# Good/Better/Best Macro for T3i



## sanjosedave (Mar 2, 2012)

What are your opinions for Good/Better/Best Macro lens for a T3i?

Shooting mainly flowers


----------



## neuroanatomist (Mar 3, 2012)

Canon EF 100mm f/2.8L Macro IS.


----------



## Mt Spokane Photography (Mar 3, 2012)

I certainly like my 100mm L on my 7d. 

Truthfully though, if you are a deliberate and careful photographer, any of the macro lenses by Canon, Sigma, Tamron, tokina, Zeiss, etc are going to fall in the excellent range.

The reason I like the 100L is because I can get reasonably good results while handholding it, and I don't have the patience to do it properly.


----------



## sanjosedave (Mar 3, 2012)

Will the T3i be able to resolve the Canon EF 100mm f/2.8L Macro IS fully?


----------



## neuroanatomist (Mar 3, 2012)

sanjosedave said:


> Will the T3i be able to resolve the Canon EF 100mm f/2.8L Macro IS fully?



Absolutely, yes.


----------



## Joellll (Mar 3, 2012)

Extra vote for the 100L here.

I'm using a 500D right now, and I must say the 100L is a really good walk around lens if you prefer snapping further than 50mm. IS helps keeping pictures steady and the bokeh is lovely. It also makes a pretty decent portraiture lens.


----------



## Marsu42 (Mar 8, 2012)

Joellll said:


> Extra vote for the 100L here.


... but since you weren't only asking for "the best" which is "the most expensive" most of the time: the older "golden ring" 100/2.8 macro is very cheap to get used and the sharpness is nearly up par with the more expensive version. If you really shoot macro objects you might be using a tripod anyway (i.e. IS won't help) and at very close distance IS doesn't help much or not at all. The one drawback of the non-L version is missing weather sealing, so you have to watch out for dust or sand.


----------



## facedodge (Mar 8, 2012)

The Tamron 90mm Macro is just as sharp and even has a bit more contrast than the 100L. However, the AF is a bit slower and motor is a bit noisier. For nearly 1/2 the cost, it's the better bargain IMO.


----------



## AJ (Mar 8, 2012)

Some very good macro lenses for shooting flowers:

Canon 60/2.8
Sigma 70/2.8
Tamron 90/2.8 (I own this one, excellent lens)
Canon 100/2.8
Canon 100/2.8 L IS

All are exceedingly sharp and produce beautiful bokeh.

Think about secondary uses (e.g. portraiture) and how the lens would fit into your collection. Then pick a focal length accordingly.


----------



## Kernuak (Mar 8, 2012)

I'm yet to hear of a bad macro lens. They are typically among the sharpest lenses of any manufacturer. I usually say that around 90-105mm is probably the best focal length for general purpose macro photography. It's basically an all round length. It gives you a bit of working distance (although more is better) if shooting insects, but isn't too long to make botanical macro work awkward, particularly in more confined spaces. However, if you are only intending to photograph flowers, then it's probably also worth considering a shorter focal length. For one thing they are less expensive, but also, some gardens aren't particularly large, so you may be limited on space. That's ok for 1:1 macro work, but if you need to back up to photograph a larger area, to produce a closeup, rather than a true macro, then you may find yourself running out of room with around 100mm. As AJ said, think about the areas you are likely to be photographing in and factor in any potential secondary uses.


----------



## wickidwombat (Mar 9, 2012)

neuroanatomist said:


> Canon EF 100mm f/2.8L Macro IS.



Absolutely and it also makes a fantastic portrait lens


----------



## Tijn (Mar 9, 2012)

Canon 100L, unless you're using a tripod for mostly all your shoots and you're short on cash. In that case, the Canon 100mm non-L (without IS) is almost as sharp as the L version. The difference in pictures will be indiscernible. If you're shooting hand-held, IS is recommended and then the 100L is just awesome.


----------



## Bennymiata (Mar 11, 2012)

I have a 60d and also have the Canon 60mm macro, the 100L and the Sigma 150mm with OS.

As you can see, I like macro photography!

However, for flowers, I find the 60mm lens to be the best.
With the 100 and 150, you have to stand too far away for flowers.
Insects are a different matter however, and you need all the distance you can get, hence the 150mm Sigma.

The 60mm is very sharp with great colours and contrast, and the focussing is very fast too, in fact, it is so close the 100L in shaprness that it really doesn't matter.

Here'sa shot taken withthe 60mm macro for you.
The flower is about 1/2" diameter and is an Australian native called a muraya.


----------



## rj79in (Mar 12, 2012)

The 100mm 2.8 is the best bet. You can choose the IS or non-IS without any difference in image quality. Both are razor sharp and have great bokeh. Having tried both I can just wish all lenses were this good!


