Macro Lenses

[Lab lady]

I'm thinking of buying a macro lens for my canon 450 but after having a look online i am totally confused :rolleyes: . There seems to be a huge range. I'm still very much a beginner so i really don't understand all the number that they quote. The more i read the more confused i get.

I need the help of the DOL brains trust here.

What should i be looking for?

I know i want something that will give me a shallow DOF so should i be looking at 2.8.

HELP

[kja]

There are two (well, three) Canon macros to consider when you are getting your first one:

Canon 60 2.8 macro - this is an awesome all rounder. Small, light, super sharp, easy to use, fast, focus, easy to hand hold. Would never be without mine. Not only does fabulous macro, but is a lovely lens for other shooting incuding portraits. Downsides: you have to get really close to small subjects for 1:1 macro.

Canon 100 macro - there are two versions, one with IS which is more expensive and one without. I have the one without.

Both are super sharp, pretty fast to focus and produce really nice images. Both are heavy and take a bit of getting used to hand holding. This focal length is also nice for shooting a little action or portraits etc if you have extra room to back up a bit. These lenses are physically way bigger than the 60mm.

The IS version is, by all accounts, a slightly better lens than the non-IS. However, only you can decide if the extra significant cash is worth it. For me, no, it wouldn't be worth it. The IS will allow a shorter learning curve in hand holding the lens steady but imho not quite enough to pay that much more.

I love my 100 macro BUT I don't use it nearly as much as my 60mm macro - or my 135L. I find the 100mm is an odd focal length for my style of shooting.

there are also third party macros that are good - especially the 50mm macro by Sigma. OH, and there is a 50mm macro from Canon, I believe, but the 60mm is in a totally different league so I never consider that unless you are only shooting on a full fram (5D or 1Ds etc) camera. The 60 is just too awesome.

Edited October 27, 2010 by kja

[Lab lady]

Thanks kja, i just had a look at those and i see what you mean about the price difference of the IS. The other 2 are certainly more to the price range i was thinking.

[Kirislin]

I've got the 100mm without IS and I love it. I use it alot for action and portraity type pics, maybe even moreso than macro, which I am not that good at. It's a beautiful sharp lens.

[PossumCorner]

Yes I prefer the slightly longer macros too. Gives space to be back a little from the subject and keep full frame. Especially with the spiders or biting ants. And they are a good prime lens for portrait or medium/close action. I have the Sigma 150 macro, and have just also bought the Tamron 90 2.8.

[Lab lady]

I spoke to a friend today and he has both the canon 60 and the 100 and is going to lend them to me to try out so i will let you know what i think.

[Mason_Gibbs]

I spoke to a friend today and he has both the canon 60 and the 100 and is going to lend them to me to try out so i will let you know what i think.

Great! Let us know which one works out better for you .

[kja]

It's great if you can try a lens out first!

Have fun!! Shoot lots and try lots of things!

[keroppiyo]

I was wondering, is there a difference in the glass quality between the IS and non-IS version. From what I have seen, the IS version is 100mm 2.8L, whereas the non-IS version doesn't have the 'L' after the 2.8.

Thanks

[kja]

Both are outstanding lenses.

The L version is weather-sealed and had IS. And you pay for it