Which sub-$500 Macro for XTi?

Rhuarc

So I got approval from the boss (aka wife) to get a macro lens to add to my aresenal for Christmas/birthday this year. I need to keep it under $500, and I would like to try to get the most for my money that I can. I'll list a few lenses that I was looking at, but I am defenitley open to other suggestions! I am open to third party lenses if anyone feels that I can get more bang for my buck!

I'm also kind of new to macro, so if anyone could reccommend what focal length that would great! I'm kind of looking in the 100mm range right now. I'm actually probbly leaning towards the Canon 100mm at this point based off of reviews that I have seen.

$435 - Canon 100mm 2.8 Macro

$240 - Canon 50mm 2.5 Macro

$400 - Sigma 105mm 2.8 Macro

$269 - Sigma 50mm 2.8 Macro

$400 - Tamron 90mm 2.8 Macro


Again, if anyone has other suggestions please chime in!
Thanks everyone!

EDIT: Added the Tamron 90mm

ziggy53

Also look at the Tamron SP 90mm f/2.8 Di.

90/100mm is about as short as I recommend because any shorter and you may have a problem getting illumination into the subject field at suitable angles.

Rhuarc

Thanks for the suggestions Ziggy! I added the Tamron to the list above. I was kind of thinking along the same lines that I don't want to go much shorter than 100mm. That kind of limits the lenses that are in my price range. Anything much longer than 100mm tends to be quite a bit more.

Tee Why

I think all current macro lenses are optically excellent. I doubt you can tell the difference among comparable macros on prints.

Having said that, your macro needs depend on what you are shooting.
If you are shooting bugs, then I think more reach and a 100mm is the minimum. However, if you are shooting objects and can get closer without a problem, then a shorter macro like a Sigma 50, Canon 60, or the new Sigma 70 may be more versatile.

100mm is a bit long on a cropped sensor body for my needs, but again, this really depends on what you intend to shoot and how far you want to be from the subject while at 1:1 magnification.

Once you have the focal length you want, go based on price and features as I fell most macros are so good that you have to pixel peep to see any difference.

SCS_Photo

I have the tamron 90... got it cuz of the slight bokeh superiority between that and the sigma 105, IMO.

I'd get the canon or nikon 60mm in a heartbeat.

Or one of those wicked new 35 mm macros. Those look pretty friggin awesome.

Rhuarc

As I read more reviews I'm beginning to realize the same thing. It seems that especially regarding the Canon 100mm that there is very little bad to say about it!

I do think I want to go with the 100mm, since I will be wanting to shoot some bugs and such and that will be about the minimum distance I need to be. One question, can you use extension tubes and or tele-extenders with the Canon 100mm 2.8? What about both at the same time? (extension tube and extender)

Thanks for the suggestions!

Tee Why

You can use non Canon TC's on the Canon 100mm macro. Canon's TC's only work with L lenses IIRC. Kenko/Tamron SP pro series is very highly regarded and should work with the Canon macro IIRC, you should double check on compatibility just in case.

As for extension tubes, they tend to be preferred for macro work as they do not degrade optics, which TC's can do.

I think if you get the extension tubes that have electric connections, you should be able to use both a TC and tubes. But I'm not an expert in macro, so you should double check this.

BTW, TC's and extension tubes aren't cheap either. Consider a Sigma 150mm macro so you don't have to buy all this other stuff.

Good luck.

kozmix

Hi! I used to have the sigma 150, but then bought the canon 200 L and sold it. After that i bought the canon 60 macro which is awsome!
I see you have a xti, so it will suit you. Now, it depends if you want to shoot bugs or other things. With bugs you may go for the 100, otherwise i guess the 60 will suit your needs, and you'll save some money too

Rhuarc

Well, I just wanted to thank everyone for their suggestions!

I am going to go ahead and order the 100mm MACRO Canon 2.8 from B&H today. I think it is the nice middle of the road between being too short for bug work, and being too long to work well on my XTi.

Again, thanks for all the suggestions! This is why I love DGrin!!

Tee Why

Hey Congrats,
Consider getting a hood or a UV filter as the front element is near the very end of the barrel and you may accidently hit it when trying to get 1:1 magnification.

It's a nice lens.

zacker

i got the sigma 50 for my 30D... i really havent used my canon 100MM macro since... not that the siggie is any better, its just smaller and lighter and i get less shake with it.

Tommyboy

ziggy53 wrote:

Also look at the Tamron SP 90mm f/2.8 Di.

90/100mm is about as short as I recommend because any shorter and you may have a problem getting illumination into the subject field at suitable angles.

Ziggy, or anyone else in the know:

Most of us use crop-sensor cameras--at least I do. Just got a 40D.

When recommending "at least" a 90mm, are you taking into account the conversion factor? I currently have a 50mm f/2.5, which is, in effect, an 80mm. Canon's EF-S 60mm would be a 90mm, no? If I get the 100mm, won't that be a 160mm? Kind of longish, I think.

