Macro lens advice?

[TropicalHotDogNight]

Hey guys. This is my first thread in The Darkroom, and I was hoping to get some advice.

Five years ago, when I was developing an interest in photography, I was given a Canon Rebel T3i camera, with a kit of two lenses and a carrying bag, as a birthday gift. I stopped using it for a few years, as I usually just find it easier to take pictures with my phone, but I am thinking about getting back into the hobby, because I really did enjoy taking pictures.

I like to take extreme close-up shots, but my kit lenses were never very good for that, so I have always wanted to buy a proper macro lens. With that being said, there are a few lenses in my current price range that I might consider, but I don't know which one is the best choice. Canon used to make an entry level macro lens that went for under $200, if I recall, but apparently it has been discontinued. The next step up is the $400 EF-S 60mm f/2.8 USM lens, but I just found out that there is a new lens coming out, called the EF-S 35mm f/2.8 Macro IS/STM. This lens has an LED light ring, which is a very cool and very practical feature, that has caught my attention. At $350, it's also a more affordable option.

Can anyone shed some light on the major differences between these lenses? Is the more expensive lens notably "better" in some regard? Is it overkill for a hobbyist?

 

[djh]

I would much rather 60mm as a focal length for a Macro lens than 35mm. In my experience, almost every Macro lens will do the job for which it was designed and do it well. I would suggest that you hunt around and try to find a solid used copy of a 60mm lens which would be compatible with your camera body.

 

[Highspeedlane]

I don't know the major differences off the top of my head but another thought is the Canon EF 100mm f2.8.

On a Canon 1.6x digital sensor ir gives you more stand off distance for little critters.

Like you, I let my SLR languish in favor of the convenience of a mobile phone but thanks to this forum it's getting some exercise now!

 

[Slapo]

I'm not familiar with Canon macro lenses, but pethaps a set of AF extension tubes would do you nicely here. AF is going to be slow, but it's cheaper, you can make use of your existing lenses and they tend to be lighter than many lenses.

If you'd rather have a dedicated lens, I would second the notion of 60mm rather than a 35mm lens. With the latter, you might have to get closer to the subject. The 60mm is also likely to serve a bit better as a portrait lens.
Does the lens have to be a Canon? Sigma and Tamron make, or at least used to make, some reportedly very good macro lenses too.

I like using my Sigma 70-300mm APO DG Macro with a set of extension tubes at 70mm. Works a treat. I might rummage through my archives for a sample later.

 

[Chapinahat]

Consider Sigma and Tamron, as they offer lenses in similar focal lengths, but also 80-180mm.

The longer the lens, the greater the working distance, which can be vital with nervy critters. Try to get IS on lens as although best results are on a tripod, it's not always feasible.

 

[Silky Glide]

I have the 60mm Canon macro and it is a solid lens. Great for macro photography and also, with its relatively fast shutter, not bad for portraits. Build quality is excellent. One thing to consider is that if you intend to upgrade to a full frame format camera later, you will not be able to use it. I also have the Canon 100mm L macro, which is in a different class. There are some off-brand macro ring light rigs available (I have the Neewer Ring 48, which which was pretty inexpensive and the Yongnuo YN14EX, which is pretty much a straight up copy of the much pricier Canon version). I am happy with both of them.

 

[TropicalHotDogNight]

I've noted that the 60mm lens does not have image stabilization, whereas the new 35mm lens with the LED light ring does. It seems like the 35mm lens has better/more practical features, but is not as great of a lens as the 60mm.

What's the price range of those Sigmas and Tamrons? The 100mm Canon is certainly nice, but it costs more than I would spend.

 

[natenaaron]

This is timely as I am in a similar boat. I'm a Nikon user so know nothing about the Canon lenses but the Tamron and sigma lenses are not to be scoffed at. The sigma 105mm 2.8 will run you around $570US, and by all accounts is a fantastic lens. It is the lens I am planning to order. I am cheap so I have to convince myself and over think the heck out of a purchase like this.

 

[shm]

I'm a Minolta/Sony guy so I have no experience with Canon or Nikon, but I have a 50 mm and a 100 mm macro lens and I will second some of the advice given above; with a 35 mm you will have to get right up to your motive and that may not be a problem for stationary objects, but it is nice to be able to have a little distance.
A macro lens between 50 and 100 also makes a great portrait lens.

 

[InFESTation]

Very difficult to get a poor macro lens, i have not tried the canon/nikon lens but can vouch for the Tamron and sigma, my preference being the Tamron (I believe the canon version is also a sealed unit now so hopefully no ingress of dust, useful for small aperture at 1:1 settings), found the 90mm just that bit nicer when doubling up on the portrait side, the length also allows a bit of distance if going for in the wild macro shots insects etc, the shorter lengths maybe for static subject shots but I have not tried that really, the only time I tried short focal length it was with extension tubes and was very close creating lightning issues for me then.

 

[JazzDoc]

My most potent macro lens is the Canon MP-E 65mm f/2.8 1-5x Macro Photo Manual Focus Telephoto Lens.

With some experience and a large dose of patience, amazingly rewarding images become possible.
Here are some examples of mine:

 

[troy]

My most potent macro lens is the Canon MP-E 65mm f/2.8 1-5x Macro Photo Manual Focus Telephoto Lens.

With some experience and a large dose of patience, amazingly rewarding images become possible.
Here are some examples of mine:

View attachment 817684 View attachment 817686 View attachment 817687

Wow, those are some beautiful shots!

 

[JazzDoc]

Wow, those are some beautiful shots!

Thanks, Troy! I left you a present in the flowers thread.

 

[troy]

Just to show the cheap end of the spectrum. These were taken on a $30 phone and a $7 clip on lens.

 

[JazzDoc]

Just to show the cheap end of the spectrum. These were taken on a $30 phone and a $7 clip on lens.
View attachment 817704 View attachment 817705

Excellent! Orchard Orb weaver. Not sure what kind of fly.

 

[troy]

Excellent! Orchard Orb weaver. Not sure what kind of fly.

Thanks, I was wondering what kind of spider he was.

 

[PeteB]

For ref, a Tokina 100mm on a canon mount is a fantastic lens. No need to stick just to canon branded gear. Also, ensure you get some decent lighting, makes a big difference in macro.

 

[bberg100]

Nikon here. Older 60mm 2.8, newer 105mm 2.8 VR. I find myself using the 105 more, even for general purpose shooting. Lighting is very critical, I use a Sigma ring light on both lens with excellent results.

Using the 105 and Sigma it is easy to see why this very user grade Clog-Pruf is a real irritating beast to use!

 

[Chapinahat]

May be easier to source in the US of A, under different names - Vivitar, Phoenix etc, 100mm f3.5 macro - comes with a matched multiplier to take the magnification from 1:2 to 1:1. Cost me about £50 in A mount a few years back.

 

[natenaaron]

Another vote for the sigma 105 but it is pricey. It several months to decide but I am extremely happy with the purchase and feel the money was well spent.