Macro lens choices

[kilbey252]

Hi all

(This looked like the best forum for this but if there's somewhere else it may sit better then give me a shout)

I'm using a Canon 40D and will be photographing a range of subjects but largely small insects (aquatic in particular), butterflies, dragonflies and damsels, + a lot of plants.

Choices are:

1. Canon 100mm 2.8 - seems to be the only choice if I want a "snappy" focusing lens. Quality sounds excellent but focal length???? Is 100mm a good all round FL or am I going to be wanting more? (never ventured down the macro path before!). Will it be difficult to capture butterflies/dragonflies unless v. slow moving.... or dead?

2. Sigma 150mm - Gets good reviews but AF slow. Does AF matter in macro photography? I'm assuming that it's very useful for subjects that don't sit still! Have heard that vignetting is a problem with this lens... any takers??

3. Tamron/Sigma 180mm - anyone using these?? If I'm doing aquatic insects in aquariums will this be too long? Which has the edge and why?

Any other great (and affordable) options I'm missing??

I'd appreciate any feedback. I'm after only the highest image quality so any comments about IQ for these lenses of particular interest.

Also, any views on using extension tubes. I have a canon 400mm f5.6.

Many thanks

Dave

[Pluvius]

I think the sigma 180 type juza into google and have a look at his reviews.

[timp55]

Why the large max aperture on macro lenses? (I do realise I must be missing something here!) If most macro shots benefit from being stopped down to f11 / f16 etc then why have f2.8 as the max? brighter viewfinder? narrow(er) dof when photographing sheets of paper?

Just bought the Canon 100 2.8 and haven't yet had a chance to play at all, any previous macro lens experience dates back to Canon FD days and were cheapo zooms with 'macro' capability.

[David Smith]

I have the canon 40D with the Sigma 150. My choice was based on:-
100mm-you need to get closer
180mm getting too heavy (I have found this really matters when hand held)
Canon 150mm tooooooooooo expensive for my pocket.

The sigma has 3 distance settings (others might also) 0.38-0.52, 0.52-infinity & FULL. If you select your distance first it makes AF much quicker although it is still slower then my 17-85 or 100-400

Sigma allows you to AF then manual to tweek-important as grass is always moving and DOF is very shallow in macro.
I took these a few days ago-I am just learning macro so they can be criticised but maybe show what the lense/camera combo is capable of.

[Roy C]

I have the Canon 100 and often use it with a 1.4 tc (Kenko Pro). This lens takes a tc very well IMO with barely any lose of IQ or AF speed.

[Malcolm Stewart]

I have both the EF 100 f2.8 Macro USM, and the EF 50 f2.5 Compact Macro which I've used on a 5D. The 50 f2.5 is a very useful travel macro (to 1:2) as it's compact, and also does a very good job of shooting architecture where its good drawing is valuable. I also have the dedicated Life-Size adapter and at 1:1 my copy is not quite as good as the 100 f2.8 in terms of resolution.

The USM on the 100 f2.8 I've found excellent for tracking butterflies on waving foliage, but I've had little success snapping dragonflies which fly off before I get anywhere near close. However, I have got good shots of dragonflies using the IS and minimum focus area on my EF 300 f2.8L IS where its high resolution has paid off.

[Markulous]

I use the Sigma 105mm and Sigma 150mm and shoot butterflies, dragons, damsels, etc (better quality than my 300mm f/4 IS but that's only 1:2 anyway)

Prefer the 105mm for the easier MF (very rarely use AF with macro) and have no probs with either extending barrel or need to be slightly closer than with 150mm. Use both a fair bit as 'normal' prime lenses seeing as they give you f/2.8

[ChrisSearle]

Any specialist macro is capable of giving amazing results. The only differences between the lenses are focal length and build quality. I use the Sigma 150 with a 40D and yes, the f2.8 is certainly very useful for seeing the subject. I feel that the quality of results is 99% down to the experience and skill of the photographer ( and a bit of luck to be fair ) and 1% down to the lens. For many 'medium sized' subjects like butterflies, a 'standard zoom' like the 24-105 f4 L or the 70-200 L' s are perfectly good. A true macro really only comes into its own for smaller subjects.

[tdodd]

Maybe there is some useful informtion here....

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/Canon-EF-100mm-f-2.8-USM-Macro-Lens-Review.aspx

[llaack]

I could only afford one and being willing to work around the limitations found that the 100 f/2.8 was the best option. Haven't regretted it since - amazing lens. As others said the 2.8 is useful for a nice, bright viewfinder but the DOF at that setting is about a hair's breadth.

[chrisli]

The difference between the shorter and longer macro lens has its advantages and disadvantages depending on what is your preference.

50mm - 100mm
1] Working distance, for certain subject you cannot get close this will be a disadvantage.
2] Lack collar support, this might play an important role when you are on tripod because it will not be as steady as those with collar support.
3] Lighter to handheld.

