Macro lens recommendations.

[ryanb]

Hi everyone,

I am thinking of adding a macro lens to my kit and wondered what people would recommend. I have a Canon 200D with a Sigma 18-200 and some older kit lenses. I'm just now rediscovering my interest in photography - life gets in the way sometimes - and have never had a macro lens. I am taking my girlfriend to Floriade in September and thought a macro might come in handy. I have heard good things about the Tamron 90mm and Canon 100mm. My budget is not particularly large but any suggestions would be appreciated. Thanks in advance for your help

[Mary Anne]

Nothing wrong with either of those two lenses I have both, the more pricey Canon L 100mm lens is a great lens though a lot heavier than my Tamron.
There is also a cheaper Canon 100mm macro lens.. Sigma also make a 105mm macro lens.
The Tamron SP AF 90mm f/2.8 Di Macro Lens I have is a lot lighter in weight takes beautiful photos is cheaper in price than the newer version bought out a few years back.
Reckon you would be happy with any of those :nod:

[arthurking83]

.....

Reckon you would be happy with any of those :nod:

:th3:

Agreed.

[farmmax]

I have the older version Canon 100 mm. It is light and very sharp. It was only $200 second hand with a Canon 600d and another lens included. I'm very happy with it. I know people with the Nikon 90mm, who are very happy with them.

There is also the Canon MP E 65 which is a dedicated Macro Lens. It takes up where the Canon 100 mm leaves off. I have one of these, and love it, but don't think it is the lens for a beginner. I would explore the macro world with one of the above two lenses first, then if you enjoy that and feel you want to go further, then it may be time to look at the MP E 65.

There is also the snap on Raynox DCR-250 lens. I've seen some incredible photos taken with this, but have no personal experience with it.

[ryanb]

Thank you for your replies. It looks like i can get the Tamron 90mm for about $100 cheaper than the Canon 100mm so given the reviews that may be the way i go. I also want to purchase a wide angle lens in the near future so i'll probably be seeking your opinions again soon. Cheers

[Tannin]

If any reputable manufacturer anywhere makes a poor macro lens in the 100mm class, I haven't heard of it. There are no bad answers here. My vote, however, is without question for the 100mm Canon L Series macro. The addition of IS is a major advantage, and worth every extra penny. Remember, you won't just use your macro lens for macro, you'll employ it regularly for other tasks as well - portraiture (100mm f/2.8 makes a great portrait lens), landscapes (wonderful sharp views) and various other tasks.

PS: have any of the other manufacturers got around to making a 100mm class macro with IS/VR yet? It's about time they pulled their fingers out.

PPS: Make sure you are aware of the difference between the two Canon 100mm lenses. The L Series one has IS, the old model doesn't. On checking, I see that the L Series lens is currently very expensive. However, Tamron have a very reasonably priced 90mm one with VC (Tamron's term for IS). That sounds like a good choice on the face of things.

PPPS: beware of fake macro lenses. Many ordinary zoom lenses are labelled "macro" when they aren't. All real macro lenses that I've ever heard of have a fixed focal length.

[arthurking83]

....

PS: have any of the other manufacturers got around to making a 100mm class macro with IS/VR yet? It's about time they pulled their fingers out.

I think they all do, other than Tokina.(and Zeiss, but they're always extremely basic/manual anyhow)

Tamron 90mm VC
Sigma 105 OS
Canon's 100 IS
Nikon's 105 VR

Sony, Olympus, Pentax, et al ... they use in body stabilsation instead.

[ryanb]

Thank you all. I have ordered the Tamron 90mm and am looking forward to having a play with it when it arrives