Macro Lenses.

[Dave Johnson]

I'm thinking of buying myself a macro lens and my first choice is Canon's 100mm F2.8 L. After giving it some thought I'm wondering if this will fit the bill of an 'all round' macro lens. My main subjects will be insects, small reptiles and amphibians and I'm wondering if I'll be able to get close enough without spooking the subject with this lens? Obviously a stealthy approach will make a difference, but should I be looking at a 180mm F3.5 L or perhaps a 300mm F4 L as I seen many people use this lens for dragonflies etc. I'd love to hear your thoughts on this matter before making a purchase and any help or advice will be warmly welcomed. Thank you all so much,

D Johnson.

[SteveYoung]

I have the 100mm F2.8 macro (non-L) and it's a fantastic lens but to really get good macro shots you still need to get pretty close, like 12". If you're planning on shooting living things that don't appreciate having their personal space invaded, you might want to look at a lens with longer working distance.

[Jonathan Ashton]

Dave, I have done quite a bit of research on macro lenses. Best value = Sigma 150mm and now there is an image stabilised version. The 180mm gives a tad more working distance but when you measure the distance from the lens hood to the subject there is little to choose between the 150 and 180. The 150 works well with the 1.4 sigma tc but the 180 only works partially.
I personally bought the Canon 180mm, built like a tank and still looks good after 4/5 years hard work, the sigmas will not look so smart after so much work but they are considerably cheaper and perform just as well if not (theoretically - 150mm) better.
I bought the canon becasue it is compatible with 1.4 and 2x tc.
Tokina and tamron also make decent macros, but I would go for Sigma or Canon, my advice if going for insects is go for the 150 or 180mm and unless there is a very good reason not to, always use a tripod and ideally mirror lock up and cable release.

[brian simpson]

Hi dave , I use the 300 f4 sometimes with 25mm ext tube for butterflys and (chasing small insects). But for flowers ,I use the non L 100mm 2.8,, on tripod,mup,remote release, etc,,

[Allen Sparks]

Dave, I have the Sigma 150 macro and the Canon 300 f4. I usually use both with 1.4x teleconverters. I find uses for both. The 300 f4 with TC is what I usually use to shoot dragonflies (full body) and other larger insects (butterflies) and I find the extra working distance can often help in getting shots of spooky subjects. I use the Sigma 150 macro with TC for shots of smaller insects like honeybees, smaller dragonflies and damselflies, and even head shots of approachable dragonflies. The 300 f4 won't get you as close to smaller subjects (i.e. ladybugs) but will give you more working distance for the larger subjects. For an initial purchase I think it just depends on what you think you will mainly be shooting.

[Mat Bingham]

I ahve a 300mm F4, sigma 180mm macro and Tamron 90mm. I have used all three at some point for photographing insects. My advice would be what you want to photograph will determine the lens. If you want say a butterfly or dragonfly with all is body wings etc. in the frame the 300mm F4 is excellent as you don have to get as close. If you want to take part of an insect or a smaller insect then you probably need a macro lens. I had a 90mm first then a 180mm. I find I rarely even take the 90mm now. I use either the 180mm or the 300mm F4 as they both throw the background out of focus better and you don have to get as close as with a 90mm. I don't know if Sigma still make the 180mm or if they only make the 150mm. In any case you may be able to pick up the 180mm second hand which is an excellent lens. Hope this helps

[fabiobernardino]

I am too considering a macro lens and I'm between Canon 100/2.8, 100/2.8L IS, Sigma 150/2.8 OS.
Each one have its own weak/strong points. It's interesting to point out that when you're 1x magnification the lens actually is at f5.6. No problem if you're on AE (autoexposure). This is from Canon 100/2.8 L IS user manual (page 9). I don't known if this happen with all macro lenses.
From what I've read I should go with the Sigma 150/2.8 OS.
Hope this helps.

[Dave Johnson]

Thank you all for taking the time out to reply and for sharing your personal experiences, it's very much appreciated. Lots of great advice and things to consider especially the Sigma 150 and 180. Will have a look at those for sure.

It seems there is no single lens in any field of photography to cover all situations unfortunately(?), so I'm going to have to buy at least two and I'll begin with either the Sigma 150 or 180, or the Canon 100 F2.8L + extenders for starters and look at a 300 F4 later which would double up nicely for bird in flight shots. Thanks once again.

Regards, D Johnson.

[Bill Jobes]

Dave, here's another vote for the Sigma 150. Its build quality is exceptional, and the IQ it produces is stunning. I upgraded from a Nikon 60mm, also a great lens, but the working distance was too close for tiny critters.

The great thing I've come to appreciate with the Sigma 150, is that when you're not shooting macro, it doubles as a fabulous medium telephoto. Again, the IQ is razor-sharp and bursting with colors.

[DickLudwig]

Dave, here's another vote for the Sigma 150. Its build quality is exceptional, and the IQ it produces is stunning. I upgraded from a Nikon 60mm, also a great lens, but the working distance was too close for tiny critters.

The great thing I've come to appreciate with the Sigma 150, is that when you're not shooting macro, it doubles as a fabulous medium telephoto. Again, the IQ is razor-sharp and bursting with colors.
I totally agree