Recomend a Macro lens for me.

[Nickcanada]

I'm casually thinking of buying a macro lens. Mostly for some product stuff I'm doing for a part supplier. Stuff like this...

http://i88.photobucket.com/albums/k162/nickandaline/IMG_9138-2.jpg

but also flower shots, ring shots, portraits. I guess I'm interested in everything except bug shots, because of that I'm thinking the 60mm 2.8 would be a good lens for me.

Are there any other lenses I should be thinking about? It's gotta have good CA suppression. I've been using my 85mm 1.8 with an extension tube but I'm getting sick of changing tubes and the CAs are pretty noticeable when shooting reflective stuff.

Anyhoo that should be all, Thanks. :)

[faisal]

Obviously the Sigma 50/70mm macro which have horrible focusing but great IQ. The 50mm is a bargain if bought second hand. The 50mm has better CA control compared to the 70mm and possibly the canon 60mm as well....

Everything else I think won't be advisable for product shots cause they'll be too long for a crop sensor.

My question for you is if you really need 1:1 magnification???

[Nickcanada]

Obviously the Sigma 50/70mm macro which have horrible focusing but great IQ. The 50mm is a bargain if bought second hand. The 50mm has better CA control compared to the 70mm and possibly the canon 60mm as well....

Everything else I think won't be advisable for product shots cause they'll be too long for a crop sensor.

My question for you is if you really need 1:1 magnification???

I don't know. I would think for ring shots and small flowers 1:1 would be useful but I don't really know. I just figured if I go for a macro I might as well go for a dedicated lens. What macro lenses are out there that aren't 1:1?

[cdifoto]

I don't think you really need 1:1 unless you're getting into small nuts & bolts and such. I have 1:3.5 on my 24-70 @ 70mm and can do a ring shot that covers 30% of the frame or better (click (http://i14.photobucket.com/albums/a304/cdifoto/wed/mull/2009-05-08-0600.jpg)). I don't see any point in NOT getting 1:1 though either when we're talking dedicated lenses.

The only one I can think off of the top of my head that isn't 1:1 is the Canon 50mm f/2.5. It's 1:2 but cheap. You need to get the ($$$) Life Size Converter EF to make it 1:1.

[Nickcanada]

I don't think you really need 1:1 unless you're getting into small nuts & bolts and such. I have 1:3.5 on my 24-70 @ 70mm and can do a ring shot that covers 30% of the frame or better (see below). I don't see any point in NOT getting 1:1 though either when we're talking dedicated lenses.

The only one I can think off of the top of my head that isn't 1:1 is the Canon 50mm f/2.5. It's 1:2 but cheap & you can get a filter (bleh) for it to make it 1:1.


Sweet, I think I'll stick with looking at a 1:1. I actually would like to take pictures of small mechanical parts. I see small stuff at work all the time that would be cool to shoot.

[faisal]

I agree with what cdifoto said and the canon 50mm f2.5 is crap. Better off spending the extra $$ for a 60mm. There aren't any prime lens with great macro capabilities. You can get zoom lens that have decent macro capabilities. I've heard the Sigma 24-70mm f2.8 has good macro capabilities and can be bought for mere $250 second hand.

But if you really want 1:1...you shouldn't look too far from the 60mm or the Sigma 50mm IMO. Both are optically great and you can't go much wrong with either. But I think you should wait for michael to put his opinion across as he's owns quite a few macro lens.

[FLiPMaRC]

How about the Canon MP-E 65mm f/2.8 1-5x Macro (http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/183199-USA/Canon_2540A002_Macro_Photo_MP_E_65mm.html)?

Samples: http://www.pbase.com/cameras/canon/mp_e65_28_macro



http://www.pbase.com/rotalbar/image/77137628/large.jpg (http://www.pbase.com/rotalbar/placa_base)

[Nickcanada]

I agree with what cdifoto said and the canon 50mm f2.5 is crap. Better off spending the extra $$ for a 60mm. There aren't any prime lens with great macro capabilities. You can get zoom lens that have decent macro capabilities. I've heard the Sigma 24-70mm f2.8 has good macro capabilities and can be bought for mere $250 second hand.

But if you really want 1:1...you shouldn't look too far from the 60mm or the Sigma 50mm IMO. Both are optically great and you can't go much wrong with either. But I think you should wait for michael to put his opinion across as he's owns quite a few macro lens.


Thanks Faisal! Yeah, I'm interested in what Michael has to say but I have a feeling he's going to suggest the 60mm. ;) but ya never know.

The Sigma 50mm is interesting considering the price! but I'm a bit of an AF snob and I think I might get frustrated with the sigma AF.... but for the price it might be worth putting up with.

