# Buying my first MACRO lens



## Salah Yousef (Sep 20, 2016)

Hey everyone. So I'm planning on buying my first MACRO lens for my canon 600D/T3i.
Which one should I get?
Sigma 105mm F2.8 EX DG OS HSM Macro Lens
Sigma 150mm f/2.8 AF APO EX DG OS HSM Macro Lens
Canon EF 100mm f/2.8L IS USM Macro Lens
Canon EF 100mm f/2.8 Macro USM Fixed Lens
Tamron AFF017C700 SP 90mm F/2.8 Di VC USD 1:1 Macro Lens

I've only tried the Canon 100mm f/2.8L and fell in love with it. Budget won't be a problem. Then again I'm not gonna change my camera any time soon. I'd like to photograph insects and flowers mostly.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Sep 20, 2016)

I'd go with the Canon 100L.


----------



## d (Sep 20, 2016)

neuroanatomist said:


> I'd go with the Canon 100L.



+1, though see if you can have a play with the Sigma 150mm - if you want to shoot insects, the extra distance between you and an insect that the 150mm focal length allows means you're less likely to scare the insect away.

But the 100L is a fantastic lens for the money, and would be my first pick.

d.


----------



## Click (Sep 20, 2016)

+1

Canon EF 100mm f/2.8L IS USM Macro Lens


----------



## Don Haines (Sep 20, 2016)

Canon 100L. Not that much difference between it and the non-L for sharpness on static objects, but a world of difference trying to AF on a moving object....


----------



## Zeidora (Sep 21, 2016)

Consider Zeiss 100 MP. The biggest drawback is that it only goes to 1:2, but extension rings will solve that. AF is useless in macro anyway, so that won't be an issue. The biggest plus is IQ. Second advantage is f/2.0 so brighter viewfinder.
If you do insects, consider the Canon 180M, because insects are often skittish. It has lateral color problems, but for longer WD it may be a consideration, and you can fix some of the color issue in RAW conversion (DPP, DxO).
Many insects are VERY small, so the MPE 65 may be on your wishlist as well.

I assume you have tripod and/or flash.


----------



## pwp (Sep 21, 2016)

Get the 100L. It's such a great, versatile, fast focusing, super crisp lens. Read reviews. They're all positive.

-pw


----------



## beforeEos Camaras (Sep 21, 2016)

of the list you posted the 100 L I what I will have recommend. but don't over look the canon 60 ef-s macro 2.8 as well


----------



## scyrene (Sep 21, 2016)

I agree, the 100L is the best all rounder. It's very good for many subjects and situations. A longer lens like the Sigma 180 f/2.8 OS can be great for flowers and skittish insects but is less versatile and has a steeper learning curve.



Zeidora said:


> AF is useless in macro anyway, so that won't be an issue.



I must strongly disagree. I've shot thousands of macro images with AF. It is very useful in the wild.


----------



## lion rock (Sep 21, 2016)

Since you're using a cropped sensor, you get the benefit of a longer focal length, to boot, with the 100L.
Good luck and show your shots here.
-r


----------



## YuengLinger (Sep 21, 2016)

Zeidora said:


> Consider Zeiss 100 MP. The biggest drawback is that it only goes to 1:2, but extension rings will solve that. AF is useless in macro anyway, so that won't be an issue. The biggest plus is IQ. Second advantage is f/2.0 so brighter viewfinder.
> If you do insects, consider the Canon 180M, because insects are often skittish. It has lateral color problems, but for longer WD it may be a consideration, and you can fix some of the color issue in RAW conversion (DPP, DxO).
> Many insects are VERY small, so the MPE 65 may be on your wishlist as well.
> 
> I assume you have tripod and/or flash.



Why is AF in a macro lens useless for you? Many other photographers put it to good use often.


----------



## Don Haines (Sep 21, 2016)

YuengLinger said:


> Zeidora said:
> 
> 
> > Consider Zeiss 100 MP. The biggest drawback is that it only goes to 1:2, but extension rings will solve that. AF is useless in macro anyway, so that won't be an issue. The biggest plus is IQ. Second advantage is f/2.0 so brighter viewfinder.
> ...


I haven't used AF on a macro lens for a long long time...... almost 8 hours now!


