Dedicated macro lens

[tigerburnie]

Not something I have ever owned, in the days of film I used extension tubes, but as my wife does a lot of insect and butterfly and moth togging I am wondering about getting a Canon 100mm macro lens. Now can this be used as a walk about lens as well as close up macro work or does the short focal length limit what you can do with it?

[@imagesBV]

I had the EF100f2.8 L macro….it was excellent for portraits and general use with the best bokeh I’ve ever seen. As you know you can often adapt to use the lens you have in your camera …but be prepared to stand back a bit further than you would a standard lens. I didn’t do macro very much so couldn’t justify keeping it.

[tigerburnie]

I had the EF100f2.8 L macro….it was excellent for portraits and general use with the best bokeh I’ve ever seen. As you know you can often adapt to use the lens you have in your camera …but be prepared to stand back a bit further than you would a standard lens. I didn’t do macro very much so couldn’t justify keeping it.

Thanks, I thought with a macro lens it would have a shorter focal length rather than having to stand further back, every days a learning day.

[John Liddle]

The EF 100 f2.8 L is a great lens for macro work - all the posts I have made here in the Macro section have (I think) been taken with that lens.

I have not used it for portraiture (not my thing) or to any great degree for more general work, but it is a good sharp lens.

[Trev B]

I can only echo John's comment above.. Although I'm more inclined now to use my Sigma 180 macro, especially for butterflies etc. where perhaps they are say on a bramble thicket and I can't get close.
The Canon EF100 f2.8 L is a cracking lens - you would not be disappointed with it.

[ST-EOS]

I have the Canon 2.8 100L is, it is a good lens. The flower images I posted yesterday were taken with it.

[tigerburnie]

Thanks guys, what is the minimum focal length do you think, a metre or less?

[Trev B]

About 7” from front of lens

[tigerburnie]

Thanks Trev

[Bill53]

I have the Canon 100mm non L macro and quite happy with it's performance - only drawback is lack of IS. If buying again I would go for the Sigma 105mm macro, a lot cheaper than Canon. has IS and gets very good reviews.

[@imagesBV]

It's best to have a long focal length for macro - so you can be further away from the subject, with as close focus as possible. Some telephotos like the EF100-400 can give frame filling butterfly shots.

Beware that some so called macro lenses don't give true 1:1 ratios....whereas the 100f2.8 is a proper 1:1 where if say a butterfly is 25mm wide its image will be 25mm on the sensor.

Hope that helps....

[tigerburnie]

Thanks for the info guys, I use my 100-400, indeed I have used a 500 for macro type shots, the missus wants a light lens she can use both close if the subject is near and also get a bit of reach. I bought her a 70-300 with is, but she's not liking it, only concern I have is the motors are not usm, it is quite noisy when focusing.

[@imagesBV]

I would check the specifications to be sure you are getting a true 1:1. and then go for as long as you can…I think the industry has decided 100mm is about right, 180mm as per Trev’s sigma sounds better. I think there is a Tamron 105 macro which used to be very well rated.

[@imagesBV]

Not 105 ….I think it was Tamron SP90 macro…

[@imagesBV]

_OSR2578 by brianvickers, on Flickr