Macro lens

chewed

Hi there.

I'm looking to buy a macro lens for my Canon 50d. My budget is around €500.

I would be using it mainly for close ups of flowers/insects.

Can anyone recommend what/where to buy?

bernard0368

You Could look at the following.
Tamron 90, This is a cracking little lens for the price
sigma 105mm, Has good reviews but never used it
Canon 100, this is a tack sharp lens and very highly rated and you should get within your budget

Fatscally

if you already have another lens like the 70-200L then you should just buy the 500d close up adapter glass that screws on the front.

http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/87503-REG/Canon_2824A002.html

chewed

Thanks for the info guys.

Heebie

I wouldn't go with the adapter glass that goes on the front of the lens.. it's not going to give you the same sharpness level that you'll get with a true macro lens. If you're not as fussy as me, or you're just starting out & want to spend as little as possible.. you'll be able to get a feel for how to do macro work.. but you'll probably end up disappointed with the quality.

One thing that might be more useful.. if you already have a nice lens or two or five.. is an extension tube. An extension tube can reduce the minimum focusing distance of a lens by moving it further away from the camera body.. so if you have a lens with a minimum focusing distance of a metre, you can generally get to 1/2 metre with one. (They're usually the right length to halve the minimum focusing distance..although you can get them at different lengths and stack them.) Because they are NOT optic, they don't make nearly as much difference in the resolving power as putting other pieces of glass in the mix do.

If you go someplace and ask for something like this, if someone is inexperienced.. they might mistake it for a tele adaptor.. they look almost the same.. except an extension tube has no glass in it.. and a tele adaptor does.

A good tele adaptor or extension tube should pass through any information the lens gives to the auto-focus & auto-exposure system in the camera. (really good ones probably adjust it for the difference.)

joconnell

A co worker has the canon 100mm macro and shoots this type of stuff:



The extension tubes are fine but for close up stuff most lenses have a minimum focus of between 0.6 - 1 metre - halving that means you're still look at between 1 and 1.5 feet as your limit - better off getting the true macro and be done with it. It's a great portrait lens too.

Heebie

I can't disagree with you on those counts.. but an extension tube is probably a better compromise to make than a macro adapter. It's still really cheap, and is likely to give you a sharper image. One thing I liked about my Fuji bridge camera was it's super-macro mode. It could focus down to 2.5cm from the lens.

joconnell wrote: »

The extension tubes are fine but for close up stuff most lenses have a minimum focus of between 0.6 - 1 metre - halving that means you're still look at between 1 and 1.5 feet as your limit - better off getting the true macro and be done with it. It's a great portrait lens too.

Fatscally

Heebie wrote: »

I wouldn't go with the adapter glass that goes on the front of the lens.. it's not going to give you the same sharpness level that you'll get with a true macro lens.

I'm gonna have to fully disagree with that.
I bought the Canon 100mm Macro lens for about €500 expecting something awesome and only put it back up on eBay a week or two later. Why?... Because the 70-200mm L IS with the 500D is way better.
Extension tubes are a great cheap way to get started too.

Here's a photo from a 70-200L with the 500D adapter resized from about 2278px to 600px.

PCPhoto

Fatscally wrote: »

I'm gonna have to fully disagree with that.
I bought the Canon 100mm Macro lens for about €500 expecting something awesome and only put it back up on eBay a week or two later. Why?... Because the 70-200mm L IS with the 500D is way better.
Extension tubes are a great cheap way to get started too.

Here's a photo from a 70-200L with the 500D adapter resized from about 2278px to 600px.

sorry to be bursting your bubble here - but the pic you put up isn't sharp !!

I have used the following:
Sigma 50mm macro.... meh...did the job
Canon 50mm macro .... meh ...did the job
Canon 100mm macro (non USM).... did the job
Canon 100mm macro USM ... did the job
Canon 180mm macro .... did the job
Canon MP-E65 ..... did the job.

the 180mm macro and mp-E65 would be the best - the MP-E65 is a manual focus lens and probably not suitable for insect or flower work...unless you do it indoors.

if you want extreme close ups of the faces or part of a body of dead insects or detail in flower petals ...the mp-E65 is for you - a macro flash is a must for this lens and recommended.