----------



## Chaitanya (Sep 21, 2016)

even if its expensive get Canon 100mm L, you cannot go wrong with that lens. Once you start shooting macro depending on how you develop interest for macro in future you can upgrade to Mp-e 65 (for high mag macro) or go for 180/150mm macro in case you start shooting butterflies and other shy insects. 



scyrene said:


> I agree, the 100L is the best all rounder. It's very good for many subjects and situations. A longer lens like the Sigma 180 f/2.8 OS can be great for flowers and skittish insects but is less versatile and has a steeper learning curve.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


for studio work sure MF works great but outdoors with shy bugs and other critters AF works like a charm.


----------



## Zeidora (Sep 21, 2016)

Re AF, for 1:10 ratio or so, maybe, because you get decent depth of field. Once you go into 1:2 - 1:1 range, DOF gets very small, and you have to decide where you want the focal plane. Spoiler alert: it's rarely near the center. 

You have three options: either make the object sufficiently small in frame to have the area where focal plane should go through in the central area, or use the sports approach of "spray and pray". Third, you can crank down f-stop and invite diffraction. Don't know details of pixels size for the 600D, but crop cameras generally have smaller pixels, so are more strongly affected by diffraction at same MP count. On my 5DsR with ~4 µm pixels, the limit is at effective f-stop f/11, which is f/5.6 set on lens at 1:1. And yes, I have experimentally verified that. Accordingly, you want to shoot as open as possible to get DOF you need but limit blurring of image due to diffraction, and that requires precise and intentional placement of focal plane. 

You can also fiddle with AF points, select AF point in image area depending on composition, then shoot in AF, but you are faster with MF. It may take a little time to get comfortable with MF. I grew up doing macro when there was no AF, so it is second nature. 
The C 180M is well-known to be VERY slow and erratic with AF. Know that from personal experience when using it as a short tele at longer distances. I keep AF off with the 180M, despite the fact that MF is not as easy as on a lens designed for MF, like the Zeiss (greater angular movement for same change in focus = more precise focus; and build-quality, of course).

One problem with a 600D and MF may be matt focusing screen. Not sure you can switch it out.


----------



## Mikehit (Sep 21, 2016)

Zeidora said:


> Re AF, for 1:10 ratio or so, maybe, because you get decent depth of field.



'Decent depth of field' is not the same as 'having the focus noticeably in the right place' (DOF is about 'acceptable sharpness' not 'it is sharp' and is affected by reproduction size and viewing distance. 
And there are plenty of things you can shoot between the 1:10 and 1:2 ranges you quote.


----------



## danski0224 (Sep 21, 2016)

Saloooh91 said:


> Hey everyone. So I'm planning on buying my first MACRO lens for my canon 600D/T3i.
> Which one should I get?
> Sigma 105mm F2.8 EX DG OS HSM Macro Lens
> Sigma 150mm f/2.8 AF APO EX DG OS HSM Macro Lens
> ...



There is a pretty significant weight difference between the Canon 100/100L and the Sigma 150mm.

The Sigma is nice, but it also isn't of the latest "A" or "C" designations, so it isn't compatible with the USB dock.

The Canon lens will AF consistently unlike almost any other 3rd party lens with AF for Canon cameras. The key word there is "consistently".

AF is NOT useless for macro, however, as the AF changes, so does your magnification. If you want to *stay* at 1:1 (or any other ratio), you will have to set the lens to 1:1 and turn off the AF, then move the camera to attain the desired focus. Focus stacking while using AF will result in a bunch of differently sized (magnified) subject images.

You may find 100mm to be short for active insects. Only way to know for sure is to try something like the Sigma 150 or Canon 180. Sigma also makes a 180mm macro.

The Canon 300mm f/4 has a very short MFD and a macro range, and it delivers nice bokeh. The Canon 100-400 also has a very short MFD.