I'm a little concerned about the purple fringing thing though. I don't know what to expect from the 60mm but I know Canon has a problem with making primes that don't do it. My 35mm and 85mm both do it and it's annoying, because I'm planing on taking pictures of shinny metal I want to make sure I don't have any problems with it.... The local store does have one in stock, maybe I'll try it out for a bit.... we all know how much I like buying and returning stuff! haha. :eek:

[cdifoto]

Fringing is usually a problem wide-open though. On macro you're stopped down as much as possible to get sufficient depth of field. By then, CA isn't really an issue on very many lenses. Have you tried your 35 and 85 at f/16?

[Nickcanada]

How about the Canon MP-E 65mm f/2.8 1-5x Macro (http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/183199-USA/Canon_2540A002_Macro_Photo_MP_E_65mm.html)?

Samples: http://www.pbase.com/cameras/canon/mp_e65_28_macro





Thanks for the suggestion, but the price just put that one out of mind for me. :D

That lens does greater magnification then 1:1 correct?

[FLiPMaRC]

Thanks for the suggestion, but the price just put that one out of mind for me. :D

That lens does greater magnification then 1:1 correct?
Yeah :o At this price, you really need to be serious about macro.

1:1 to 5:1 I think :)

[cdifoto]

Thanks for the suggestion, but the price just put that one out of mind for me. :D

That lens does greater magnification then 1:1 correct?

Yeah :o At this price, you really need to be serious about macro.

1:1 to 5:1 I think :)
Yep it goes up to 5:1 which is 5x the magnification of 1:1. It's also manual focus only. The MP-E is for hardcore macro shooters and/or those morons with more money than talent and brain combined.

[Nickcanada]

I noticed some purple fringing at 5.6 with the 85mm 1.8... not bad and only noticeable at 100% but I'm a loser and it bugs me especially because I'm not sure how much the guy is planning to crop the images.

so what does 1:1 actually mean?

[Nickcanada]

Yep it goes up to 5:1 which is 5x the magnification of 1:1. It's also manual focus only. The MP-E is for hardcore macro shooters and/or those morons with more money than talent and brain combined.

Oh, sorta like buying a 35mm 1.4 L for a cropped body when the sigma 30mm 1.4 does just as well for a fraction of the price?.... I've decided I must have the MP-E!!!! :D

[cdifoto]

1:1 means a centimeter of subject shows up as a centimeter on the sensor. That doesn't mean real life size. It means that a one centimeter object literally takes up 1 centimeter of the sensor. And since a full size sensor is only 3.5 cm (35mm) wide, that tiny object is taking up almost 1/3 of the frame.

[cdifoto]

Oh, sorta like buying a 35mm 1.4 L for a cropped body when the sigma 30mm 1.4 does just as well for a fraction of the price?.... I've decided I must have the MP-E!!!! :D
Yeah. Like that. :D :p

[faisal]

I think you can more than 1:1 magnification with a bunch of tubes on a macro lens....which again will be for a fraction of the MP-E lens....

[24Peter]

Well FWIW I've been testing the Sigma 70 macro all week and am keeping it. Yes there's some CA wide open on highlight transitions but it's much sharper and much better contrast than my 85 1.8 was at f2.8. As for the AF's issue, the 70 has been fine for product shots. The only time I noticed AF probs was when I was shooting @ 2.8 outdoors on normal - i.e., non macro - stuff. I wasn't using a lens hood (which comes with the lens) and every 4-5 shots I notice the lens would mis-focus if I 1/2 pressed the shutter button several times before taking the shot - as is my habit. I don't know if I settled on the first focus lock if those shots would have been OK. I need to practice more with the lens. But like I said on studio product shots at F8-16 the AF has been fine.

[Rhys]

I too use tubes and have tried Macro filters. On the whole, tubes get the job done but are a pain in the rear. Filters are nicer but optically not that sharp. A real macro lens is the best. Of all the macro lenses, I think the 100 is the most popular because it's long enough to use on full frame and light enough to handle easily. In terms of depth of field, no more can be said than it's the most popular lens for dental photography. Here's an example: http://www.dinecorp.com/product_info.php?cPath=1_2&products_id=45&osCsid=afcd7c7eeb86f13f1faf76009b240b31

[Nickcanada]

Well FWIW I've been testing the Sigma 70 macro all week and am keeping it. Yes there's some CA wide open on highlight transitions but it's much sharper and much better contrast than my 85 1.8 was at f2.8. As for the AF's issue, the 70 has been fine for product shots. The only time I noticed AF probs was when I was shooting @ 2.8 outdoors on normal - i.e., non macro - stuff. I wasn't using a lens hood (which comes with the lens) and every 4-5 shots I notice the lens would mis-focus if I 1/2 pressed the shutter button several times before taking the shot - as is my habit. I don't know if I settled on the first focus lock if those shots would have been OK. I need to practice more with the lens. But like I said on studio product shots at F8-16 the AF has been fine.