----------



## Jamesy (Mar 12, 2012)

A cheap entry level macro lens would be the 50/2.5 which is a 1:2 lens rather than the majority of the ones mentioned here which are 1:1.

To the OP original question

*All Canon*
Good = 50/2.5
Better = 100/2.8 or 60/2.8 EF-s
Best = 100/2.8 L

A buddy of mine has the Tamron 90 and says it is good.


----------



## Marsu42 (Mar 15, 2012)

Jamesy said:


> A cheap entry level macro lens would be the 50/2.5 which is a 1:2 lens rather than the majority of the ones mentioned here which are 1:1.



I was near buying the 50/2.5 just because it's magnification is lower as an addition to my 100mm. Then I tried it in a shop - the af is horrible 80s quality without manual override (I remember, I had Canon gear even back then) and the lens does not report focus distance which afaik sabotages the flash system.


----------



## pj1974 (Mar 15, 2012)

Jamesy said:


> A cheap entry level macro lens would be the 50/2.5 which is a 1:2 lens rather than the majority of the ones mentioned here which are 1:1.
> 
> To the OP original question
> 
> ...



+1

I have the Canon 100mm f/2.8 USM macro, and it's very good. Sharp, great bokeh, etc. As I do nearly all my macro hand-held (and all my serious macro is hand-held) - I decided I didn't need the L and saved a couple hundred dollars that way. I also use my 100mm macro as a casual portrait lens too.

Paul


----------



## Marsu42 (Mar 15, 2012)

pj1974 said:


> I have the Canon 100mm f/2.8 USM macro, and it's very good.



+1 for this ... but I'm amazed how you can say this and still retain positive karma


----------



## dunkers (Mar 15, 2012)

I completely back the 100L. Easiy my sharpest and favorite lens. 

The IS is really useful for macro and for everyday applicaions. It's my go to lens for portraits as well.


----------



## David KM (Mar 15, 2012)

Without a doubt 100L...

Short on cash and might have it already... 50mm plus extension tube. Not a macro but doable.


----------



## facedodge (Mar 16, 2012)

Tamron 90 is better than canon 100 non-L IMO. Super sharp. Great bokeh


----------



## NiceShotSteve (Mar 16, 2012)

Don't discount a good quality zoom. It doesn't necessarily have to be a "macro zoom" - just add a 2-element close-up lens or an extension tube. Then when you're done shooting flowers, you can use it for everyday shooting. (I use my Canon EF 70-200/4 IS in this manner with excellent results.)


----------



## Mt Spokane Photography (Mar 16, 2012)

100L images

All taken handheld while walking around my front yard.























Great for portraits too


----------



## mr.ranger (Mar 16, 2012)

i have a 60d as well with the 60mm macro and its a superb lens also works as a great portrait lens/walk around. did i mention its really sharp.


----------



## Orion (Mar 16, 2012)

sanjosedave said:


> What are your opinions for Good/Better/Best Macro lens for a T3i?
> 
> Shooting mainly flowers



For a T3i, just go with the 100mm f/2.8. It is really suppposed to me a L lens, if it wasn't for the difference in construction you get with L 

It's tack sharp and has great bokeh. *I would also recommend you get an extension tube set * . . .not the Canon because it costs too much, but I haven't checked lately. 

the 100mm NON IS and the new 100mm WITH IS are practically the same in picture quality, soit all comes down to whether or not you want to spend an extra $300 for ISO and build ($70-140 rebate is being offered on the 100mm IS)

P.S> try your best to not simply focus on flowers or insects. . . . be creative with macro. More fun!


----------



## nicku (Mar 16, 2012)

good - 60mm f/2.8
better - 100mm f.2.8
best - 100mm f/2.8 L

not taking in consideration the build quality and the IS there is no difference in IQ between 100mm L and non L version of 100mm f/2.8 USM.

Superb IQ and sharpness.


----------



## Marsu42 (Mar 16, 2012)

Orion said:


> the 100mm NON IS and the new 100mm WITH IS are practically the same in picture quality, soit all comes down to whether or not you want to spend an extra $300 for ISO and build ($70-140 rebate is being offered on the 100mm IS)



Another advantage of the non-L 100mm macro is you can get a cheap used one because they have been around so long that there are many in circulation plus better-off people sell them for getting the L version or a 70-200/2.8 (I got mine from a guy who argued that the zoom covers most of this close-distance needs). The L macro almost sells at its original price, so no use getting this from ebay.



Orion said:


> 0
> I would also recommend you get an extension tube set



I never thought of that - Which one *do* you recommend then?


