Sidebar Sidebar
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.

Macro Lens Recommendation

shady825

shady825

macrumors 68000
Original poster
Oct 8, 2008
1,864
105
Area 51
I have a Canon Rebel and am looking to purchase a macro lens for bugs & flowers and things like that.. I really dont want to spend more than $500. Could anyone recommend a good macro lens in this price range?

Thanks in advance
 
EF-S 60mm Macro f/2.8

Money doesnt get you anything better! Perfect for Rebel series (specially made for the Rebels and only works with them {EF-S}). Very light and after crop factor you get the best Macro range of 96mm! Its also cheaper and lighter, more compact and the lesser focal length gives you more room for portraits (a speciality of Macro lenses) and less shake!

Its also amazingly sharp with very good and manageable DoF!
 
Canon 100mm f2.8

it's really an incredible lens, both for macro work and further working distances.

I hear the Tamron 90mm is also good and a little cheaper.
 
i just recently got a Tamron 90mm f2.8 macro for about 430$ CAD i think it was. and ive used it for a few things so far and quite happy. I feel totally worth it for the price.
 
shady825 said:
Im sorry Im new to this... Are you saying use the tubes with my stock lens? or a lens someone here is suggesting?
Click to expand...

If you have one of the 1.4 or 1.8 50mms, then with that, otherwise after getting one. As others have said, a macro lens is better for moving subjects, but tubes can be stacked and offer lots of options for a relatively inexpensive price.
 
this lens would only qualify as an option for you if you also had $500 budgeted for a telephoto, but... the Canon 180mm f/3.5 lens is really stunning - and not just as a macro lens. it's great for spiders, but i also find myself taking interesting non-macro shots with it. you can get one used at B&H for $1050 or new for $1240. i'd only recommend it if were a fiscally responsible thing for your situation, though.
 
shady825 said:
Im sorry Im new to this... Are you saying use the tubes with my stock lens? or a lens someone here is suggesting?
Click to expand...

Use an extension tube with any lens marked f1.8 or above! This is due to the fact that there is light loss in extension tubes and unless you use f1.8/1.4/1.2/1 you'll be in trouble with handholding!

The 50mm f1.8 ($80) and a manual (no info relayed from camera to lens or vice-versa so aperture cant be set neither the AF) e tube costing about as low as $5 and automated 25mm E Tube (Sold by Canon pretty expensive)!

So in the End.. dont bother much and save up for a real macro lens. Also... Tamrons and Sigmas are good but in Macro lenses you need sharpness (due to extreme thin DoF) and the Canons are the best at it!

^^Kakapo... the 180mm L Macro is one impressive lens but its really good for Full Frames. On a FOVCF with 1.6x, it translates to ~300mm which is probably too much to ask considering that on already thin Dof, a 180mm lens will cause enough handheld blur to make things unusable!

Besides its 1Kg+, long and the IQ is ditto, repeat DITTO as the 60mm and to some extent the 100mm! So why spend the extra bucks?

Feel free to differ!
 
compuwar said:
If you have one of the 1.4 or 1.8 50mms, then with that, otherwise after getting one. As others have said, a macro lens is better for moving subjects, but tubes can be stacked and offer lots of options for a relatively inexpensive price.
Click to expand...

Tubes are great for reducing the minimum focus distance, but they have their limits. I just got a set of 3 extension tubes (12, 20 and 36 mm), and only the 12mm is of any use for my 50mm f1.4. If I stack them, I'll either be right almost touching the object, or the focus point will be inside the lens, so there's no way you can get a focused shot.

I got the 100mm macro a year ago and I couldn't be happier. If you want some examples, check out my gallery, almost all pics were taken with that lens.
 
dllavaneras said:
I got the 100mm macro a year ago and I couldn't be happier. If you want some examples, check out my gallery, almost all pics were taken with that lens.
Click to expand...

Ok your gallery is amazing! Thats exactly the kind of pictures I want to be taking. So you are recommending the Canon 100mm 2.8?