Hmm, looks interesting. What made you pick the 70mm over the other choices out there? I guess the AF isn't that big a deal... the purple fringing isn't really either. I'm just looking for a good value I guess.

[D Thompson]

I don't really do any macro work, but my brother likes the Canon ef 100 f2.8 Macro quite a bit. Canon ef 100 f2.8 Macro @ B&H (http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/194451-USA/Canon_4657A006_100mm_f_2_8_USM_Macro.html)

[AdamW]

The EF 100 ƒ2.8 Macro is my favorite lens.

[Csae]

Im still very dissapointed by the sudden price increase of macro lenses.

The 100 2.8 from canon went up from 550$ to about 730$ new in stores, same for the sigma 105 2.8, even the 70 macro from sigma is over 700.

There is no justifiable reason why these specific lenses increased in price so suddenly other then demand.

*Prices are in CAD from some of the bigger photo stores in my area.

[Rhys]

The 50mm Macro (half life size) looks pretty darned tasty. Other than that, the prices are all very much the same...

Canon 100 f2.8 $490
Sigma 70 f2.8 $510
Sigma 105 f2.8 $480
Tamron 90 f2.8 $460

Quite honestly I would not purchase a shorter macro and if I were to purchase a macro then it'd definitely be the Canon.

[Rooz]

The MP-E is for hardcore macro shooters and/or those morons with more money than talent and brain combined.

i wonder which one i am cos i used it and LOVED it. lol

Oh, sorta like buying a 35mm 1.4 L for a cropped body when the sigma 30mm 1.4 does just as well for a fraction of the price?.

oh please...chalk and cheese. how DARE you say that about my favourite lens. :mad::p

Hmm, looks interesting. What made you pick the 70mm over the other choices out there? I guess the AF isn't that big a deal... the purple fringing isn't really either. I'm just looking for a good value I guess.

Nick, if you are shooting bugs and or moving objects the sigma 150/2.8 is the best by far. it smokes the rest of em by a long way. on the cheaper side, the tammie 90 and siggie 105 are great contenders. i;d also seriously look at the brand new tamron 60/2 macro. being an f2 lens means you;re a stop in front already and it'd make a pretty cool portrait-ish lens aswell.

[Viky]

Nick, if you are shooting bugs and or moving objects the sigma 150/2.8 is the best by far. it smokes the rest of em by a long way

+1

I'm still spell bound with its sharpness and contrast:D

Check out my thread here (http://www.dcresource.com/forums/showthread.php?t=43381) for more details!

[laydros]

The Canon 50mm macro is considered very good, but it doesn't do anything very well. Doesn't do 1:1, isn't very fast, doesn't focus very quickly.

I think the best will either be the Canon EF-S 60mm macro, or the EF 100mm macro. People say the 60 fits in with the 17-55IS and the 10-22 as "L" glass without the red ring because it is EF-S. The 100mm gets great reviews as well.

Working distance is important with bugs, but if you are just shooting static objects that aren't scared of you, either would work.

dr4gon over in the Sony forum had the Tamron 90mm for a while, and it was just ok. He then bought the Sony 100mm and loved it. I don't know much about the Sigma, but I would lean away from that Tamron 90.

[adam75south]

for what you're talking about doing, i think the sigma 50mm would probably be your best bet. cheap but a great lens.

[Rhys]

Adam, I kinda-sorta agree. It sounds a good lens. Time will tell though. I have never had much luck with 3rd party lenses.

[24Peter]

Hmm, looks interesting. What made you pick the 70mm over the other choices out there? I guess the AF isn't that big a deal... the purple fringing isn't really either. I'm just looking for a good value I guess.

$389.95 - new US - http://www.photo4less.com/pd-productid-1897-k-sigma_270101_sigma_telephoto_70mm_f28_ex_dg_macro_ autofocus_lens_for_canon_eos.htm

I wanted a wider lens that could also do portraits and I could use when I go FF. The Tamron 90 is another choice, as is the Sigma 105 and Canon 100. I don't think you go wrong with any of these lenses.

[Nickcanada]

That 150mm 2.8 is freaking sharp eh! damn. I still like the Sigma 50 the most so far. Mostly because of the price and that I'm not planning on shooting bugs. I'm thinking of the 60mm too because I like Canon USM but it's more expensive.

[adam75south]

That 150mm 2.8 is freaking sharp eh! damn. I still like the Sigma 50 the most so far. Mostly because of the price and that I'm not planning on shooting bugs. I'm thinking of the 60mm too because I like Canon USM but it's more expensive.

if your live view mode on the 50d is like the 5d II, then it's sooooo easy to manual focus. you hit the zoom button twice in live view and do the manual focusing from there.

[cdr116]

I love my Canon 100 2.8 :)