# What macro lens to buy?



## ABbuggin (Jun 5, 2009)

Well, I've had my SLR camera for a few years now, but I've never bought a macro lens. I've been taking all my pics with a 55mil lens.  

My camera is a Cannon EOS Digital Rebel XT 350D

I was thinking somewhere in the 100mil range, but not sure. Any insight would be great.


----------



## PhilinYuma (Jun 5, 2009)

ABbuggin said:


> Well, I've had my SLR camera for a few years now, but I've never bought a macro lens. I've been taking all my pics with a 55mil lens.  My camera is a Cannon EOS Digital Rebel XT 350D
> 
> I was thinking somewhere in the 100mil range, but not sure. Any insight would be great.


I guess that it depends on how much macro you want and how much you want to pay. I gave my daughter the 50mm F2.5 macro a few years back. It's not really a true macro, since its greatest magnofication is 1:.5, but it's a nice lens at a good price ($250+).

For a true macro (1:1) I've heard good things about, but haven't used, the Canon 2.8 100mm macro, which costs about $450+ You can get a supplementary lens for the 50mm which ups the magnification to 1:1 (it doesn't work on the 100mm) but costs almost as much again as the 50mm lens.

Both of these lenses can be used as "normal" lenses that focus to infinity, which makes them very convenient for general and portrait use. Do be aware, though, that in practice, they are not as fast as their maximum F stop. You will get noticable vignetting on any lens like this when it is wide open, so you will most likely shooting at F5.6 -F8.

Let us know what you get and show us some pix!


----------



## ABbuggin (Jun 5, 2009)

PhilinYuma said:


> I guess that it depends on how much macro you want and how much you want to pay. I gave my daughter the 50mm F2.5 macro a few years back. It's not really a true macro, since its greatest magnofication is 1:.5, but it's a nice lens at a good price ($250+).For a true macro (1:1) I've heard good things about, but haven't used, the Canon 2.8 100mm macro, which costs about $450+ You can get a supplementary lens for the 50mm which ups the magnification to 1:1 (it doesn't work on the 100mm) but costs almost as much again as the 50mm lens.
> 
> Both of these lenses can be used as "normal" lenses that focus to infinity, which makes them very convenient for general and portrait use. Do be aware, though, that in practice, they are not as fast as their maximum F stop. You will get noticable vignetting on any lens like this when it is wide open, so you will most likely shooting at F5.6 -F8.
> 
> Let us know what you get and show us some pix!


Thanks for the info. I'm still in the research phase ATM, I got to sell a bunch of bugs first! :lol:


----------



## wuwu (Jun 5, 2009)

canon 100mm f/2.8 macro! runs around $400ish.


----------



## kamakiri (Jun 5, 2009)

wuwu said:


> canon 100mm f/2.8 macro! runs around $400ish.


Agreed! If you shoot Canon, this is the one macro to have.

Other good 3rd party options for Canon shooters are: the Sigma 105 and 150 macros, or the Tamron 90.

Don't get me started on 'alternative' mount options via adapter...  

Good luck choosing!


----------



## ABbuggin (Jun 6, 2009)

I'm leaning towards the cannon 100mil. Anything else I should consider while spending hundreds? LOL


----------



## Apocanaut (Jun 6, 2009)

You could try out some extension tubes. I bought a 68mm (total) set for my sony a350 and attached them to an 18-75 zoom lens and they get me as close as I've ever wanted to go. When I attach them to my 55mm F1.4 I get even closer, although the depth of field becomes more of a hassle. Plus it's a lot cheaper than buying a whole new lens.

EDIT: the brand of set I got is Kenko, from B&amp;H photo.


----------



## PhilinYuma (Jun 6, 2009)

Apocanaut said:


> You could try out some extension tubes. I bought a 68mm (total) set for my sony a350 and attached them to an 18-75 zoom lens and they get me as close as I've ever wanted to go. When I attach them to my 55mm F1.4 I get even closer, although the depth of field becomes more of a hassle. Plus it's a lot cheaper than buying a whole new lens.EDIT: the brand of set I got is Kenko, from B&amp;H photo.


