Options
macro lens
pcubed
Registered Users Posts: 8 Beginner grinner
I am considering purchasing a macro lens for my Canon xti can anyone offer any advise? I am totally overwhelmed by the options....
0
pcubed
Registered Users Posts: 8 Beginner grinner
Comments
Canon EF 100mm f/2.8 USM macro
http://www.photozone.de/canon-eos/167-canon-ef-100mm-f28-usm-macro-test-report--review
Sigma AF 105mm f/2.8 EX macro DG
http://www.photozone.de/canon-eos/301-sigma-af-105mm-f28-ex-macro-dg-lab-test-report--review
Tokina AF 100mm f/2.8 AT-X Pro D macro
http://www.photozone.de/canon-eos/270-tokina-af-100mm-f28-at-x-pro-d-macro-canon-review--test-report
Tamron AF 90mm f/2.8 Di SP macro
http://www.photozone.de/canon-eos/282-tamron-af-90mm-f28-di-sp-macro-test-report--review
I did purchase a used Tamron 90mm, f2.8 SP Macro 1:1 (not the Di version) for myself and I like it a lot.
Moderator of the Cameras and Accessories forums
Thanks, Do you think a lens with an image stabilizer is a must?
None of the lenses Ziggy recommended have IS. I think the only macro lens with IS for Canon cameras is the new Canon EF 100mm f/2.8L IS USM lens, which costs about double the street price of the now-discontinued older non-IS model. It's up to you whether IS is worth the extra $500. It's not to me.
I have the Tokina lens that Ziggy mentions, which is excellent optically but has rather slow AF. This would bother me more if it weren't for the fact that macro photography is extremely sensitive to correct focus due to the very shallow DOF that you get at macro distances, so I do just about all of my macro work with manual focus.
Got bored with digital and went back to film.
Reading over those reviews, here is my capsule summary:
1. All of these lenses are superb optically, with excellent resolution. Tokina and Canon have the lowest geometric distortion, but none of them are particularly bad. Canon and Sigma win on chromatic aberration, but again, none of them are bad.
2. Sigma's dual-clutch mechanism to switch between AF and MF is somewhat inconvenient; you have to flip an AF/MF switch AND pull back on the focus ring. Tokina's and Tamron's single-clutch (no AF/MF switch, just pull the ring back) is better. It's probably a matter of personal preference whether one prefers the single-clutch or an ordinary AF/MF switch such as Canon offers.
3. Canon wins for AF speed (not surprisingly).
Price-wise, there isn't as much difference between these lenses as there used to be. The Tokina is still the cheapest at $399 (street), but the Canon's street price has dropped from around $599 to about $529 since the introduction of the new IS model. Sigma and Tamron are around $450.
Got bored with digital and went back to film.
Thanks....you convinced me to go with the Canon! I only asked about the IS because the lenses I have have it, but I think I'll try this one w/o
My Siggy 24-70 has a dual clutch ......however the pull or push of the front ring is all I need to do to go from manual to AF...or I can switch the switch....which I never use............maybe they made the primes differently in that aspect but I could not imagine why.............................
I have the Canon EF 100mm f/2.8 USM Macro lens - love it. Sharp! Here's a shot taken at f/32. A friend of mine and I both attempted to find some sign of defraction artifacts and failed.
I think you will be well pleased with your choice!
My Photos
Thoughts on photographing a wedding, How to post a picture, AF Microadjustments?, Light Scoop
Equipment List - Check my profile
I do nearly all of my macro work hand-held. I suppose that could be considered comparable to a beanbag.
Got bored with digital and went back to film.
The only drawback is that at close focus it has 1/10" DOF.
It's not just the Canon. Any 1:1 macro lens has paper-thin DOF at maximum magnification.
Got bored with digital and went back to film.
In addition to the ~100mm macros, there are also 50-60mm macro lens, and 150-180mm macros. The different focal lengths offer somewhat different characteristics for each group.
The 50s tend to be used more for flat field work, like copying stamps or coins, perhaps. They also tend to be cheaper than the 90-100mm versions, and are almost all f2.8 or faster, unlike some of the longer macros. Their apparent depth of filed may be slightly greater than the longer lenses.
Sigma makes an f2.8 150 macro, and Tamron, Canon, Sigma, and possibly others, make an f3.5 180mm macros. These offer somewhat more remove from flighty subjects, like bees and butterfles. There are also longer, heavier, and usually more expensive than the shorter lenses. The should all have great bokeh, as well. I know the Tamron version does.
I like these different focal lengths enough, that I own at least one of each.
Moderator of the Technique Forum and Finishing School on Dgrin