Macro Lens

[Kyle72]

What macro lens should i be looking at for a canon 50d, and do i need any other equipment to match it such as a special flash or light box or reflector.. Any info would be much appreciated

Cheers
Kyle

[jjphoto]

It depends on what you want to shoot. Macro is anything from product shots to Insect mug shots!

Personally I like to use enlarger lenses on bellows for products and close up work (not really insects or anything like that), but that's certainly not the simplest way to do things. A canon 100/2.8 USM macro is a fine lens and quite cheap these days having been superceded by the "L" version. It might be a bit long on a crop body but again it depends on what you want to shoot.

JJ

[Bromeo]

Get an old pentax mf lens and an adapter

Get the Canon 100mm 2.8 or the L IS, there's not much difference

get the 180mm if you're serious.

get a twin flash kit or atleast devise some way of mounting you flash off camera. If the latter, you'll want a 580 or equivalent and a diffuser which can be made at home and is usually better.

don't buy the ef-s model it's horribly shit.

[fabian628]

you could try the EF-S 60mm macro, 100mm L or non L or 180mm macro.

I would consider the 60 or 100 as they are smaller and cheaper than the 180, plus i think they are more versatile for taking general shots.

I think the general consensus is that both 100mm f/2.8 and 60mm macro are of the same very good optical quality. The 60mm is smaller and lighter. Also if you want to increase the magnification by adding extension tubes, a shorter focal length will give you a higher magnification.

I would get the lens and use it a while till you feel you may need a flash. I only started using a flash when going higher magnification than 1:1. :)

[Bennymiata]

I have the Canon 60mm Macro on my 60D, and I find it a very sharp lens, and the auto focussing is also very good, even in quite low light.
I use it mainly for product shots at work, but often take it home and play with it.
I've gotten some fantastic videos of tiny ants with it too.

The problem with the 60mm Macro, even on a cropped body, is that you need to get quite close to the thing your photographing, especially if the thing is quite small.
I'd love the 100mm L lens, but as this is not suitable to use in my work studio (it's too small), I settled on the 60mm, and find it works really well for not only macro, but general photography too.

Here's a couple of shots I've taken using the 60mm Macro.

69484

69485

The spider was taken hand held, auto focus, late at night, using my 580EXII flash.

[Tricky]

Another vote for the EFS60mm as a first macro lens. Cheap to buy ($300 second hand), light, very sharp, good portrait lens, use with tubes for higher magnification... can't beat it as a starter. The EF100 is also very good and allows you to shoot from a bit further away, though less useful as an all-round lens.
I would just use natural light as a starting point. Then maybe use a normal 430 or 580 flash, either with a home-made light diffuser (google it) or a cheap eBay ring-light ($30). Eventually you might move onto a dedicated macro ring flash or twin lite.

[Lucard]

I use the MP E-65mm 1-5x macro and have made pinheads the size of basketballs.
I would recommend this lens to any but it is a bit pricey.

[Pine]

I like the the focus and clarity of the flowers.;)

Regards

[Max]

I chose the 100 2.8, because I already had a 50prime. So didn`t need the 60 then for normal photography. You need to be closer to the subject with the 60macro. Also a flash is useful, but the build in does a reasonable job.
Without a hood the 100 works well enough with the build in flash on the 7d, but I stick the flash on for better results.

If you aren`t likely to buy a 50prime, maybe get the 60 and if you really get the macro bug go up to something like the Sigma 150 2.8 .

[pod3009]

Hi! As I posted on a similar question on this site, I think the Tamron 90mm f2.8 is a very good alternative. It is also very sharp and costs a few hundred less than the 100mm Canon.

[Bennymiata]

If you really like doing macro, a ring flash is a really good thing to have.
The Canon and the Sigma ones are very expensive, but a web site called Dino Direct has a very good one for just $120 odd.
I got one a few weeks ago, and it works really well with my 60D and is a true ring flash.
You can adjust the flash settings through the camera menu too as all the flash has on it is an on-off switch.

It also comes with lots of adaptors to fit a multitude of different lenses, but my Canon 60mm Macro screws straight onto it.
I carry it in my bag all the time, as it's also very good for portraits.

[larrywen]

The spider is great.

[Kyle72]

Thanks all for the replies, My main use will be taking photos of all types of insects, i was looking at the 100 canon 2.8 both the standard and L version, and basicly doubles in price just by getting an L, so my question is. Is it worth getting the L version?

But looking at the other models mentioned i will have to do some research?

I also own a 430 flash..

Once again thanks for the advice.

And great photos Benny

[Xenedis]

When I was in the market for a macro lens I opted for the Canon EF 180mm f/3.5L Macro USM.

Fantastic lens. Ridiculously sharp. The 100/2.8L IS didn't exist back then, but the 180 is excellent. I wanted the longer working distance.

The 100/2.8 (non-L) is also a fantastic lens. You would not be disappointed with that.

