Macro lens advice for Canon please

[John Chardine]

I've decided to add a macro lens to the kit. Would like it to double as a nice prime when not close focussing. I use Canon and have a 5D so cannot use EF-S. As far as I can see these are the options if I want to stick with Canon:

1. Canon EF 50mm f2.5 Compact Macro (not a true 1:1 macro but could be there the ext. tube or special extender)
2. Canon MP-E 65mm f2.8 1-5x (not sure if it focusses at infinity?)
3. Canon 100mm f2.8 Macro USM
4. Canon 180mm f3.5 L Macro USM

Not sure of what else it out there non-Canon that would be as good optically. Ideas?

Any advice would be greatly appreciated.

[William Malacarne]

I have the Canon 100 and it is a fine lens. If you are going to do lots of insects the 180mm will probably work better in that you will not have to be as close to the bug. Sometimes they scare easily. I have not used them but have heard many say that the Sigma and Tamron lenses for macro are just as good as the Canon.

Bill

[Julie Kenward]

John, I only own the 100mm but I can't tell you in words what a wonderful prime lens it is. It is not considered to be one of Canon's "L" lenses but almost every review written about it says it should be. It has beautiful clarity, sharpness, great bokeh...it's just a joy to own. I bought it because every photographer I knew that shot with Canon owned that as their main go-to macro lens.

If you want a walk-around lens you'll probably want to look at one of the other shorter macros but this lens let's you get right down into the world of macro and still takes beautiful regular images as a prime lens.

That's my two cents worth. If I could only have two lenses in my entire bag I'd own that one and the 70-200 f/4...hands down.

[Charles Glatzer]

John,

It all depends on what you want to shoot. The longer focal lengths provide greater working distance from subjects, easier lighting, and background isolation due to the narrower field of view. Many subjects like butterflies will not allow a close approach. Most use a 300mm f/4, with extension tubes and at times a 1.4x.

I would avoid the 50 and 100, going for the 180mm or the 65 if you want extreme close ups. FYI- Sigma makes a great 180 at a lower price point.

Chas

[denise ippolito]

John, I have the 100mm and it's very good but I think I would buy the Sigma 180 if I were to do it all over again-Roman K. swears by it and it is alot less $$.Also Mike Moats did a review on a lens in his forum that sounds pretty good-It depends on how much you are going to use it and what your $$ flow is.

[Chris Ober]

Hands-down - Get the 180 L

Oh, 65mm MP-E won't focus at infinity and it's manual focus only. If you want to get extreme close-ups and nothing else, this is the one to get. You'll have very little working distance.

[Ed Vatza]

John,

I shoot Canon and am a big fan of the L lenses. That said, both of my macro lens are Sigmas (70mm f/2.8 and 150mm f/2.8). Both are razor sharp, excellent lenses at good price points. FWIW, I use the 150 about 80% of he time.

If you want to stick with Canon, I would eliminate the 50 (only goes to 2:1); the 60 (its an EF-S lens) and the MPE-65 which is for ultra-macros (1:1 to 1). That leaves you with a choice between the 100 and 180.

[Chris Ober]

The tripod collar on the 180 is invaluable IMO. Switching to vertical shots is a major pain without it unless you use an L-bracket.

[Don Lacy]

John it depends on what you want to shoot if your Marco subjects are going to be static then I would recommend the Canon 100 or 180, I have the 100 and it also makes a great patriot lens plus it has a USM focusing motor which the 180 does not have. If your subjects are going to be more active and not allow you get within inches of them I would go with the 300f/4 IS plus extension tubes the extra working distance will make a world of difference in getting the image or watching them fly away.

[Alfred Forns]

John I will throw a curve ball here ..... why don't you consider the Sigma 150. Will perform as good as the 180 Canon and its lighter. The Sigma 180 is not close behind, another choice.

I'm on the Nikon side and the only non Nikon lens I use is the Sigma 150.

[Ed Vatza]

The tripod collar on the 180 is invaluable IMO. Switching to vertical shots is a major pain without it unless you use an L-bracket.

why don't you consider the Sigma 150.

As I said above, the Sigma 150 is the lens I use most often with my Canon bodies. And it also has that invaluable tripod collar that Chris speaks of.

[Ed Cordes]

I use the 100 f 2.8 macro for flowers and static macro. I do tend to scare bugs getting too close with it. For these subjects I used to use my 100-400 with extension tubes. Now I will use my new 300 f4 with extension tubes for butterflies, dragon flies etc. As was mentioned, it depends on what you want to shoot.

