 Jodi-Ann Jones |
Which Macro Lens? I'm interested in investing in a macro lens. I have a canon 50D. Which lens is recommended and why? How are macro lenses different from regular lenses? Just to make sure I'm investing in the right type of lens! Many thanks Jodi Jones
|
|
|
|
||
|
Patricia Seidler |
If you have the money I would get the Canon 100mm f2.8 with the image stabilizer Jodi-Ann. I have the Canon 50D and that's the one I want to get.
|
|
|
|
||
|
Monnie Ryan |
I've got the Canon EF100 f/2.8 lens, although it's too old to have IS like the newer one does. It's about $560 at Amazon.com compared to the one with IS, which is $969 (which of course I'd love to have also, but it's just too pricey). I also use mine as a telephoto lens on occasion and it works quite well. I wouldn't part with mine for the world, and I'm sure the IS version is much better still.
|
|
|
|
||
|
Lynn R. Powers |
Jodi, "RECOMMENDED" Canon 100mm f2.8 Macro "WHY" "DIFFERENCES" You will also need a good STURDY tripod and a cable release. If the 50D has live view you may find it easier to use for composing your photo but manual focus through the viewfinder. Beware! Zoom lenses marked with "Macro" are not true macro lenses. They do not allow 1:1 images on the sensor. The best they will do varies from 1:3 - 1:5. That translates to 1/3 - 1/5 life size. BP has courses on macro photography which I suggest you take to help the learning process.
|
|
|
|
||
- Carlton Ward Contact Carlton Ward Carlton Ward's Gallery |
Hi Jodi-Ann, I recently sold my Canon 100mm f/2.8 macro lens as I want to get the Canon 180mm f/3.5L macro lens so I don't have to crawl on the ground so much (kidding) - I just want a little more reach. I also have a ringlight and as Lynn noted - tripods are a must :) I think most all macro lenses are of high quality as far as the Canon 60mm, 100mm or 180mm are concerned. my .02.
|
|
|
|
||
|
Jodi-Ann Jones |
Thank you Lynn, Patricia, Monnie and Carlton. I really appreciate this guidance, and I now know what to buy without question. While comparing prices I came across the Canon EF 100mm F/2.8 L IS USM lens. I read a review where it was compared to the Canon 100mm F2.8 USM lens. Price is obvious, but I would be keen to hear your opinions further before I take the final plunge. Lynn, the course on macro photography is on my list this year so when I have my lens, I hope to get going! Thank everyone.
|
|
|
|
||
lesliemorrisphotography.com - Leslie J. Morris Contact Leslie J. Morris Leslie J. Morris's Gallery |
I have the 100mm f/2.8 older non IS version. I just love it. I have used it for portraits as well and it takes great images. Most of the time for macro images, I use a tripod so the IS is not a real issue for me. But, if I were in the market today for this lens, I would be very tempted by the IS version because you could use it in other applications as well. Good luck with your decision!
|
|
|
|
||
|
Edward J. Vatza |
I just caught this on the newsletter and wanted to throw in my two cents worth. I shoot Canon (5D2; 50D; 30D) and have mostly Canon L glass. But for macro, I went with Sigma. I have the Sigma 150mm f/2.8 macro lens and love it. Truth be told, most macro lenses are very sharp. And that goes for Sigma in spades. (I actually also have a Sigma 70mm macro and it too is razor sharp.) I use the 150 more because it has a better/longer working distance. And the Sigmas, Tamrons actually cost less. All I am saying is you don't have to limit yourself to Canon macro lenses.
|
|
|
|
||
|
Irwin Lightstone |
I would choose between two lenses depending upon the reach I needed: the Canon 100mm IS, and the Sigma 150mm. I love the IS in the Canon 100. While I usually shot with a tripod, there are some times when it is impossible. My experience with the IS at 1:1 is that I works well, particularly where you can get a good brace. It will not get you the 3-4 stop that current IS will get you with non macro. But it will get you a stop or so which may be the difference between getting the picture or not. I love the reach of the Sigma 150mm. As a f/2.8 it is faster than the Canon 180mm 3.5 and it is much lighter. Both lenses are crystaline sharp.
