Macro Lenses

[t(AD)pole]

As the title states, does anyone have any advice for someone looking for a good (but not too expensive) macro lens?

thanks.

[Luke W]

Camera?

[kja]

If you are shooting a Canon dslr either the 100 or the 60. Both are amazing lenses.

Differences in a nutshell:

100 - longer working distance, you can be further away

- harder to hand hold steady, she's pretty heavy

60 - shorter working distance, you can get right up close and personal (which may not be ideal for your needs and can be harder to light properly if using external sources, also for skittish creatures this might be frustrating)

- very easy to hand hold

- EFS lens so it only works on the 1.6 crop sensor cameras (20D, 30D, 40D, 400D, 450D etc - not the 5D or Mark IIIs)

Personally, I can't live without my 60. The 100 has it's uses, but mostly it's too big and bulky for most of what I want to do so I grab the 60.

Both will give you 1:1 reproduction, both are 2.8, both are fast to focus though the 100 will hunt more in low light or low contrast situations. I think the 100 is more expensive. Both can actually be used as portrait lenses with good results - I always forget this

I find I get more keepers with the 60 than with the 100, but this is probably due to technique...I'm a wuss, I like smaller and lighter wherever possible

[Luke W]

hehe - as someone who's used to the 24-70 f/2.8 L and the 70-200 f/2.8 L IS... the 100mm is light as a feather

[kja]

You know, I find the 100 macro feels heavier than my 70-200 f/2.8L IS - I have no idea why but it does LOL

[PossumCorner]

.... a good (but not too expensive) macro lens? ...

Make of camera doesn't much matter. If shooting Nikon and wanting Nikon glass, the 60mm 2.8 is fine, just over $500. The 105mm 2.8 is around $1000 - lovely lens but that's getting expensive.

With third-party lenses, I'm very very happy with my Sigma 135mm 3.5 prime macro. Think it was about $850-ish. (Would of course also be made for Canon etc). And people who have the Tamron 90mm macro 2.8 do rave about it - Photobuff has it for about $600 I think.

With the 50 or 60 you need to be closer to the subject. When shooting spiders or other bities, there is a case for going for the 90 or 100 or 135 as you can fill the view from further back and feel more comfortable (if that is an issue). But they cost more. Whatever you decide to look at, do some comparison priceing it is worth the time.

[t(AD)pole]

Thanks for the advice. :rolleyes: I have a Canon BTW.

[chezzyr]

What sort of budget and subject matter?

[t(AD)pole]

I'm currently just looking to see whats out there, if there is a lens that is really good and suits my needs then maybe I will pay a little extra for it. So for budget probably under $1000 although possibly more if it had a lot going for it (ie. type of lens both me and my family would use so we can share etc).

As for subject matter, well whatever i can get my hands on i guess. I don't have anything specific in mind however i guess I would probably use plants, flowes, insects, spiders as subjects. I just shoot whatever i can. :rolleyes:

[kja]

You can buy both the 100 and the 60 for well under a grand

I think the 100 runs around $470ish and the 60 about $380ish. Canon has a rebate on both lenses starting on the 18th in the US so now is a perfect time to buy!