Macro advice

[PaulDun]

Im not 100% sure if this is the right section for this but here goes
Im interested in trying macro photography especially nature shots (insects etc) im a bit confused as to what size lens is best for a beginner. I know i will have to make the usual price vs spec choices and also stabilised vs non stabilised but a rough guide would be nice. Im using my new 650d which im very happy with and i fancy branching out into another field.

[colin C]

Re: Macro advice

Go for the 100mm Paul. The 60mm is a little less expensive, still good quality, but you are too close to the subject.

[Muscat]

Re: Macro advice

Paul, the 100mm macro lens would in my mind be a good starting point on a crop camera if you want to buy a lens for macro. It is useful as a standalone 100mm prime for general use but is excellent for macro giving you a reasonable distance from the subject and allowing a 1 to 1 image.

i don't know what lenses you currently have but a cheaper option to start looking at macro photography may be to obtain a set of extension tubes (if you do buy extension tubes do buy the one that have full auto capabilities) these would alow your existing lenses to focus much closer than they currently can and will, depending on the lens, give you pretty good macro capabilities.

[Dave_S]

Re: Macro advice

I have the Sigma 105mm f/2.8 DG Macro, EX series lens, which I've been using for a few years now, and I wouldn't part with it.

I bought it because it had excellent reviews, which I found were well justified.

I believe the current model, has image stabilisation.

Dave

[Stan]

Re: Macro advice

I have the canon 100 f2.8 L IS but that may be beyond your budget so the cheaper 100 f 2.8 non L is just as good. The tamron 90 gets good press, I had one for 4 years before i upgraded to the canon but it always gave excellent results, the only downside being it wasnt internal focus so that the barrel doubled in length. Dee has the canon 60 f 2.8 which is also very good but as Colin says you need to get closer with that one

Stan

[Stan]

Re: Macro advice

I have the canon 100 f2.8 L IS but that may be beyond your budget so the cheaper 100 f 2.8 non L is just as good. The tamron 90 gets good press, I had one for 4 years before i upgraded to the canon but it always gave excellent results, the only downside being it wasnt internal focus so that the barrel doubled in length. Dee has the canon 60 f 2.8 which is also very good but as Colin says you need to get closer with that one

Stan

[ChristopherM]

Re: Macro advice

I've had some very nice results from my 180 mm L macro, but it is not the quickest when focussing.

[Hereford_EOS]

Re: Macro advice

All the macro lenses are top notch. Canon 60mm & 100mm, Sigma 105mm and Tamron 90mm.
You will not be disappointed in any of the above lenses.

[S_J_P]

Re: Macro advice

I'd have to agree with Colin, whilst the 60mm is ok for crop-sensor cameras such as the 650D, something in the 90-105 get you far enough away to make composition easier especially with moving subjects. The increased distance means your depth of field is virtually the same, but the longer focal length means your background is easier to throw out of focus. I'm sure you'll be happy with the Canon, Sigma, or Tamron lenses.

[PaulDun]

Re: Macro advice

Thanks for the replies guys there is some food for thought there. Ive been looking at a used non IS Sigma 180 in the shop i bought my Canon from at £560. Does this seem like a good deal and more importantly will it do what i want and give good results. Dont forget im new to macro and still getting to grips with my DSLR.

[colin C]

Re: Macro advice

Just a few thoughts:

You don't need IS. Macro is a studied form of photography and takes a little more time. Depth of field in nearly zero and at maximum enlargement you will almost certainly be on a tripod.

I always use manual focus, for mostly the above reasons.

That second hand price for the Sigma is more expensive than the Canon 100mm f2.8 macro and nearly the prices of the L IS version. Unless your dealer is going to offer a substantial discount, I would look toward the Canon lenses.

[Muscat]

Re: Macro advice

Have a look at this link it si for prices of the non-IS Canon 100mm f2.8 macro lens available new from ~£400

http://www.camerapricebuster.co.uk/prod.php?n=CanonEF100mmf2.8MacroUSMLens&p=61

The IS L version is available for £689

[Coryman]

Re: Macro advice

Paul,
The 180 on your 650D will effectively be equivalent to 288 mm, personally I would go for the 90, 100 or 105. I get some great results from my 100 2.8 IS. I first had a non IS version I used for a lot of my tropical fish pictures, used with a tripod it gave superb results. I just had a look and these can be found on eBay for around £300.

This shot was taken with a 10D and 100 2.8 macro. the fish is 10 days old and measured just 9 mm long not counting the tail.

Ian

[hhcanon]

Re: Macro advice

I would go against all the advice here, unless you want to make macro youre sole hobby. But a 55-250 and some achromats either Leica or Marumi or Sigma.(dead cheap on fleabay) The advantage here is you get a half decent lens and, and the achromats which you can fit on a g series as well.

http://www.eos-magazine-forum.com/attachment.php?attachmentid=7888&d=1357050841

then you can take pics like this. As the above have said it all depends on youre budget, and its good advice. Achromats are far more versatile and give a better dof on a G series for example. Im sorry if Ive confused you in any way! Its the way Ive gone and never regretted it but I would probably like a 100mm macro as well

[PaulDun]

Re: Macro advice

Sorry guys but im totally confused now Ian why do you suggest going for a smaller lens? surely i would get better results with the 180 against the 100 or 90? are the smaller lens easier to use?
hhcanon, im sorry but i havent got a clue what an achromat is ??? and as i havent got a g series that part wouldnt matter my only camera is now the 650d. Sorry if i come across as thick!