Also, if you can answer, what does this do to the minimum focusing distance and close-up ratio? Is my lens still a 1:2 or does that change?

--Inquiring Mind

zacker

only thing that changes is field of view... magnification stays the same. so a 100MM macro is still a 100MM macro... its just a cropped 100MM macro.. so to speak..lol I only got the 50MM siggie mostly for portraits as my 100MM macro is too long for inside stuff.. unless im looking for closeups of noses!

ziggy53

Tommyboy wrote:

Ziggy, or anyone else in the know:

Most of us use crop-sensor cameras--at least I do. Just got a 40D.

When recommending "at least" a 90mm, are you taking into account the conversion factor? I currently have a 50mm f/2.5, which is, in effect, an 80mm. Canon's EF-S 60mm would be a 90mm, no? If I get the 100mm, won't that be a 160mm? Kind of longish, I think.

Also, if you can answer, what does this do to the minimum focusing distance and close-up ratio? Is my lens still a 1:2 or does that change?

--Inquiring Mind

Zacker is correct in what he says, but there are a couple of ways to think about lenses on "crop" cameras.

While it's true that a 1:1 macro is always a 1:1 macro, no matter what the chip format, the "effective" image size does change when you compare one format to another. What this means is that if you take an object 24mm tall and photograph it with a 1:1 macro lens on a full-frame imager, the resulting image will fill the frame from top to bottom.

The same lens at 1:1 on a 1.6x crop sensor, will fill the frame (top to bottom) with a subject about 15mm tall. Effectively, this makes the lens a 1.6:1 macro on a crop camera as compared to full-frame sensor cameras.

The minimum focus distance does not change and the lens probably achieves maximum magnification at around the minimum focus distance so the recommendation for a 90/100mm focal length still makes sense because of the need for proper lighting angles.

If you should want to add an extension tube or two, the focus distance is dramatically reduced, and you might want something with an even longer focal length to give reasonable working distances.

Tommyboy

Thanks to the Zs (Ziggy and Zacker)!

That clears things up considerably.

Rhuarc

THanks for the help guys! Those explanations just made me want the 100mm Canon even more! LoL...

Tommyboy

Rhuarc wrote:

THanks for the help guys! Those explanations just made me want the 100mm Canon even more! LoL...

No doubt.

I have the 50mm f/2.5 that I'm willing to part with. Bought it on eBay six months ago.

I also could sell my BG-E3.

But should I sell my 50mm 1.4 or my 85mm 1.8? Between the three, I should be able to finance the 100mm. . . .

Decisions, decisions. . . .

Glenn NK

Rhuarc wrote:

As I read more reviews I'm beginning to realize the same thing. It seems that especially regarding the Canon 100mm that there is very little bad to say about it!

I do think I want to go with the 100mm, since I will be wanting to shoot some bugs and such and that will be about the minimum distance I need to be. One question, can you use extension tubes and or tele-extenders with the Canon 100mm 2.8? What about both at the same time? (extension tube and extender)

Thanks for the suggestions!

I don't know why no one seems to mention this lens:

http://www.photozone.de/8Reviews/lenses/canon_60_28/index.htm

It seems to be one of Canon's best kept best secrets.

The MTF charts actually best the Canon 100 mm lens.

I didn't know about it when I purchased my 100, or I'd have looked at it very closely. Photozone rates it HIGHLY RECOMMENDED, something they don't do very often.

Tommyboy

Glenn NK wrote:

I don't know why no one seems to mention this lens:

http://www.photozone.de/8Reviews/lenses/canon_60_28/index.htm

I'm guessing because it has the same short close-focusing distance as a 50mm, probably worse because it's a 1:1 lens. There's also the fact that it's an EF-S lens, and can only be used on crop-sensor cameras.

Having said that, I think I'll likely be in APS-C cameras for a long while, and I don't worry nearly as much as I used to about the eventuality of getting a FF camera.

I don't know, Glenn, it's probably a very good lens. Both the 60mm and the 100mm have fully internal focusing. The minimum distance on the 60mm is 4 in. whereas for the 100mm it's 12 inches. For lighting and for insects, this is a real consideration. For the extra $100, I'd like to have the increased working distance.

ziggy53

Tommyboy wrote:

No doubt.

I have the 50mm f/2.5 that I'm willing to part with. Bought it on eBay six months ago.

I also could sell my BG-E3.

But should I sell my 50mm 1.4 or my 85mm 1.8? Between the three, I should be able to finance the 100mm. . . .

Decisions, decisions. . . .

The "Amazing(?) ziggy" tells your fortune:

I see a lens purchase in your future, ... or recent past.

Tommyboy

ziggy53 wrote:

The "Amazing(?) ziggy" tells your fortune:

I see a lens purchase in your future, ... or recent past.

Oh Amazing One,

If you are referring to the 100mm macro that popped up on the flea market this morning, I missed it by that much.
:

Glenn NK

Tommyboy wrote:

I'm guessing because it has the same short close-focusing distance as a 50mm, probably worse because it's a 1:1 lens. There's also the fact that it's an EF-S lens, and can only be used on crop-sensor cameras.