----------



## scyrene (Sep 21, 2016)

Zeidora said:


> Re AF, for 1:10 ratio or so, maybe, because you get decent depth of field. Once you go into 1:2 - 1:1 range, DOF gets very small, and you have to decide where you want the focal plane. Spoiler alert: it's rarely near the center.
> 
> You have three options: either make the object sufficiently small in frame to have the area where focal plane should go through in the central area, or use the sports approach of "spray and pray". Third, you can crank down f-stop and invite diffraction. Don't know details of pixels size for the 600D, but crop cameras generally have smaller pixels, so are more strongly affected by diffraction at same MP count. On my 5DsR with ~4 µm pixels, the limit is at effective f-stop f/11, which is f/5.6 set on lens at 1:1. And yes, I have experimentally verified that. Accordingly, you want to shoot as open as possible to get DOF you need but limit blurring of image due to diffraction, and that requires precise and intentional placement of focal plane.
> 
> ...



It does get less useful at closer distances (ditto IS), but I generally trust AF better than my eyesight for the finest details. Depends on the situation, but I've shot focus stacks with AF to overcome some of the problems you note. If a subject is still enough, you can select an AF point for each major feature (eye, wing, legs, etc) and shoot each. It's just an alternative to, say, turning the focus ring manually while shooting a burst. Both have advantages and drawbacks. For instance, I find the AF method makes it easier for me to hold still on the shot, whereas turning the focus ring introduces more camera movement, but everyone will be different.


----------



## LSXPhotog (Sep 21, 2016)

Another vote for the 100L simply based on ownership and experience with this lens. Remember to factor in tour crop sensor as you'll be shooting with a 100mm cropped into a 160mm equivalent. This should be more than enough to create you image containing bugs and critters...just remain patient.

To touch on the AF subject, I use AF all the time. It also makes your macro lens a useful portrait lens too.


----------



## wsmith96 (Sep 21, 2016)

I concur on the 100L. I started with the EF-S 60mm, but after picking up the L, I've not used the 60mm since.


----------



## chrysoberyl (Sep 21, 2016)

I first bought the Canon 100L. It is pretty sharp, but not compared to the Zeiss Milvus 100. After the 100L, I bought the Sigma 180 2.8. It is sharper than the Canon. I use it now when I want 1:1 or higher with ET’s and/or TC’s. Then I bought the Zeiss Milvus 100. I use it mostly now; it suits me and is easy to use. The Canon I use for portraits.

I mostly photo insects, minerals and wildflowers, so usually close-ups better describes my photos. Attached is an example taken with the Zeiss. The bloom is 0.5”.

I only manual focus and do take the time to focus stack. I prefer to take photos and minimally post process. Sitting in front of a computer is not as much fun as taking photos.

My advice is to rent and then decide.

John


----------



## chrysoberyl (Sep 21, 2016)

Note that the Sigma 180 2.8 is a *brick*. Attached is a photo of a 0.25" fly taken with the *brick*.

John


----------



## YuengLinger (Sep 21, 2016)

Zeidora said:


> Re AF, for 1:10 ratio or so, maybe, because you get decent depth of field. Once you go into 1:2 - 1:1 range, DOF gets very small, and you have to decide where you want the focal plane. Spoiler alert: it's rarely near the center.
> 
> You have three options: either make the object sufficiently small in frame to have the area where focal plane should go through in the central area, or use the sports approach of "spray and pray". Third, you can crank down f-stop and invite diffraction. Don't know details of pixels size for the 600D, but crop cameras generally have smaller pixels, so are more strongly affected by diffraction at same MP count. On my 5DsR with ~4 µm pixels, the limit is at effective f-stop f/11, which is f/5.6 set on lens at 1:1. And yes, I have experimentally verified that. Accordingly, you want to shoot as open as possible to get DOF you need but limit blurring of image due to diffraction, and that requires precise and intentional placement of focal plane.
> 
> ...



On the 5DIII...and even the 60D...Live View allows for AF pretty much anywhere within the frame, and produces razor sharp results. Works great for focus-stacking sequences too. 

I'm not saying that AF trumps manual focus! But I think it is an overstatement to say AF is useless!


----------



## chrysoberyl (Sep 21, 2016)

YuengLinger said:


> On the 5DIII...and even the 60D...Live View allows for AF pretty much anywhere within the frame, and produces razor sharp results. Works great for focus-stacking sequences too.
> 
> I'm not saying that AF trumps manual focus! But I think it is an overstatement to say AF is useless!



I might just try that with my 80D - with the AF point coverage and it should work pretty well.

What's a good and moderate cost focus stacking software?

