 50/1.4 might be bad and due for replacement, but I just cannot live with the noise an old-school non-usm af produces, no matter what. Imho you shouldn't buy the macro as a prime replacement unless it's for a specific purpose, it's phased out for a reason or everybody would get it instead of the 50/1.4...

 

[bycostello]

love my 100L

 

[iaind]

love my 100L

Same here

 

[drjlo]

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

I personally think MPE-65 is incredible. 100L and 180 3.5 still can only do 1x mag.

I would kiss Canon if they released MPE type of macro lens that can focus from infinity to 5X magnification, WITH an actual focus ring, 4-stop IS, and longer focal length for longer macro working distance. It would be soooo sweet, and I'd be willing to let go of several L glass to get it ;D

 

[briansquibb]

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

I personally think MPE-65 is incredible. 100L and 180 3.5 still can only do 1x mag.

I would kiss Canon if they released MPE type of macro lens that can focus from infinity to 5X magnification, WITH an actual focus ring, 4-stop IS, and longer focal length for longer macro working distance. It would be soooo sweet, and I'd be willing to let go of several L glass to get it ;D

Except with a 2x converter on and on a crop body that is 3.2 equiv

 

[jd]

"I'm looking for L glass only."

Well, that certainly limits your options. Just buy the Canon 100L macro. I does go to 1:1 and the optics are seriously good. If you are really interested in a dedicated macro lens then I have a few other suggestions. The Canon 100L (which I own) has both AF and IS. Virtually all macro shooting is done with manual focus, shallow DOF and with a fixed mount such as a tripod. AF and IS are just not necessary. In fact, you'll have AF turned off for macro.

Here are a few other dedicated superlative macro lenses that you might consider: the Zeiss 100/2 makro, the Leica APO Elmarit100/2.8 R, and the Voigtlander APO-Lanthar 125/2.5 SL. The Leica and Voigtlander are no longer produced and will require an R to EOS adapter but they are legendary macro lenses. The Zeiss 100/2 makro-planar is maybe the best of the current Zeiss glass. I own one and prefer it to the Canon 100L. The primary drawback to the Zeiss is that it goes to 1:2 compared with Canon's 1:1. It's capability to go to f2 will produce wonderful bokeh. Of course, it's all manual all the time. (I'm primarily a Leica M shooter and have a 5D2 for macro and sports.) If you do consider the Zeiss 100/2 - take into consideration that the Canon mount (ZE) version does not have a manual aperture setting while the Nikon (ZF or ZF.2) does have a manual aperture adjustment ring. If you decide to use this lens on a mirrorless camera such as the Ricoh GXR / A12 combo you will want the ZF version. ZF mount lenses work just fine (without the electrical connection) on EOS cameras - but not the other way around. One more thing - I wouldn't bother with a 50 or 60mm macro lens. They put you too close to the subject. 100 to 180 is best. The 180L Canon has a great reputation but it's awfully cumbersome and heavy. The Zeiss or one of the R mount macros are worthy of consideration.

 

[jd]

One more thing: If you have a 5D2 you'll want to use the Eg-S micro prism focusing screen for macro - and maybe everything else. It's excellent and will give you exactly the focal plane you want with a shallow DOF that is typical with macro photography. If you have a 5d3 you are SOL because the focusing screen can't be changed on that camera. That's one of the reasons I didn't upgrade to the 5D3. With all of that shallow DOF you will get to learn about all kinds of cool stuff like focus stacking. It's a whole new macro world!