Macro lens for Canon 50D

[SonjaT]

Hi All,

My first post!!
Let me preface my query with the statement - i am a newbie to photography. i know pretty much nothing but soooooo want to learn. i am reading and starting to practice. i have a Canon 50D.
However, i do find that i have a real appreciation for macro photography. To this end i have been researching buying a Canon 100mm macro lens. I've also been ready previous threads on this subject.
i have two questions.
1. Canon lens or Sigma?
2. 60mm or 100mm?
Unfortunately, can't afford an L series.
Thanks everyone. Can't wait for your responses.

[jervisbay]

I have a Canon 7D and have a Sigma 105 mm 2.8 macro lens, I also have a 50mm lens which I hardly use so I would definitely go for the 100 or 105mm. I am very happy with the results I get from the Sigma. The Canon 100mm is probably a bit dearer but should give great results.

[Tannin]

100mm class macro lenses for Canon, in order.

Canon EF 100/2.8L IS macro Clearly the one to have. It is the sharpest, has the best build quality, and is the only one with IS. Very reasonably priced for what it is
Canon EF 100/2.8 macro Was the benchmark lens in this class for many years. Still would be if it wasn't for the new L Series Canon.
Tamron 90mm 2.8 macro Markedly better optics than the Sigma 105.
Sigma 105mm 2.8 macro Not all that good by macro standards. See the ever-reliable Digital Picture (http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/Sigma-105mm-F-2.8-EX-DG-Macro-Lens-Review.aspx) review.
(unknown position in ranking) Tokina 100/2.8 macro I have not used this lens, nor seen a reputable review of it. Many Tokina lenses are repackaged Pentax units with the superb optics you expect from that company. Some (but not all) of their others are pretty ordinary - their 80-400, for example, is the cheapest, lightest, and poorest quality 400mm-class lens on the market. I don't know where the 100 macro fits into their line-up, but it is just about certain to be better than decent - no-one makes a bad macro lens - and probably ranks alongside the Sigma and Tamron, a little better or a little worse.


If you are going shorter than 100mm, get the Canon EF-S 60/2.8 macro. It's not expensive, gets excellent reviews, and everyone I've ever heard of that owns one swears by it.

[Captured frame]

I owned a Sigma 105mm for a while and found it to be quite good,but after trying a Canon 100mm non IS I went and ordered one straight away I find it to be much sharper and colours to be more natural than the Sigma plus it is not bad for portrait work as well.

[Fez]

I own the Cannon 100mm and I'm very happy with it, although I haven't tried it against any others.

[phild]

I agree with Tony's comments, if you can afford the small amount extra go with the 100mm L IS model. (I have the non IS model as the L version wasn't available when I bought)

[PH005]

Hi Sonja. I have a 40D and I have a Tamron 90 macro that I use on it. I love the lens. Not too heavy for useing it hand held. Very good results ( after a bit of practise ). And a very reasonable price. I suppose the Canon 100 is an all about better lens, but so the price reflects. Oh, the 90 is also a very good portrait lens. Get one or another and you want look back. :)

[matt22]

I use a Canon EF 100mm f2.8. on my 50D and love it, its a great lens and id definitely recommend it!

[fairy bombs]

Just keep to Canon brand,I always prefer camera brand lenses over the others,i.e if your a Nikon user use Nikon lenses,Pentax user stick with Pentax etc.

The 100 mm L canon macro would be the 'Rolls-Royce' of them all,But The non IS 100mm Canon is very very good,over on 'Fred Miranda' these both are 9.6
out of ten.Interestly I see chap over there must be a professional stamp photographer and has taken tens of thousands of images with the no IS 100 mm version
and been through 6 bodies,but the lens works like the day he bought it!,Also good price on these from DWI in Hong kong $575 plus freight.

Another lens is the Canon 60 mm macro,I own and use it,and love it,so sharp!,great build quality,nice and light,I know one very keen macro photographer who started with this lens ,then got the non IS 100 mm version,He thought he would sell the 60,after that,but they are both so good he kept both,He claims,that he feels the 60 mm is actually sharper (more academic than anything).I heard a few comments along those lines,But the non IS is an outstanding lens.I will get one soon too.

PS here is a link to some 60 mm images I took yesterday with a 50 D body attached and a ex 430 flash
http://www.ausphotography.net.au/forum/showthread.php?81574-Blue-Banded-Bottom-Bee-and-strange-fly.

[DAdeGroot]

One thing to remember with macro lenses, the shorter the focal distance, the closer you have to be to your subjects. So for the 100mm lens, you get a bit more working distance (the distance between the lens and the subject) than you do with the 60mm lens. This isn't an issue with flowers, etc, but when chasing skittish bugs it might be. (This is why some people prefer the 180mm L series macro lens).