Thanks,
John


----------



## Luds34 (Sep 21, 2016)

Another vote for the 100L. It's an excellent macro lens. But it's FL, IS, relative fast speed (f/2.8), and sharpness make it an excellent portrait lens as well.

Of course you will be shooting on crop. I know you said money/budget isn't a factor but the EF-S 60mm is an excellent lens as well. I've gotten some great shots with that lens when I had it.

Depending on what you are shooting, aka if static and quite close, I'd recommend a macro ring flash. Yougnuo has one for a 100 bucks that is very solid.

Best of luck!


----------



## Luds34 (Sep 21, 2016)

chrysoberyl said:


> YuengLinger said:
> 
> 
> > On the 5DIII...and even the 60D...Live View allows for AF pretty much anywhere within the frame, and produces razor sharp results. Works great for focus-stacking sequences too.
> ...



This worked quite well for me when I owned a 70D, was actually my preferred way to focus on macro.


----------



## Mikehit (Sep 21, 2016)

One advantage of the 100L is its IS system. 

To quote from Canon's site:



> A normal Image Stabilization system works by detecting and counteracting rotational motion – that is motion around a point. However, in macro shooting, the camera movement appears to be less rotational and more shift-based, as the whole camera appears to move along a plane rather than around a point. *For this reason, the IS system for shooting macro subjects needs to be different. The Hybrid IS corrects for both rotational and shift based motion *and offers up to four stops of IS ability in normal shooting, three stops at half-life size and two stops at life-size.



http://cpn.canon-europe.com/content/education/technical/making_the_most_of_macro.do

The bit about 


> four stops of IS ability in normal shooting, three stops at half-life size and two stops at life-size



applies, I believe, to all macro lenses with IS and although a surprise is still better than nowt.


----------



## mackguyver (Sep 21, 2016)

Mikehit said:


> One advantage of the 100L is its IS system.


Definitely and plus whatever we're up to on recommending the 100L. I use it and the 180L frequently and have taken to using the 100L handheld for product shots as I can save tons of time by handholding. I'm at 1/250s, so the IS doesn't matter there, but it allows me to line up the shot perfectly. For outdoor/nature work, I prefer the 180L due to the longer focal length and ability to use extenders, but for most everything else the 100L is great.


----------



## knkedlaya (Sep 21, 2016)

+1 for Canon 100L. Had tamron 90 before. That was also excellent optics. Under similar usage conditions, tamron got fungus in 2 years, canon still no problem even after 3+years.


----------



## scyrene (Sep 21, 2016)

chrysoberyl said:


> YuengLinger said:
> 
> 
> > On the 5DIII...and even the 60D...Live View allows for AF pretty much anywhere within the frame, and produces razor sharp results. Works great for focus-stacking sequences too.
> ...



HeliconFocus is good and pretty cheap. Affinity Photo is introducing a focus stacking feature soon, apparently.


----------



## monsieur_elegante (Sep 22, 2016)

Absolutely love my Canon 100L -- its consistent AF and very good IS help a lot with photographing insects or other tiny critters. And the image quality is amazing; I often find myself amazed by the details it captures when I upload my pictures to the computer.

On top of macro use, though, I also find that it makes a great landscape and portrait lens. 

As others have pointed out, the biggest downside is that for insects, you'll find that the working distance is a bit short. You'll need to get really close to your subject, and most bugs won't stick around for that. If budget won't be a problem, I would recommend that you maybe give the Canon 180L macro a try. I've never used it, but I feel the extra working distance would be an enormous help with insect photography. 

I'm perfectly happy with my 100L, though, and I feel like the versatility of the 100mm focal length outweighs the inconvenience of needing to be very, very careful when sneaking up on bugs.


----------



## Zeidora (Sep 22, 2016)

chrysoberyl said:


> What's a good and moderate cost focus stacking software?
> 
> Thanks,
> John



there's also Zerene Stacker, which I like the best, and also combineZ (have not used that). Earlier versions of HeliconFocus gave me more artifacts than Zerene for the subject matter I shoot. I think both have trial versions to download, so you can play with it for a bit. Have not used HF in a while. Both have pros and cons (e.g., load CR2 files directly in HF, while ZS only takes .tif and .jpg) and live view in HF, not supported in ZS. Both cost about the same, if memory serves me well. PS CS5.5 was really poor at serious z-stacking (20-100 frames), produced more artifact blurs than anything else. Haven't used more recent versions.