[timp55]

Any tips (or links to websites) for getting started with macro (Canon 40D, Canon 100mm 2.8 & 580EX II ). I read things like 'use manual mode, 1/250, f16 and let the flash do it's bit' and all I get outdoors is a completely washed out picture, nowhere near correct exposure, when trying things like bees on light coloured flowers.

[tdodd]

In bright direct sunshine the Sunny 16 rule says you'll get a good exposure at f/16 and a shutter speed of 1/ISO. So if you were at 100 ISO you would want 1/100 as your shutter speed. If we assume you are at 100 ISO then your shutter speed would underexpose the ambient light by 1 1/3 stops, assuming bright direct sunshine, or more than that if the ambient conditions are dimmer. That should leave sufficient headroom in the exposure for your flash to add some light, making your subject pop, while the background falls away into the shadows.

With all the above in mind, I'm guessing you're not at 100 ISO. Either that, or you have the 580EX in manual mode, instead of E-TTL, and have not dialed it down, or you have it too close. If my maths is right, and it quite possibly isn't, with a GN of 58m at 100 ISO, with a 105mm lens, your f/16 aperture would still give a range of 3.6m at full power. 1/4 power would give you a range of 1.8m. 1/16 power would give a range of 90cm. 1/64 power would give a range of 45 cm and 1/128 power would give you a range of 32cm when fired directly at your subject with no bounce or other modifier/diffuser.

[timp55]

Pretty sure I had left it at 400 iso - oops! Also fairly sure the 580 was in E-TTL as isn't that what it defaults to?
When you say 'not dialed it down' could you elaborate please.

Thanks for the speedy reply Tim, (another Tim), I'll give your suggestion a go as soon as I get a chance (tomorrow evening possibly)/

[Malcolm Stewart]

Any tips (or links to websites) for getting started with macro (Canon 40D, Canon 100mm 2.8 & 580EX II ). I read things like 'use manual mode, 1/250, f16 and let the flash do it's bit' and all I get outdoors is a completely washed out picture, nowhere near correct exposure, when trying things like bees on light coloured flowers.

I'd recommend your keeping an eye on the exposure read-out in your viewfinder, to ensure that in Manual Mode it looks as though it's going to be under-exposed (say by 1-2 stops) using the ambient light alone. Check the setting of the FEL and make sure it's not set to over-expose the flash. The ETTL of your 580EX should give you a correct exposure - but be aware that "subject failure" is just as possible when using flash as with ambient light. (The camera is clever enough to manage the 2 light sources independently.)

If you're still getting over-exposure, try diffusing your flash with e.g. white kitchen towel.

For more general subject matter, it's often recommended to use manual and set FEL to +2/3stop.

[tdodd]

Pretty sure I had left it at 400 iso - oops! Also fairly sure the 580 was in E-TTL as isn't that what it defaults to?
When you say 'not dialed it down' could you elaborate please./
By "dialed down" I mean that if you did have the flash in manual mode you would have had to turn the dial down from full power to something much, much, less.

If you were at 400 ISO then you may potentially have blown the exposure on ambient light alone. But the flash range would also have been doubled, compared to 100 ISO, so even at 1/128 power it would have a range of around 64cm. If the subject was less than 64cm from the flash then it would potentially be overexposed by the flash, even on the lowest/weakest manual flash setting. I don't know whether E-TTL can output flash at a lower power than 1/128.

[llaack]

Any tips (or links to websites) for getting started with macro (Canon 40D, Canon 100mm 2.8 & 580EX II ). I read things like 'use manual mode, 1/250, f16 and let the flash do it's bit' and all I get outdoors is a completely washed out picture, nowhere near correct exposure, when trying things like bees on light coloured flowers.

Unless you're made of money and can launch right in with a ringlight, the best investment I've found is a $10 diffuser for the flash (in my case a 420). An off-camera shoe and remote cord also works wonders.

[timp55]

An off-camera shoe and remote cord also works wonders.Thanks for all the tips, you've certainly given me something to think about and work with. llaack, when you mention the off-camera shoe and remote cord, is the Canon flash bracket and cable enough to move it far enough away? Or are you meaning to move the flash gun many inches or more away rather than just next to the camera but at the side?

[Saphire]

Here are some photos of the way I have my setup for taking Macro shots with a sample shot, exif data intact. The lens is a Canon 100mm 2.8 macro, 580ex flash with diffuser.

I have my Macro lens permanently on my older 350d so I don't have to keep changing lenses on my 40D birding camera.

[Leif]

Hi all

(This looked like the best forum for this but if there's somewhere else it may sit better then give me a shout)

I'm using a Canon 40D and will be photographing a range of subjects but largely small insects (aquatic in particular), butterflies, dragonflies and damsels, + a lot of plants.

Choices are:

1. Canon 100mm 2.8 - seems to be the only choice if I want a "snappy" focusing lens. Quality sounds excellent but focal length???? Is 100mm a good all round FL or am I going to be wanting more? (never ventured down the macro path before!). Will it be difficult to capture butterflies/dragonflies unless v. slow moving.... or dead?