|
|
|
|
||
|
Steve D. Telchin |
Jodi, I have been using the basic Canon 100mm lens for some time with excellent results. I also use the Kenco extension tubes to really fill the frame. The most significant item added to my Macro Arsenal is the Canon ring light. I use the single ring light. Now I capture perfectly clear macro images hand held. Yes. Hand held. You can also add estension tubes and hand hold the camera and flash. Start at an ISO of 100 with F 22 and 1/250th of a second and adjust from there. This opens a whole new world of macro photography without the need for the tripod all the time. The only negative is that you do get a bit of that flashy look. You can adjust the flash compensation or play around with the aperature...You also may have to do a little cloning in Photoshop to get rid of the highlights but in my opinion it is worth it.Hope this is useful. Steve Telchin
|
|
|
|
||
|
Bunny Snow |
When my much love 100mm f2.8 macro was identified as the cause on a error 99 problem, in my camera, I bought the new Canon 100mm f2.8 L macro with I.S. I rarely use the image stabilization as my preference is to get the most from each lens on a tripod. But, for what I was paying extra, is the excellent sharpness and clarity of the low dispersion glass. In my mind, the I.S. is just icing on the cake if for some reason I don't have my tripod with me or careful focus is less necessary. With my aging eyes, I need all the help I can get and this "L" lens makes a world of difference. My new 50D has many attributes but the new 100mm f2.8 L lens makes everything sharper where sharp detail is required or desired.
|
|
|
|
||
|
Nancy Marie Ricketts |
I, too, have the Canon 100mm F/2.8L IS USM lens. I get great clear shots with it without additional light, but I am thinking (for the future when I can afford it), to get the ringlight, which will open up even more possibilities. I use it for portrait photography and it is an awsome lens in that category.
|
|
|
|
||
- Dennis Flanagan Contact Dennis Flanagan Dennis Flanagan's Gallery |
If you're wanting it exclusively for macro work, you don't need the IS feature. You'll be working from a tripod and need to shut the IS off.
|
|
|
|
||
|
Bunny Snow |
If you purchase a ring lite, keep this in mind. The lesser expensive ring lite, Canon MR-14EX TTL Macro Ring Lite Flash, was developed for dental photography. It gives nice even lighting, although you can and I often use the available lighting ratios. My husband, basically a point-and-shoot on-the-run photographer, pushed me this way because he didn't think I needed to spend more money, but the better ring light is the Canon MT-24EX Macro Twin Lite Ringlite Flash. B&H PhotoVideo.com is where I purchase my equipment and has a good write up on the two pieces of equipment.
|
|
|
|
||
|
Bunny Snow |
The beauty of the 100mm macro is that used full, it is a nice portrait lens. The older version, not being of low dispersion glass, is a tad softer than the newest version. So, it's more flattering for women's faces. I absolutely loved that lens, before it died!!! The fast f/stop allowed me to throw out the backgrounds with portraits or macro work. It's just so different than primes or zooms that claim they have macro cability, but don't really. I bought the newer lens, the Canon 100mm f2.8L (low dispersion), Image Stablization when my first lens needed to be sent off for repair and I was in the middle of a class. But, I must say, although it is slightly different, that for what I capture, I like it better. There is nothing wrong with the older version, except that it is not low dispersion glass and does not have Image Stabilization, which you may want. The settings are also slightly different. And, because it does not have IS or low dispersion glass, it is lighter. When I changed to Canon technology from Nikon, I already had been a film photographer for 35 years, and basically knew which lenses I wanted. My change of technology was for other reasons. Hence, for me, it was simply a matter of cost and availability. There was no 100mm f2.8L lens in 2004. So, I bought the non-IS, non-low dispersion glass version. But, my first short zoom with Canon was the 70-200mm f4L. It was relatively inexpensive and sharp. I learned from the BP community that it was sharp because of the low dispersion glass, which made it a sought after lens. As I could afford it, I bought all L lenses for the lenses that were in my price range. They are that good! The only lens I still have that is not "L" is the 28-135mm, which I seldom use anymore. But, it was bought for other reasons, notably it's light weight and that I could only take one lens to China, and that needed to be light weight. Heavier tripods were out of the question. Hope this helps.