I would recommend a macro flash for any of the lenses (although the macro flash doesn't attach properly to the sigma lens)....you should be able to find a 100mm macro for less than €500.

oshead

PCPhoto wrote: »

sorry to be bursting your bubble here - but the pic you put up isn't sharp !!

I have used the following:
Sigma 50mm macro.... meh...did the job
Canon 50mm macro .... meh ...did the job
Canon 100mm macro (non USM).... did the job
Canon 100mm macro USM ... did the job
Canon 180mm macro .... did the job
Canon MP-E65 ..... did the job.

the 180mm macro and mp-E65 would be the best - the MP-E65 is a manual focus lens and probably not suitable for insect or flower work...unless you do it indoors.

if you want extreme close ups of the faces or part of a body of dead insects or detail in flower petals ...the mp-E65 is for you - a macro flash is a must for this lens and recommended.

I would recommend a macro flash for any of the lenses (although the macro flash doesn't attach properly to the sigma lens)....you should be able to find a 100mm macro for less than €500.

And while were bursting bubbles I have to disagree with you regarding the MP-E65. It's perfectly suitable for insect work. In-fact, no better lense.

AnimalRights

For the OP's budget the Canon 100mm 2.8 non IS is perfect, it also doubles up as a great portrait lens.

Fatscally

PCPhoto wrote: »

sorry to be bursting your bubble here - but the pic you put up isn't sharp !!

Burst your own bubble PCPhoto the image is razor sharp on the match head. With the resize, web compression and the small dof it's not very clear here but you can still see the dimples on the match head.

AnimalRights

http://pix.ie/fatscally/1802334/size/0

That is the biggest size I could find on your Match, if you're going to do that type of picture you should have the original original size!!

and look at her eye
http://pix.ie/punkrock/1619777/size/0

thefly

PCPhoto wrote: »

sorry to be bursting your bubble here - but the pic you put up isn't sharp !!

I have used the following:
Sigma 50mm macro.... meh...did the job
Canon 50mm macro .... meh ...did the job
Canon 100mm macro (non USM).... did the job
Canon 100mm macro USM ... did the job
Canon 180mm macro .... did the job
Canon MP-E65 ..... did the job.

the 180mm macro and mp-E65 would be the best - the MP-E65 is a manual focus lens and probably not suitable for insect or flower work...unless you do it indoors.

if you want extreme close ups of the faces or part of a body of dead insects or detail in flower petals ...the mp-E65 is for you - a macro flash is a must for this lens and recommended.

I would recommend a macro flash for any of the lenses (although the macro flash doesn't attach properly to the sigma lens)....you should be able to find a 100mm macro for less than €500.

Talk about extinguishing the flame

the_monkey

is the canon 100 an EF or EF-S lens ?

Diabhal_Glas

the_monkey wrote: »

is the canon 100 an EF or EF-S lens ?

Here you go

the_monkey

Diabhal_Glas wrote: »

Here you go

Thanks , but no need to be ****ing nerdy about it ... jesus

Diabhal_Glas

the_monkey wrote: »

Thanks , but no need to be ****ing nerdy about it ... jesus

Your welcome Monkey, I didn't mean to offend you (It seems I have).

the_monkey

Diabhal_Glas wrote: »

Your welcome Monkey, I didn't mean to offend you (It seems I have).

Please people .. This is not AH ...

LEts be civil here !!! I hate these SARKY answers, it would take less time to say "YEs it's an EF Lens " or "NO it's an EF_S lens"

I understand that it could be less time for me to search in google as well,
but when this is your last moment surfing and you are pressed for time, it may be quicker to just type the q in boards rather then google it.


I mean this isn't your inbox, i am not spamming you with crap.


If i see a q on boards, even if i think its a "1st hit google" type q , i answer it , this is what we are here for, a community of people with a similar interest that shares info.


Just go http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/forumdisplay.php?f=7

and look at the CRAP posted, please lets keep this crap from the photography forum.