----------



## Jamesy (Mar 16, 2012)

Marsu42 said:


> Orion said:
> 
> 
> > 0
> ...


I have a set of Kenko 300DG's - they support AF and work great. Well priced at roughly $160ish at B+H.


----------



## BK (Mar 16, 2012)

Marsu42 said:


> Orion said:
> 
> 
> > 0
> ...



I've heard great things about the Kenko tubes. I wanted to warn people off of the Zeikos brand tubes though. I bought the Zeikos at the end of December and figured since I wouldn't be using them much that the plastic mounts would be fine. After trying them out I found that all three of the lens mounts had chips missing where the mount clips them in place. Zeikos wants $12.00 for shipping to get me a replacement set under their warranty. I'm outside of the return policy for Amazon and don't much feel like throwing good money after bad. I really don't want to chance little plastic bits floating about in my camera so I'll spring for the nicer tubes when I've got a little spare cash.

Stick with the metal mounts on the Kenko tubes.

Thanks everyone for the input on the macro lenses - I'm also in the market and appreciate everyone's input.


----------



## epiem (Mar 17, 2012)

I LOVE LOVE LOVE my 100/2.8 L. 

It's almost ALWAYS attached to my 2nd 5DmII. 

When I'm not using a 50mm 1.2L or 70-200mm 2.8L II I am using that lens. 

It's great for easy portraits on the go AND for closeup macro.


----------



## jebrady03 (Mar 17, 2012)

I'm shooting with a 60D and the 60mm macro. I mostly use my camera for pictures of my pets which are boa constrictors. I mostly use this lens for close up and macro shots.

Boas aren't easy to get pictures of as they rarely sit still and when you get really close to them (like when using a macro lens), they tend to turn and dart the other way. The 60mm lens is great for getting close to them, but not too close and it's really sharp with gorgeous bokeh (IMO).

Here are a few shots I've taken recently (first two are actually "macro" and the third is just a "close up"). BTW, I have a "thing" for their eyes...
















Hope that helps!
jb


----------



## jebrady03 (Mar 19, 2012)

Any better? It's a link to the full 18mp size...
http://www.deviantconstrictors.com/images/HighQuality/IMG_0674lg.JPG

Still handheld but I feel like it's sharper. 1/100 f5.6, right at 1:1 magnification

Here's the downsized version





I think that part of the inherent problems with macro photography is that at such close distances, the depth of field is close to paper thin. Obviously, skill (which I admit to having very little of), focus stacking, etc., can all compensate. But, it's tough...


----------



## kirispupis (Mar 19, 2012)

I wouldn't say these are bad shots. You are evidently very good at getting close to these snakes and your first three shots show attempts at interesting compositions. With some more practice and time spent analyzing reptile shots from professionals I think you can significantly improve.

I disagree that the top shots are taken with top gear. Very good gear often makes it easier, but many of the best shots I have seen used very low end gear. That being said, you will not be disappointed with the 100/2.8 IS macro.

It is true that sharpness and optics-wise the IS and non-IS versions are almost identical. However the IS, IMHO, completely sets this lens apart. It allows you to shoot at shutter speeds otherwise unthinkable in macro.

In terms of your last shot, this is just my opinion but I offer the following critique.

The #1 issue I see with many beginner's photographs is they attempt to put too much in the shot. This is an issue with this shot. The green tuft (moss?) is distracting. I am also unsure whether this is a portrait of the snake's head or just the eye. The nostril seems to indicate this is a shot of the head, but then it is missing another nostril. Keep things simple. Decide what you want your subject to be and remove everything else.

Your DOF also confuses slightly. I would like to see a touch more DOF - such as F8.

I believe you are following most of the proper technique already - handheld, no flash, and no AF.


----------



## Marsu42 (Mar 19, 2012)

kirispupis said:


> It is true that sharpness and optics-wise the IS and non-IS versions are almost identical. However the IS, IMHO, completely sets this lens apart. It allows you to shoot at shutter speeds otherwise unthinkable in macro.



While this is often debated, I'm confident to say: no, it does not! The effect of the IS decreases when the magnification increases, until it is almost negligible at 1:1. You cannot expect to get 4 stops of improvement with macro and IS.

The reason to get the 100L is a) better dust/sand resistance due to weather sealing, b) dual-use as a portrait lens, c) hybrid IS at non-macro distances which can eliminate some shake when coupled with a good (i.e. 7D) servo af.

If one often shoots with a tripod (this is very often the case w/ macro, and of course focus stacking) or at real close macro distances, I'd advice for anyone on a budget to get a much cheaper non-L version and put the remaining money in another good lens - other L primes are sharper than the macros esp. at open aperture.


----------

