Which macro lens.

Logie-1

Do you have a macro lens?

What do you think of it?

If you would like to upgrade, what would you go for next?

I have a Tamron 70-300, I think its just ok, I don't seem to be able to get as close to the subject as some of the posters on Boards, plus its not as sharp.

Another question is- does full frame make a big difference?

m5ex9oqjawdg2i

I have a Canon 100mm L series lens. It's bloody awesome, although costly. I am not a pro or anything, but I wanted a really good quality lens. The alternative is the 100mm normal series lens which comes in a lot cheaper, but it's still fantastic. I wouldn't upgrade my lens, I don't think I can really.

Any of those zooms with "macro" functions don't compare to a true macro lens. Could you rent one out maybe and see if you like it?

bernard0368

I can speak for two lens, The Tamron 90 and the Canon 100L.

The Tamron is a cheap lens but produces great images. The focus was accurate but could be slow. Images are sharp The large focusing ring is something I liked. Value wise this is a great little lens.

The Canon well it is an L and it has IS. I just love this lens tack sharp the IS gives you a fighting chance with out a tripod. It is expensive though.

There are others, I have never used that are worth considering.

The Canon 100, and the Sigma 105. Both very highly rated lens.

Logie-1

Thanks guys.

I use Nikon, but I found your replays very helpful. Your not kidding when you say that the Canon 100L is a bit expensive:)

The Sigma 105mm f/2.8 and the Tamron 90 has got some great reviews and at nearly half the price;)

colblimp

I'm a Nikon shooter and use the Tamron 90mm (the old version without VC) for my macro stuff. At the moment, there's no need for me to upgrade to the Nikon 105mm, although I may in the future. The Tamron does the job and does it well.

In terms of full frame, I'm a full time pro and it's essential for me, although if I was an amateur, I'd still use full frame. Full frame makes a huge difference in terms of ease and quickness of use and the size of the viewfinder and of course, the sensor. With all that said, good glass is where it's at. You're better off using pro glass on a cheap body than vice versa.

IHPhoto

I have the Canon 100mm L. Excellent lens. The non L is also excellent and half the price, just doesn't have IS.

Myksyk

I have the canon 100mm non-L. Great lens. I bought the canon mpe-65 ultra macro lens yesterday!! It's challenging to use but I'm waiting on my novoflex rail from amazon which will be really useful. Also seriously interested in the canon mt-24ex twin flash but that will just have to wait. Will post something in Random thread when I get a shot I'm happy with.

Logie-1

Thanks folks for your replys,

The Tamron 90 without vc is defiantly good value.

Myksyk-"I bought the canon mpe-65 ultra macro lens yesterday!!"- Good luck with the new lens, I look forward to seeing the results.

RickyWed

If you dedicated macro user definitely get the Tamron 90 or Nikon 105 but the Tammy is same quality as the Nikon one and is cheaper. If you shoot weddings- rings etc... Nikon 40mm 2.8 dx lens would be just enough even on FX body. Hopefully it helped

Logie-1

RickyWed wrote: »

If you dedicated macro user definitely get the Tamron 90 or Nikon 105 but the Tammy is same quality as the Nikon one and is cheaper. If you shoot weddings- rings etc... Nikon 40mm 2.8 dx lens would be just enough even on FX body. Hopefully it helped

Thanks Ricky, I bought the Tamron 90, it only arrived a few days ago so I haven't got a chance to use it yet.

RickyWed

Tamron is a good option enjoy the lens!

W0LFMAN

I'm Poor, so I use the Canon 100mm F2.8 Macro.

Lens cost me around €260

Few Samples :- I'm not Professional, but these are small things I focused on and hit the clicker button.

RickyWed

I didn't know Canon is so cheap mate.

m5ex9oqjawdg2i

RickyWed wrote: »

I didn't know Canon is so cheap mate.

Correct me if I am wrong, but it sounds like he bought a second hand lens. Brand new it's about 500 euro.

W0LFMAN

Grady Shrilling Shorts wrote: »

Correct me if I am wrong, but it sounds like he bought a second hand lens. Brand new it's about 500 euro.

Your not Wrong, was second hand.

But Second hand Works.....mostly

Logie-1

W0LFMAN wrote: »

Your not Wrong, was second hand.

But Second hand Works.....mostly

Looks to be working fine to me:)