----------



## chrysoberyl (Sep 22, 2016)

scyrene said:


> HeliconFocus is good and pretty cheap. Affinity Photo is introducing a focus stacking feature soon, apparently.



Many thanks!


----------



## chrysoberyl (Sep 22, 2016)

Zeidora said:


> there's also Zerene Stacker, which I like the best, and also combineZ (have not used that). Earlier versions of HeliconFocus gave me more artifacts than Zerene for the subject matter I shoot. I think both have trial versions to download, so you can play with it for a bit. Have not used HF in a while. Both have pros and cons (e.g., load CR2 files directly in HF, while ZS only takes .tif and .jpg) and live view in HF, not supported in ZS. Both cost about the same, if memory serves me well. PS CS5.5 was really poor at serious z-stacking (20-100 frames), produced more artifact blurs than anything else. Haven't used more recent versions.



Once again, I am in your debt. And I am very pleased that I purchased the Milvus 100 Makro, as you suggested. I beat it daily with a ball-peen hammer to try to get the AF to work...so for I've worn out three hammers without hurting the lens. But seriously, it is a joy to use.


----------



## TommyLee (Sep 22, 2016)

on my first digital slr .. a 20D.....the ONLY lens I had was the canon 100 macro
wonderful... bodies came and went more lenses etc... 
then the 100L macro.... with I.S.
about the same high quality optically.. as original
but I.S. made it even more useful.. as a walk-about portrait lens etc..
price has dropped a lot.. and it is a best buy IMO..
yes it would be nice to have some more working distance ..from 150mm types..

but the 100L is so compact and so dependable..
autofocus is dead-on good and very useful..as is I.S.

I never used a tripod or a flash in flower and bug photos...
on original or I.S. 'L' version...

I was chasing bugs..or waiting for them... 
hardly used my tripod ...really.. on anything..
too active I guess..

used ext tubes and 1.4x teleconverter (tamron sp version)
on both lenses..

a 16-35 I.S. and a 100L macro ... can do almost anything...
local walkabout or world travel..

right now my most useful small kit is 35L mk ii and 100L macro...maybe add the small 14mmL ii
on 5d3 or 1dx2

the reliable autofocus and I.S. makes the 100L the top choice IMO
for bugs flowers and people's faces IMO

widely available new and used and holds its value...nowdays..

enjoy it

TOM


----------



## SkynetTX (Sep 24, 2016)

I'm using the EF-S 60mm f/2.8 and I think it's a great lens. If you can get close enough to your subject. You have to be very patient if you want to take shots of beetles or lizards. The first picture below was taken with aperture F16 and 1/10 sec exposure time, the second one aperture F32 and 8(!) sec exposure time. 

https://canon.ssl.cdn.sdlmedia.com/image/636089497153537241SI.jpg?height=650
https://canon.ssl.cdn.sdlmedia.com/image/636100735206352962GJ.jpg?height=650


----------



## pmjm (Oct 1, 2016)

I ordered the Sigma 105 as a cheaper alternative and returned it. Well, I primarily returned it because there was a scratch on one of the inner glass elements, but I also wasn't thrilled with its autofocus. 

I also had some strange exposure problems when using f/4 or higher that may very well have been my own fault. But it was weird that the camera didn't automatically raise the ISO to compensate for stopping down. Might be an incompatibility with the lens' firmware and the new 5D Mk IV?

In any case, I've decided to go with the 100L.


----------



## chrysoberyl (Oct 1, 2016)

pmjm said:


> I ordered the Sigma 105 as a cheaper alternative and returned it. Well, I primarily returned it because there was a scratch on one of the inner glass elements, but I also wasn't thrilled with its autofocus.
> 
> I also had some strange exposure problems when using f/4 or higher that may very well have been my own fault. But it was weird that the camera didn't automatically raise the ISO to compensate for stopping down. Might be an incompatibility with the lens' firmware and the new 5D Mk IV?
> 
> In any case, I've decided to go with the 100L.