If you used this setup for yr ghost pix, the results speak for themselves. Very nice!

There are a couple of problems, though. ABbuggin's lens, if it's like my daughter's, is 4 stops slower than yours, so there is a danger of getting inconveniently long exposure times with tubes unless you use flash, and that introduces a new set of problems.

Also, putting tubes on and taking them off again, can be a pain, unless you are much more patient than I.

From a photgraphic point of view, though, tubes and bellows have a huge advantage over adding a closeup lens to your existing one or even buying a dedicated macro lens in that no extra glass, and no extra distortion is added. I always used them myself, but that was because I was poor!


----------



## yeatzee (Jun 15, 2009)

I personally LOVE my sigma 105mm.... I use it for everything from mid-telephoto, to 1:1 or greater macro work.

As for the canon 100mm....where in the world did you guys find that lens for that cheap!!!?! Amazon is usually very cheap and they have it listed as $600....

http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B00004XOM...;pf_rd_i=507846


----------



## ABbuggin (Jun 15, 2009)

yeatzee said:


> I personally LOVE my sigma 105mm.... I use it for everything from mid-telephoto, to 1:1 or greater macro work. As for the canon 100mm....where in the world did you guys find that lens for that cheap!!!?! Amazon is usually very cheap and they have it listed as $600....
> 
> http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B00004XOM...;pf_rd_i=507846


I've seen a bunch of them (new) on ebay in the 400-500 range.


----------



## yeatzee (Jun 15, 2009)

ABbuggin said:


> I've seen a bunch of them (new) on ebay in the 400-500 range.


Ah...I see.

I personally would never buy anything *expensive* on ebay but if it works out to be what it says it is what a steal!

(but remember, there is almost always a catch.... people *usually* don't just sell stuff nearly 100-200 bucks off the normal price)


----------



## kamakiri (Jun 15, 2009)

yeatzee said:


> Ah...I see. I personally would never buy anything *expensive* on ebay but if it works out to be what it says it is what a steal!
> 
> (but remember, there is almost always a catch.... people *usually* don't just sell stuff nearly 100-200 bucks off the normal price)


I wouldn't buy new from *bay...There are better places to buy online:

B&amp;H Photo is my favorite...been there in person visiting NY and their retail shop is HUGE:

http://www.bhphotovideo.com/

I buy most of my new pro/wedding gear there. Not a single problem in 7 years of doing business with them.

100/2.8 macro is currently $490 w/ free shipping at the moment:

http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/1944..._USM_Macro.html

The sigma 105mm for $11 less at $479 shipped:

http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/3419...8_EX_Macro.html

Adorama and 47th St. Photo are also places I'd buy from is something I need is out of stock at B&amp;H.


----------



## Orin (Jun 18, 2009)

http://www.adorama.com/CNMSHD.html

I just paid for this thing though it may be going a bit smaller than what you're looking for. I'll know in a week or two if it was a wast of money.


----------



## kamakiri (Jun 18, 2009)

Orin said:


> http://www.adorama.com/CNMSHD.htmlI just paid for this thing though it may be going a bit smaller than what you're looking for. I'll know in a week or two if it was a wast of money.


Cool! Definitely post on your results/review!


----------



## Orin (Jun 24, 2009)

It's pretty neat but not nearly as good as what I was hoping for. There's no depth of field. Here's a 1mm large springtail.


----------



## ABbuggin (Jun 24, 2009)

Not too bad for $64.


----------



## jacksun (Jun 25, 2009)

There is a difference between an "import" canon lens and a "US" canon lens and that price difference reflects the "import" lens pricing. If it is import you will run into issues if you need warranty. I shoot Nikon and have been looking for a macro lens as well, the 105mm is what I am leaning towards.


----------



## kamakiri (Jun 25, 2009)

Thanks for the report!  depth of field does suffer without the ability to stop down...


----------