[Thomas Judd]

John,

You've received a number of good suggestions already. I'll add my 2 cents' worth. As others have stated, your decision should be based largely on what you think you might use the macro lens for the most (in terms of subject matter). As a commercial shooter for 25+ years, I have found the 100 f/2.8 mm macro to be the most useful focal length for subjects I am asked to photograph for my clients and also for my own personal shooting. It doubles as a great portrait lens on a full frame camera like your 5D (though my first choice for portraits is the 85 mm f/1.8). I find the 100 mm f/2.8 macro more useful all around than the 50 mm. You have a bit more "breathing room" when getting close to subjects. As for the longer macros, while excellent for certain uses, they are too long for many others. So once again, it comes down to what you think your use of the lens will be primarily. For me, the 100 f/2.8 is a nice "in between" focal length that I find handles a wide range of subjects quite well. I own and use the Canon version. It is a well made lens which is optically top notch. The equal of Canon "L" glass, in my opinion.

Tamron, Sigma and Tokina macro lenses may provide similar optical performance at a slightly lower cost. The Canon lens uses a nice quiet and fast USM motor for focusing.

Best of luck in your decision.

Tom

[John Chardine]

Many thanks for all the excellent (as usual) and practical advice.

I suppose I could use my 70-200 f4 L IS with extension tubes as a macro. However, although this is a very sharp lens, my understanding is that a prime macro lenses would provide even better results. Sounds like Canon 100/2.8 is a good candidate but I would like to try the Sigma. If anyone has a full-res image from the Sigma 150 that they think shows off the lens well, that would be very useful to receive my email. Address is:
chardine_at_ nbnet.nb.ca

[Jerry Clement]

As everyone else as said, it comes down to what you plan on shooting photos of. Over the years I have owned various macro lens and used them from time to time, but always seemed to come up wanting and did not realize why. After aquiring a 300 f4L lens for a different purpose, I discovered that I now owned the perfect lens for my macro work, which really was not macro photography, but was up close and personal photography of flying insects and what not. My Canon 300mm with a 25mm extension tube behind it gives me a very nice working range on - lets say dragonflies for example, that allows me to get great frame filling in flight shots without spooking the dragonfly. At other times I will use a combination of the 300 and various extension tubes or my 1.4 extender as well depending on the photography subject on hand. Just my thoughts on the subject.

Jerry

[Art Kornienko]

Hi John, I have owned the Sigma 150 2.8, the Canon 100 2.8 (which does focus fairly fast for a macro) and now use the Canon EFS 60 2.8 (which I know you can't use). Keep in mind that build quality comes into play and the Sigma 150 and 180 both come with a lens hood and tripod adapter both of which I believe are invaluable for macro work as you will find that a tripod will give you much better shots and you will get used to manual focusing too. The Canon 100 2.8 didn't have either one. Also, the longer the focal length, the nicer the bokeh. In all reality, they are all very good. I also use the 300 F4LIS bare or with a 1.4 for dragonflies and butterflies because you need more distance to subject as mentioned above for moving objects, again it depends on your uses. I think the Canon 100 2.8, although very good, is outdated in its design (I found it a little long too) and I don't think its the pick of the crop. The Canon 180 is heavy and overpriced and not optically the best of the bunch. I have no experience with Tamron. The Sigma 70 2.8 has terrible build quality and zooms in and out for focusing, although it is very sharp, one of the sharpest of the bunch (but the build and whinny focus motor). Internal rear focusing macro's, which don't move in and out, are better to acquire focus. I think the pick of the lot is the Sigma 150 2.8 for the price and it comes with a hood and tripod adapter, it has good build quality too. Makes a nice medium length tele too and can be used with a 1.4. But you have to find one that works well and and has no decentering focus problems which have been reported with this lens. It has been compared to the Canon 135 F2L in image quality, with the edge going to the 135 thats how good it is. They will all hunt for focus in reduced light, hence manual focus comes into play. The Canon 50 2.8 requires the adapter (outdated too) and the MPE 65 does not focus at infinity and is really designed for going past 1:1 where dof is so very narrow and would consider this a specialty lens. Good luck, and you may like the Canon 100 2.8 and it is a good lens, but like I said, they are all good and you are basically splitting hairs at times. Do check out the Sigma 150 2.8.

[c.w. moynihan]

I had the 100 2.8 and now have the 180L f/3.5. I disagree with the above post that the 180L is not optically the best available....The sigma 150 is very sharp too and is a viable alternative the the Canon 180L, however....

[Joe Milmoe]

I use the 100/2.8 and 300/4IS.

The 100 macro works very nicely with the kenko 300 DG 1.4x teleconverter, as well as the extension tubes.

For longer distance shooting, I always use the 300 + ext tubes - e.g. aquatic frogs, snakes, lizards, dragonflies, butterflies, flowers, etc.

This combo provides a very versatile setup for close range to mid-telephoto closeup shooting.

Just FYI: most macro lenses are very sharp, but the 180 is actually less sharp than the 100.