2. Sigma 150mm - Gets good reviews but AF slow. Does AF matter in macro photography? I'm assuming that it's very useful for subjects that don't sit still! Have heard that vignetting is a problem with this lens... any takers??

3. Tamron/Sigma 180mm - anyone using these?? If I'm doing aquatic insects in aquariums will this be too long? Which has the edge and why?

Any other great (and affordable) options I'm missing??

I'd appreciate any feedback. I'm after only the highest image quality so any comments about IQ for these lenses of particular interest.

Also, any views on using extension tubes. I have a canon 400mm f5.6.

Many thanks

Dave

1) A 100mm lens is okay for sleepy dragonflies and butterflies i.e. on a cool day, or early morning, and late evening. I took some photos of a Keeled Skimmer recently using a Nikon 105mm lens.

2) AF is useless for macro IMO.

3) Both were well thought of in an Amateur Photographer review against the Canon 180mm macro. A colleagues Sigma 180mm looked well made, from teh outside anyway! By all accounts both take good images. But all ~200mm macro lenses are big and not easy to handle.

[IanF]

Are you definitely after a true macro lens though for 1:1 reproduction or greater?

I use the Canon 400mm f5,6 and the Canon 100-400mm with extension tubes for close up photogrpahy of dragonflies, damselflies, butterflies and occasioanlly plants. Using a 20mm tube with the 400mm f5,6 is useful for such subjects from around 2m - though the 100-400mm gives better reproduction size as it can focus a lot closer.

No doubt about it a dedicated macro lens gives better reproduction though for living free moving creatures I find you have to get a little too close resulting in disturbing them.

For my use the extension tube is more practical as I like to wander around seeing what I can find and the tube nicely slips in a trouser pocket.

[James I]

I use a 60 mm Canon Macro and as IanF a 100-400mm zoom lens for close ups and get great results! on a 400D body. Ask at the camera shop to try before you buy, leave a deposit and then go back and pay if you like it.

J

[Highcountry]

I started my macro photography with a 180mm lens with an extender using a flash bracket. The rig produced nice photos at about a 1:3 repro ratio. The only problem is focusing requires a focusing rail. I moved up to a manual focus 200mm Nikon lens which does what it made to do. I have seen and number photos from the Sigma 150mm and they like they are very sharp, and in fact, I am considering one for my new Canon kit. For larger flowers and insects, lenses in the 100 to 200mm range work great.

[elspedo]

Hi sorry to hijack your thread but im asking the same question really ss thought it silly to start a new thread, whats the best macro lens for getting in really close to flies, moths, butterflies etc ie to take pictures of their eyes and wing patterns but then also able to take a picture where the butterfly say only fills 2/3rds of the frame? any help is good help in my opinion :) thanks in advance

[Overread]

The only lens that will really do that (that I know of) is the canon MPE 65mm that lets you get up to 5 times life size (regular macro lenses are 1:1)
However even the experienced users find this a difficult lens to use, its depth of field is razor fine. Further it only functions as a macro lens, so you cannot use it for portrats or anything else bar macro - hence is a true fully dedicated macro lens.

If you are starting out the best I think is to get a macro lens (the sigma 150mm would and is my choice) and then use a 2 times teleconverter (sigma) on the lens. That will get you double the magnification and give you experience of very fine depths of field.
here:
http://s170.photobucket.com/albums/u275/overmind_2000/my%20works/yorkshire%202/100%20percent/
the head shots there are 100% crops from the sigma 150mm macro and the 2*teleconverter
here are the full shots:
http://s170.photobucket.com/albums/u275/overmind_2000/my%20works/yorkshire%202/

Also note I am only recently into this so you can get better results with practice.

[elspedo]

Ok i will look into the sigma 150mm as your full shots are impressive, is there any way of bringing the subject closer say by using an extension tube on the lens so it can be used for both real in close work and as a basic macro lens? cheers

[Overread]

if you use an extension tube you just change the minimum focusing distance - so I you will still get the same macro scaling as without - though you might get closer to the bug - which adds difficulty as then you increase your odds of scaring away the bug.
Best advice is to start using a macro - then you can really get a grip with what its like to use one - oh and to take macro you set the focus to 1:1 and then instead of changing focus you move the lens closer/further away toget the area you want in focus - no wheel turning (so you never use AF with macro - it also has a hunting problem). Its why focus rails are used on tripods - so you only move the camera rather than have to move the tripod as the small distances are too small.

[mrmarklin]

I love the Canon 180mm lens, but I don't have a crop camera. I think the 100mm might be a better choice for a 40D.

I like the longer lens for not having to get so close to the subject, and when I'm on vacation and I must pack lite, it doubles as a very good mid range telephoto, and with a TC does even better than that.

I shoot almost all my Macro from a tripod. Handholding a lens this long is very tough at a close distance. The 180mm also allows full sized pictures ie. 1:1 shooting on a FF camera.