I'm sure you will be happy; many folks have made that decision and appear quite happy. As for me, I haven't touched my 100L since I bought the Milvus 100 Makro.

John


----------



## pmjm (Oct 1, 2016)

chrysoberyl said:


> I'm sure you will be happy; many folks have made that decision and appear quite happy. As for me, I haven't touched my 100L since I bought the Milvus 100 Makro.
> 
> John



The upside is that I seem to have scored the 100L for $331. That Milvus 100 is a hell of a lens, but don't you miss AF? Are you able to sneak up on insects with MF?


----------



## SkynetTX (Oct 1, 2016)

Macro stands for Manual focusing.  If you get really close to your subject the contrast based AutoFocus becomes mainly useless since there will be only a very little contrast between the parts of the image. Just think about the head of a completely black beetle like in the second image of my previous reply. Of course, you can try using AF but most of the time it won't work. And you should select one cross-type AF-point only.
The first picture in my previous reply about the spider was made using AF, but it's only a close-up photo, not a "real" macro.


----------



## danski0224 (Oct 1, 2016)

SkynetTX said:


> Macro stands for Manual focusing.



I'll disagree with that.

The biggest issue with using AF is that the magnification changes. If the goal is to only take 1:1 macro pictures (1:1 and above being defined as macro), then the AF typically needs to be turned off. Or, manually pre-focus at 1:1 and move the camera in or out until the desired image is in focus.

Pre-focusing also lets you know where you should be for 1:1 if maximum magnification is desired.

Yes, the AF can hunt, and sometimes it's frustrating.

In my experience, I find that the AF works well far more often than it is "useless", certainly at 1:1 and lower.

I also find it to be virtually impossible to manually focus through the (optical) viewfinder on a modern DSLR (some do not allow screen changes or support certain screens), and using live view while trying to hold the camera and look and focus to be more than virtually impossible. That leaves me with AF if I'm not setting up the tripod.

I would welcome a high resolution EVF or some sort of OVF overlay that shows focus peaking.


----------



## pmjm (Oct 1, 2016)

Hey, I'm not one to discourage manual focus at all, just saying I would miss autofocus if it wasn't there. For live, fast-moving subjects it can make the difference between getting the shot and not. Also, if you want to use your macro lens as a portrait lens, AF will come in handy. 

Another case of this-varies-based-on-what-you-use-it-for. Those who do mostly macro photography would probably prefer the extra stops some of these lenses have, especially once you start getting into extension tubes, magnifiers and such.

Personally I couldn't see myself buying a lens where AF wasn't an option. But I'm me, and you're not! ;D


----------



## Mr Bean (Oct 1, 2016)

Canon 100mm IS works well for me. The IS and AF can be handy for flying subjects.

Horse fly hovering.....


----------



## chrysoberyl (Oct 2, 2016)

pmjm said:


> chrysoberyl said:
> 
> 
> > I'm sure you will be happy; many folks have made that decision and appear quite happy. As for me, I haven't touched my 100L since I bought the Milvus 100 Makro.
> ...


----------



## chrysoberyl (Oct 2, 2016)

Whoops! Looks like my first image was deleted. Anyway, you get the idea.


----------



## pmjm (Oct 3, 2016)

I just shot this in my back yard on an old Tamron SP 272E 90mm f/2.8 Di AF on my 5D Mk IV. I forgot what a decent lens it is, and it's cheap too. If you're shooting flowers or still subjects in a studio it could be a good choice if budget is an issue.

Stopped down to F11 and used autofocus. The loud, slow, whirring focus motor plus the extending lens frightened my subject for a second, but I'm pretty happy with how it came out.


----------



## 4mrfannwskptc (Oct 4, 2016)

SkynetTX said:


> I'm using the EF-S 60mm f/2.8 and I think it's a great lens. If you can get close enough to your subject. You have to be very patient if you want to take shots of beetles or lizards. The first picture below was taken with aperture F16 and 1/10 sec exposure time, the second one aperture F32 and 8(!) sec exposure time.
> 
> https://canon.ssl.cdn.sdlmedia.com/image/636089497153537241SI.jpg?height=650
> https://canon.ssl.cdn.sdlmedia.com/image/636100735206352962GJ.jpg?height=650



In the same boat about to get a macro lens. Leaning towards the Canon 100L, also considering the brand new Tamaron 90mm 2.8 IS. Was wondering what effect do the regular extension tubes have on DOF? I will be using 5Diii.