|
|
|
|
||
|
Jodi-Ann Jones |
Hi Everyone, I cannot thank you enough for all the information and world of experience you have all shared with me regarding my inquiry. Today, a friend arrived from the States with my new EF100mm f/2.8L Macro IS USM lens, and I am over the moon. Can't wait for tomorrow to get out there and shoot! All input was much much appreciated. Thanks.
|
|
|
|
||
|
Lynn R. Powers |
Congratulations!! You are going to be very happy with this lens. Especially after you take the Macro course. Remember to turn the IS off when doing macros. We are going to want to see photos so don't forget us.
|
|
|
|
||
|
Jodi-Ann Jones |
Thank you Lynn, but now another question. You mention again, what some of the other folk did - which is that the IS feature should be turned off when using a tripod. I can guess at the reason, but would prefer an expert to better educate me!! Please would you further explain this? Many thanks Jodi
|
|
|
|
||
|
Lynn R. Powers |
Jodi, I am a very long way from being an expert on anything let alone macro photography. I only used mine for close up photographs not macro of 1:1 or even 1:3 but as a short telephoto. I lack the patience needed for macro. My knowledge comes from true macro photographers that have used many kinds of macro lenses including the Canon MP-E 65mm and their observations. For macro shooting you should use manual focusing. The IS is not capable of determining micro movements of the tripod and if it is on it may try to refocus your photo. This can mess up your photo even when hand holding at macro distances. Earlier Canon , as well as Nikon and the others that had IS or the their equivalent, recommended to turn off the IS when the camera was mounted on a tripod even with longer normal and telephoto lenses. The IS would end up searching the proper focus and the photos ended up blurry. Remember that you may not have the subject composed in the exact center of your frame. Canon seems to have corrected problem with the longer lenses but most macro photographers have found it rather useless. Now take a photo hand held of someones eye from three feet away and it works well. Besides it saves on battery power. :-)
|
|
|
|
||
|
Robert Jensen |
I would recommend the cheaper, non-IS version of the Canon 100 macro. Ken Rockwell said it is the sharpest macro. I have it and can attest to the sharpness. I was also using the Nikon 105 and Nikon 200 micro lenses on my EOS body, but recently sold those. If you are using a tripod, then the IS is completely unneccessary. If you need more reeach, get the Kenko auto extension tubes. You can get the 100 macro, plus the extension tubes plus a Kirk FR-1 macro focusing rail, all for less than the cost of the L series lens.
|
|
|
|
||
|
Lynn R. Powers |
A friend tried the new L version and decided to keep his original non IS version. He uses his for macro ONLY. The only major difference are IS which is useless @ macro distances, weather sealing and a tweaking of the lens, ergo the price difference. Some others have found a "tad" better sharpening. The difference was unnoticeable by my friend. As for KR, wait three months and he will have a different opinion. Read his Blog with a handful of salt handy because a grain will not be enough.
|
|
|
|
||
|
Robert Jensen |
I understand what you say about KR. I disagree with a lot of what he has to say when it comes to personal opinions. But, when it comes to real world testing of sharpness, he is right on regarding both the Canon 100 and Nikkor 200 - I have used both of those lenses and they are tack sharp.
|
|
|
|
||
|
This old forum is now archived. Use improved Forum here
Report this Thread |
||