[James Prudente]

John,

The best buy for the money is the Sigma-150mm-f-2.8-EX-DG-HSM-Macro.

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/R...ns-Review.aspx

[Joe Milmoe]

The sigma lenses are indeed very high quality, as I've owned the 50 and 150mm lenses. However, I've found the sigma's do generally produce a warm / read -> yellow cast on the photos. It's just my personal taste, but I find that yellow cast to be highly undesirable with the canon colors. It is less noticeable / more favorable on the nikons.

[Joe Milmoe]

John,

To answer your question- 'optically' - the macro lenses (all focal lengths, even 3rd party lenses) are pretty stellar.

I make the recommendation for the 100mm based on it's versatility (longer lenses will preclude you from handholding) and ability to match with teleconverter(s)- many macro lenses often have odd shaped rear-elements.

here are four hand-held macro shots @ 100mm, subjects very different in size. sorry in advance for the colors...

[James Shadle]

John,
I use the Tamron 180mm 1:1 Macro.
It IMO is an outstanding piece of glass. Well built and very sharp.
Images I made with it were displayed as 20"x30" prints at last years PMA show. In the Tamron booth!
James

[Jonathan Michael Ashton]

You will get superb results with canon 100 and 180 you will get equally good results with sigma 150 and sigma 180. The latter are a lot cheaper but having handled both I prefer the canon 180mm. I own the old canon 100mm and the current 180mm. In terms of being a compromise lens you have a dilemma because compromises have to be weighted - do you need the lens primarily for close up and occasional use for landscape etc or is it the other way about. Since buying the 180mm I have rarely used the 100mm.


The Sigma 150 and 180 I have trialled and both are excellent optically and pleasant to use, the latter is considerably larger and it does provide a longer working distance but not a much as you might imagine because it has a larger lens hood than the 150mm. (The disatnce from subject to the front of the lens hood is not much different to that of the 150mm lens hood to subject - the distance from film plane to subject is.)
I found the Sigma 150mm plus the Sigma 1.4TC a very good working combination - quick and consistent AF. The Sigma 180mm does not consistently AF with the 1.4TC.

Having said that I bought Canon - mainly out of prejudice, having said that I prefer the finish and I think it will prove more durable, the UK price is a rip off but the results are superb and it will AF with the Canon 1.4TC so I don't need to duplicate systems and I have the longest focal length with AF combination. I find AF in macro invaluable - others do not - it depends upon your style.
All the lenses are excellent; from a bench test point of view the Sigma 150 is best, in practical terms I see no difference. In a nutshell VFM = Sigma 150mm, but nicest to use and own in my opinion is the Canon 180mm. If you intend to use more for general purpose than close macro then go for a Canon 100mm or a Tamron 90mm. Hope this helps.

Jon

[George Zanotti]

I have the Canon 100mm macro and have been pleased:





Z.

[George Zanotti]

These things are very small (but they sit really still!); against a CF card:

[John Chardine]

Many thanks for this. I am tending towards the 100mm.

[Jay Gould]

Focusing (no pun intended) on the two Canon macros - 100 & 180, my overall impression is that the 100 is a sharper better auto focusing lens. The downside to the 100 is that it doesn't have the working distance and a tripod collar.

Setting aside the tripod collar issue, what about using the 100 with the Canon 1.4? The 100 is smaller and lighter, and I am already carrying the 1.4 anyway.

Thanks,

[Jay Gould]

I use the 100/2.8 and 300/4IS.

The 100 macro works very nicely with the kenko 300 DG 1.4x teleconverter, as well as the extension tubes.

For longer distance shooting, I always use the 300 + ext tubes - e.g. aquatic frogs, snakes, lizards, dragonflies, butterflies, flowers, etc.

This combo provides a very versatile setup for close range to mid-telephoto closeup shooting.

Just FYI: most macro lenses are very sharp, but the 180 is actually less sharp than the 100.

Joe, do you have AF with the 1.4x teleconverter? Thanks,

[Jay Gould]

Those using the Sigma 150; the following was part of the review on the digital picture company site:

"...An optically great lens will not show its strength if it delivers an out of focus image. Unfortunately, I had a lot of mis-autofocused results from this lens - far more than could have been my fault. Sigma's internal HSM (Hypersonic Motor) autofocusing is very nice - quiet with FTM (Full Time Manual) focusing. But it is only moderately fast and it showed inconsistent accuracy in both one-shot and AI Servo AF modes. The Sigma 150 focuses even more slowly in low light. A 3-position focus limiter switch (seen above) helps with the speed issue - it prevents long distance hunting...."

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/R...ns-Review.aspx

Thanks; I had decided on the Canon 180 in part because of the convenience of the tripod collar; then I read this thread and more and more and more............:confused: :D