[Ratmick]

I have the 100mm f/2.8 USM lens, great piece of kit. Not really sure if the 100mm L version is worth the extra bucks, but it does have a nice red ring :).

Mick

[Kerro]

100mm F2.8 macro, is what I have. Nice

[davomate]

Is it worth getting the L version?


According to the-digital-picture review, image quality is about the same, and you get image stabilisation, but it is only about 1 stop at 1:1 magnification distances. I would rather put the difference in price towards another lens.

P.S. I had the 60mm, took very nice shots of flowers, but too close for flying insects like bees. Also an awkward length for anything but portraiture. Since I had bought it 2nd hand on e-bay, sold it again for almost the same amount, and bought the 100mm (not L). Much better for insects etc, and for me also useful as a low-light medium telephoto.

[Kyle72]

Thanks guys, i think i will give the non L a go, much appreciated for all your help, might just check ebay out and see what pops up.

cheers
kyle

[13ulletz]

Ive had both the 60mm and 100mmL version.

They are both GREAT lenses. I used the 60mm for portraiture as well.
I upgraded to the 100 as the focal length wasn't enough. Got the L version as i wanted IS since i handhold alot of the time.
The 100mm is my dedicated macro lens now, i havnt found another use for it. Not long enough for birding, too long as a walk around.
I have sold my 60mm and bought a sigma 24-70hsm as my walkaround.
I have just recently bought a cheap ringlight and waiting for it to arrive.

When i go FF i may sell my 100mmL off and purchase the 180mmL as i feel 100mm focal length will not be long enough for my shooting style.

[dragons girl]

I have the 2.8 100mm Macro its a fantastic lens great for insects and portraits :)

[Tannin]

There probably should be a site rule that allows moderators or someone like that to edit and/or delete posts about equipment where the advice is completely and obviously wrong and is likely to mislead people badly. Well, no, there shouldn't be such a rule, it would be controversial and unworkable, and in any case, other posters can always chime in to provide correct information - and if you don't read all the way to the end of the thread before you spend your hard-earned, it's your own fault!


Get the Canon 100mm 2.8 or the L IS, there's not much difference

IS makes a huge difference, and as a bonus, the new lens has even sharper optics.


don't buy the ef-s model it's horribly shit.

This is just plain wrong. Hopelessly wrong. The EF-S 60mm macro is universally regarded as a superb little lens. I have never, ever seen or heard a bad review or a bad report (apart from the nonsense above). Lots of AP members own this lens, and produce excellent work with it.

[I @ M]

There probably should be a site rule --- huge snip :D ------ produce excellent work with it.

All of that which you said has ( as usual with your thoughts ) more than a modicum of common sense, but seeing as fora are for people to air their views ( politely) whether they be technically correct or incorrect it would amount to censorship to cull posts because one or maybe more moderators dislike the view of the OP.

Especially in this thread which I hadn't really looked at until now, it would seem that the wheat has been separated from the chaff so to speak by quite a few knowledgeable opinions anyway.
People on the 'net simply have to weigh the pros ( many ) against the cons ( few ) and if you look at the membership status of the fella you so vehemently disagreed with you might see the sort of reliable opinion that he was capable of. :rolleyes:

[SimonG]

OP - you probably already have one, but I have found a good tripod to be essential for macro photography, due to smaller apertures needed to get a practical DOF at such close working distances.

[jim]

I doubt that I would buy a 60mm macro, the working distance is just ridiculously small.

Ok for inanimate objects and very placidmetazoa though.

[Dwarak]

I use a 100mm l is its a great lens very sharp and the IS does help I do not prefer to use a tripod for macro as it is just nit comfortable for me it is quiet light I weight on a 50d this will give you some extra working distance because of the crop factor

[petercee]

another thumbs up for the Tamron 90 macro - bargain lens good for bugs and portraits in 90mm focal mode

[gabber]

Another 100mm f2.8 non-L macro owner here. Tis a very good lens indeed.

For all intents and purposes though, you can't really go wrong with any prime lens that can do at least 1:1 macro in regards to IQ (you'd be splitting hairs to see a measurable difference IMO). Focal length, build quality, price, etc are the only real things to consider which macro lens to spend your hard earned on.

A dedicated macro flash (ring flash, off camera flash, etc) is an huge improvement in doing macro stuff if you really get into it.

[bricat]

Bennymiatta if that is a shite lens I just want one:D

[chrisprendergast]

+1 for the canon 100mm 2.8 macro lens

[Bennymiata]

Bennymiatta if that is a shite lens I just want one:D

I can't blame you!
I love it too, although my dream macro lens is the yet-to-be-released Sigma 150mm macro with OS.
I use this 60mm Macro lens for work quite often, as it works well in my little studio for taking photos of buckles and small fittings, and problems with made-up goods where it doesn't matter if you need to get close.
The picture below is a metal eyelet less than 20mm across.