----------



## Zeidora (Oct 4, 2016)

4mrfannwskptc said:


> Was wondering what effect do the regular extension tubes have on DOF? I will be using 5Diii.



DOF gets shallower with increased magnification at same effective f-stop. Easy to calculate with DOF formula. Note, that in macro, f-stop set on lens is smaller than the effective f-stop at sensor: f eff = f lens x (magnification +1). A few lenses correct for that on their own (e.g., micronikors); not sure about Canon macros, but don't think so. At any rate, the lenses certainly do not correct for it once you add extension tubes.


----------



## NancyP (Oct 4, 2016)

Macro lenses tend to be rated excellent to fantastic for the close-up work. Other features that might come into consideration would be utility as a non-macro telephoto. If you like insects, you likely would go for a 100 mm or longer lens. You might also want to consider using flash. I like to shoot snakes and other herps - for the poisonous ones I am happy to have as much distance between me and it, so that it doesn't get nervous (then I am Outta There!). Do you expect to be shooting near/at 1:1 or at lower mag? 

I started out using a 60D and 60mm f/2.8, a nice combo for flowers / general use short telephoto. 60 is also a good studio macro length - you don't want to be forced to park the camera in the next room. Sometimes at 1:1 the working distance was short enough that ambient lighting was somewhat of an issue. There's where supplemental flash comes in handy. You can pop the 60 in your pocket, it is light weight. Also, it balances well in the hand on a Rebel. I have been using one on a copy stand at work for about 6-7 years now. A do-it-all APS-C kit for nature photography could be 24mm f/2.8 for landscape, 60 for macro, and if you are into larger insects or birds, 300mm f/4 L IS (used) with option of 1.4x TC. 300 f/4 L IS is an old lens with hilariously loud IS, but it focuses to about 1:3, which is great for dragonflies, butterflies, etc. To some extent it has been overtaken by the 100-400 f/4-5.6L IS II which also focuses to 1:3 mag. 

I got interested in insects and finally got the 180mm f/3.5L, very heavy hand-held, but you get used to it. I will say that it is now a somewhat outmoded lens, unless you get a great deal on a used lens. The new 150 and 180 Sigmas are very good. The 180 Sigma is a beast, comparable to the Canon 100-400 in size and weight. 150 balances well and is lighter. 

There are some esoteric lenses out there that are fabulous for specialists but lack IS and autofocus (hence less useful for general telephoto). The Zeiss 50mm and 100mm and the Voigtlander 125mm come to mind. All are very expensive. 

Don't get the MP-E 65 until you are quite experienced with macro and macro flash at 1:1 or less. 

Macro lenses often come up on the used market. If you aren't sure this is for you, get the Canon 60mm f/2.8 at ~ $300.00 (used or less).


----------



## chrysoberyl (Oct 4, 2016)

NancyP said:


> The new 150 and 180 Sigmas are very good. The 180 Sigma is a beast, comparable to the Canon 100-400 in size and weight.



Well-stated. The Sigma 180 is a brick - really! The AF is really only good for stationary or steadily moving subjects. But it is sharp.


----------



## illadvisedhammer (Oct 5, 2016)

Lots of good advice and enough to convince anyone that there are few to no rules (like AF vs MF) that apply to everyone. Also, if you get into macro you won't use just one lens, and as your technique and tastes change you can sell and buy different lenses, so this isn't your last decision. I'll just chip in two things. First, for insects, flash may be as important as the lens, and will influence your lens choice. John Kimbler (dalantech, nocroppingzone) has a lot of very helpful posts on his various websites and forum posts on how flash is needed to freeze detail in insect portraits. I attach a picture, not that it's great but I took it today, with an M2, (an awful camera for macro, but it was the only way I could stuff the lens and flash in a small bag while taking children to the playground), and a macro twin flash. Money may be no object but budget for flash and diffusion, either ready made or home made. The second point is that short focal length has advantages as well. The lens on this shot was the EF-S 60, which is great because 1) sometimes fast AF is useful even at 1.5:1 and the MP-E 65 never gives that option 2) shorter focal length means flash duration can be shorter and can freeze detail 3) shorter length means that extension tubes give greater magnification effect [this was with 20mm extension, 37mm extension gets you to 2:1 on the 60 2.8]. I guess I don't have strong advice, except maybe go one price down, like a used 100 2.8 non-L and spend the rest on lighting.