Thanks a lot!
 
Yes, I'm definitely recommending it! :)

Keep in mind that you'll either need lots of light or a flash to light your subject. I use a Canon ring flash (MR-14EX).
 
dllavaneras said:
Yes, I'm definitely recommending it! :)

Keep in mind that you'll either need lots of light or a flash to light your subject. I use a Canon ring flash (MR-14EX).
Click to expand...

What camera are you using if you don't mind me asking?
 
I've used 3 macro lenses, all with exelent results...

(used on a 20D and a 1D Mark II)

1st one i had - Sigma 50mm 2.8 - exelent, but short...

2nd one i had - Tamron 90mm 2.8 - exelent, but also a bit short (only had it 'cause i won it on a photo competition)

3rd one, and the one i use - Sigma 150mm 2.8 - exelent and just the right focal length in my opinion
 
dllavaneras said:
Yes, I'm definitely recommending it! :)

Keep in mind that you'll either need lots of light or a flash to light your subject. I use a Canon ring flash (MR-14EX).
Click to expand...

Isnt the whole idea of the 100mm that you can be farther away? Therefor not needing a flash?

Another question I have is, this is a prime lens, I have NO experience with prime lenses. How far are you away from the subject when shooting those pictures in your gallery?
 
The vibration blur is independent of the "type of lens" and subject distance. It only and mostly depends on the focal length.
As a general rule, the more the focal length (60mm in case of EF-S 60 and 100mm in case EF 100mm) more pronounced the effects of camera shake and thus faster Shutter speeds are necessary (compromising the brightness of your photo)

For that reason my recommendations hang on the EF-S 60mm Macro. Canon designed this lens keeping your camera in mind. The lens has smaller focal length so people without big huge and expensive Macro rails and elinchrom octabank lights and bogen ball tripods, like you and me, can photograph with ease without blur. Also, your camera's smaller sensor size (APS-C) means even on 60mm the effective focal length will still be ~100mm (but since this is a sensor related matter, the blur will only be as pronounced as with a 60mm focal length).

Talking about light... Macro photography has one disadvantage: LACK OF LIGHT! Most of the time you yourself will be blocking away a lot of light. Secondly.. the lens being so close to a subject means far far less light enters the lens. All this means to make your photo bright you need a steady hand and ring flashes (The Canon ring flash cots around $600... yes you read that right) or a lens with smaller focal length!

NIKON: AF-S VR 105mm Micro f2.8
It uses Vibration Reduction (IS for Canoneers) so blur shouldnt be a problem!
 
I would not worry about vibration when using a macro lens, since the camera is on a tripod. VR, or IS helps reduce the movement of your shaking hands when you are holding the camera.

There are some zoom lenses that have macro capabilities, Sigma has such (70-300mm macro), which is macro only on 300mm. Such a lens at 300mm won't focus on a subject within 4' or so, while a 100mm lens such as the Canon EF 100mm f/2.8 Macro will focus within a few millimeters.

A shorter lens 50mm, 65mm, 100mm would be an excellent choice for getting the front glass real close to the subject, but quite often you may have to use a ring flash for true macro shots (like the eye of a dragonfly), but if you are using daylight to take close-ups of insects, you may not have to use the ring flash.

Ring flashes from Sigma and Canon cost from a little over $300.00 to over $500.00.

The folks in this forum have already answered any questions you may want to ask about macro photography. Just search for what you want to know (while there, take a look at Lord V.'s macros):
http://photography-on-the.net/forum/forumdisplay.php?f=38

I took these with a Sigma 70-300mm (macro at 300mm):
will.jpg

drop1.jpg

An this one with a 200mm Canon prime (not a macro lens) coupled to a 12mm Kenko tube:
BestLiliies081808d.jpg

Please notice the differences, since none of these photos are true macro, just close-ups. I also have and recommend a Canon 65mm or 100mm macro lens for "real" macro photography.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.
Top Bottom
Back