72177

[Kyle72]

will the canon 100 macro f2.8lens get up close to a fly for exaple and really show its detail, and how close do you have to be to the subject to capture this

thanks

[Bennymiata]

The Canon 100mm macro (either the L or the all-black one) will let you get fine detail of a fly's eye, but you'll need to be pretty close to it.

All true macro lenses will allow you to focus close enough so that you can get a 1:1 image on the sensor.
So if your sensor is an APSC size, then a fly is about the same physical size and so you can fill the entire frame with the fly showing every facet of his/her eye and every single hair on it.

[AMD72]

I have used the 100mm f2.8 (non L) for many macro shots of flies with the 50D, and you can certainly see the detail you are after. If you have a decent enough flash (and the 430 qualifies), then you do not need a tripod. I have a 580EXII flash and use a lumiquest soft box to diffuse the light a little. When macro shooting I turn of the auto focus on the lens and set the focus to the minimum distance (thereby ensuring 1:1). I use myself to focus the shot moving myself and camera in and out slightly until the subject is in focus. The working distance is small, but not so much as to make it impossible to get the shot. Not sure of the exact details but the critters are around 5 to 10cm away.

here are some example shots if you are wondering ...

http://farm3.staticflickr.com/2495/4110972213_02713807a7_o.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/andrew-durick/4110972213/)
Tachinid Fly (http://www.flickr.com/photos/andrew-durick/4110972213/) by Andrew Durick (http://www.flickr.com/people/andrew-durick/), on Flickr

http://farm5.staticflickr.com/4049/4356140972_11d37ea716_o.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/andrew-durick/4356140972/)
Green Fly (http://www.flickr.com/photos/andrew-durick/4356140972/) by Andrew Durick (http://www.flickr.com/people/andrew-durick/), on Flickr

http://farm5.staticflickr.com/4115/4915432257_918494c17d_o.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/andrew-durick/4915432257/)
Blowfly (http://www.flickr.com/photos/andrew-durick/4915432257/) by Andrew Durick (http://www.flickr.com/people/andrew-durick/), on Flickr

Feel free to check out my flickr site for more than just flies :) ... with most shots a combination of 50D and 100mm

[Kyle72]

Thank you for your reply and photos, your shots are amazing, if you dont mind me asking what mode do you shoot in to capture images like this.

Regards
Kyle

[AMD72]

Thanks for the kind words.

I shoot these in Manual mode, setting the shutter to 1/250th (in line with the flash sync), generally ISO400 to bring out some of the background, f11 to f16 (mostly f14). The flash is set to manual as well - with the power setting down to 1/2 to 1/4 (diffused 580EXII).

[Kyle72]

Cant wait to get a lens now, looking forward in capturing so many different insects. I guess it will be hard trying to get the insect to stay there while setting up for the shot, I have seen some amazing shots of dragon flies i have always wondered how these are captured they are so fast and usually when approaced they buzz off..

cheers

[twix]

Nice shots Andrew,
and even more important for People like me the explanation how you did it :th3:.
I think I will practise that as well if you don`t mind:D! Oh, and I have a 90mm Tamron, but not a decent flashlight , so I think that will then the next equipment on my list :cool6:!
Cheers Klaus!

[alwaysDSLR]

Sharing a shot using the 100macro L at f4.5 1/125 and ISO 160, no flash and handheld.

http://i6.photobucket.com/albums/y240/s2800021/IMG_4079.jpg

[ricktas]

This forum is not a critique forum. Only post photos if you are demonstrating a particular aspect of a macro lens etc. Any future photo posts that are not about discussion of macro lenses will be removed

[alwaysDSLR]

Ooops, sorry, Rick, I must be too anxious to show that the 100L is a pretty sharp piece of glass to me and got the photo posted at the wrong forum. :o Will put up a few more at the right place. :D

[GTV6FLETCH]

Hi ya,
Dont know if i'm too late,but i suggest getting a cheapish set of kenko tubes of ebay and even an older manual lens 50mm pentacon or something like that,(can also use these to reverse on another lens ),have a good play and learn the basics of macro,
this is how i got into it as a cheap option.I never use auto focus with macro anyway,off camera flash is a big help too.I'm pretty sure you can get macro tubes to take EFS lenses now too(mine are only EF).
just a suggestion for a cheaper way of going about it,i warn you it is very addictive though:). I can post up some examples of shots from my cheap set up if you like.
I have just bought a nifty fifty EF50mm 1.8 ii ,and it is great on the kenko macro tubes.
cheers
Adam.....

[Kyle72]

Hi Gtv

Havnt been on for a while as i have been OS, but have recently purchased a f2.8 100mm macro IS USM lens, havnt done much with it yet, i have only tried taking a couple of spider photos see below. Have been reading a bit about then and have been looking at extention tubes and ring flashes, Any recomendations on this would be great. Would love to see some more of your pictures as your landscape photos are awesome. Can i ask what type of camera you use and lens for landscape, the images seem to be crystal clear. Thanks again all for the advice..

the spiders below are a daddy long legs and i think a wold spider.