----------



## chrysoberyl (Oct 5, 2016)

illadvisedhammer said:


> Lots of good advice and enough to convince anyone that there are few to no rules (like AF vs MF) that apply to everyone. Also, if you get into macro you won't use just one lens, and as your technique and tastes change you can sell and buy different lenses, so this isn't your last decision. I'll just chip in two things. First, for insects, flash may be as important as the lens, and will influence your lens choice. John Kimbler (dalantech, nocroppingzone) has a lot of very helpful posts on his various websites and forum posts on how flash is needed to freeze detail in insect portraits. I attach a picture, not that it's great but I took it today, with an M2, (an awful camera for macro, but it was the only way I could stuff the lens and flash in a small bag while taking children to the playground), and a macro twin flash. Money may be no object but budget for flash and diffusion, either ready made or home made. The second point is that short focal length has advantages as well. The lens on this shot was the EF-S 60, which is great because 1) sometimes fast AF is useful even at 1.5:1 and the MP-E 65 never gives that option 2) shorter focal length means flash duration can be shorter and can freeze detail 3) shorter length means that extension tubes give greater magnification effect [this was with 20mm extension, 37mm extension gets you to 2:1 on the 60 2.8]. I guess I don't have strong advice, except maybe go one price down, like a used 100 2.8 non-L and spend the rest on lighting.



That shot speaks well for both the EF-S 60 and your technique. Mentioning Dalantech is also an excellent idea.


----------



## LesC (Oct 16, 2016)

Been wondering about getting the EF100 F2.8L myself but it did come out in 2009 and the new Tamron gets good reviews, in fact a recent review I read in Digital Camera Magazine gave it a clear advantage over the Canon. 

However that doesnt seem to be the case looking at the comparisons here: http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=1046&Camera=453&Sample=0&FLI=0&API=6&LensComp=674&CameraComp=453&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=0&APIComp=0 The Canon appears noticeably sharper here.

Think I'm veering towards the Canon. Always the chance of compatibility issues further down the line with non-Canon lenses too I guess.


----------



## chrysoberyl (Oct 17, 2016)

LesC said:


> Been wondering about getting the EF100 F2.8L myself but it did come out in 2009 and the new Tamron gets good reviews, in fact a recent review I read in Digital Camera Magazine gave it a clear advantage over the Canon.
> 
> However that doesnt seem to be the case looking at the comparisons here: http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=1046&Camera=453&Sample=0&FLI=0&API=6&LensComp=674&CameraComp=453&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=0&APIComp=0 The Canon appears noticeably sharper here.
> 
> Think I'm veering towards the Canon. Always the chance of compatibility issues further down the line with non-Canon lenses too I guess.



The 100L is a nice lens. Mine has become a paperweight since I got the Milvus 100 Makro, but that's because I like sharp a lot.

Please study other 100L reviews, especially at LensTip and Photozone. Some sites seem to lack objectivity, but these two are very objective.


----------



## jeffa4444 (Oct 17, 2016)

The Canon EF100mm 2.8L IS USM lens is one of my all time favourites. Great as a macro lens for insects and flowers etc. but equally a brilliant lens for portraits and as a regular 100mm.


----------



## jolyonralph (Oct 23, 2016)

"me too" to the voices in support of the Canon 100mm 2.8L 

super lens, not just for macro but for everything else.


----------



## Ryananthony (Oct 23, 2016)

I recently purchased this the 100L. I love it. If your budget can afford it, I think it is the way to go. Like mentioned above, not even for macro (which it is obviously) but for general walk around if that focal length works for you. I just took it street shooting downtown Vancouver two days ago, and it was great. Focus is fast, and the option to focus close (non macro distances) can add a lot to a photograph.


----------



## greger (Oct 23, 2016)

100L You will fall in love with it! You want a macro for shooting insects and flowers. It is a fantastic lens for these kind of shots. IS is great.


----------