Having said that, I think I'll likely be in APS-C cameras for a long while, and I don't worry nearly as much as I used to about the eventuality of getting a FF camera.

I don't know, Glenn, it's probably a very good lens. Both the 60mm and the 100mm have fully internal focusing. The minimum distance on the 60mm is 4 in. whereas for the 100mm it's 12 inches. For lighting and for insects, this is a real consideration. For the extra $100, I'd like to have the increased working distance.

I agree with your comments (all).

My comments are biased because:

1. My use of the 100 mm lens isn't strictly macro (1:1), it's actually closeups of flowers,

2. Flowers, don't get frightened and fly away when I'm too close.

On the APS-C thing, for awhile I was thinking FF, but frankly I've never had the need/desire to print larger than 10" x 14" and am quite happy with the result I get with the 30D, so in all likelihood will stick with the format. Unless the 5D replacement is better and costs less.

Glenn

ziggy53

Tommyboy wrote:

Oh Amazing One,

If you are referring to the 100mm macro that popped up on the flea market this morning, I missed it by that much.
:

Rats, I was hoping for you. Ah well, in order to retain my "Amazing" status, please purchase in your future. You can always blame me! (Like everyone else. )

Rhuarc

THe other thing I think I read about using a 100mm macro on a crop body is you actually get an increazsed magnification. Soemthing like 1.43x or something? Because of the smaller sensor size it is only recording the center portion of the 1:1 image, so it appears as though you are zoomed further than would be on FF.

Although I suppose it is still 1:1 same as on a FF it is just that the 1:1 is a higher magnification? I think I am confusing myself! LoL... Anyone care to explain?

Tommyboy

Rhuarc wrote:

THe other thing I think I read about using a 100mm macro on a crop body is you actually get an increazsed magnification. Soemthing like 1.43x or something? Because of the smaller sensor size it is only recording the center portion of the 1:1 image, so it appears as though you are zoomed further than would be on FF.

Although I suppose it is still 1:1 same as on a FF it is just that the 1:1 is a higher magnification? I think I am confusing myself! LoL... Anyone care to explain?

Earlier in this very thread, post #14, the Amazing One (has a nice ring to it, doen't it?) had this illuminating bit of advice:

ziggy53 wrote:

Zacker is correct in what he says, but there are a couple of ways to think about lenses on "crop" cameras.

While it's true that a 1:1 macro is always a 1:1 macro, no matter what the chip format, the "effective" image size does change when you compare one format to another. What this means is that if you take an object 24mm tall and photograph it with a 1:1 macro lens on a full-frame imager, the resulting image will fill the frame from top to bottom.

The same lens at 1:1 on a 1.6x crop sensor, will fill the frame (top to bottom) with a subject about 15mm tall. Effectively, this makes the lens a 1.6:1 macro on a crop camera as compared to full-frame sensor cameras.

The minimum focus distance does not change and the lens probably achieves maximum magnification at around the minimum focus distance so the recommendation for a 90/100mm focal length still makes sense because of the need for proper lighting angles.

If you should want to add an extension tube or two, the focus distance is dramatically reduced, and you might want something with an even longer focal length to give reasonable working distances.

Ziggy:

I fully intend to blame you for my forthcoming purchase; however, since my 40D and 70-200 2.8 IS are scarcely 48 hours old, I think I'll hold off just a little while. Otherwise, my wife may give me a divorce for Christmas!

rpcrowe

Used Tamron 90mm f/2.8 non-DI
I got mine for less than $125 including shipping from eBay. Don't worry about this lens being the previous model and not the model Tamron says is optimized for digital. My Tamron is the sharpest lens in my inventory and it competes with some other great glass such as the 24-70mm f/2.8L and the 70-200mm f/4L IS.

These lenses are occasionally available on eBay for a $100-$200 price. It takes a little patience to find one but, it is well worth the search and wait.

An additional benefit to this lens is the wonderfully smooth bokeh it produces; making it a great portrait glass.

Tommyboy

ziggy53 wrote:

Rats, I was hoping for you. Ah well, in order to retain my "Amazing" status, please purchase in your future. You can always blame me! (Like everyone else. )

As of yesterday, your "amazing" status is fully intact. It's wrapped under the tree, so I have four days to wait to use it, but I can't wait.

And I blame you.

Look for an email from my wife.

Happy holidays!

ziggy53

Tommyboy wrote:

As of yesterday, your "amazing" status is fully intact. It's wrapped under the tree, so I have four days to wait to use it, but I can't wait.

And I blame you.

Look for an email from my wife.

Happy holidays!

Fantastic and congratulations!

Wishing you and your family the very best this holiday season.

Tommyboy

ziggy53 wrote:

Fantastic and congratulations!

Wishing you and your family the very best this holiday season.

And to you and yours as well.

Thanks for all you do here.