# Macro Lens recommendation



## rebelphil (Feb 10, 2012)

I appreciate all of the shared knowledge and insights exchanged here. I’ve learned a lot from reading many of your posts.

First, I Recently bought a 7D to replace my Rebel T1i. I thought it might be the best “all around” camera for me at this time. (Looking forward to FF in the future.) 

Now, I’m looking to add two more lenses to my gear before budget restraints prevail. I’ve decided on the Tokina 11-16 2.8 for my widest angle shots, but does anyone have any recommendations for an “all around” Macro lens which could be used in conjunction with a Kenko 1.4x Teleplus pro 300, if needed? Any thoughts would be appreciated.

You know, with the increasing cost of lenses, and as I gradually pursue better ones, eventually I can see myself going to “L” in a hand basket.


----------



## DanoPhoto (Feb 10, 2012)

For an "all around" Macro, the 100 or 100L would be your best bet, depending on your budget. I have seen owners rave about its IQ and its cross-over use as a portratit lens.

I have the 180L for my purposes and love it, but it is definltely not an "all around" lens.


----------



## rebelphil (Feb 10, 2012)

Thanks DanoPhoto, I'll check out both of those lenses.


----------



## bobthebrick (Feb 10, 2012)

I think just the normal 100mm macro would do great. It takes great images, unless you're a serious professional, the L is PROBABLY unnecessary. The 100 works great for macro, but it's also great for portraits and sometimes chasing kids around.

Thomas.


----------



## briansquibb (Feb 11, 2012)

DanoPhoto said:


> For an "all around" Macro, the 100 or 100L would be your best bet, depending on your budget. I have seen owners rave about its IQ and its cross-over use as a portratit lens.
> 
> I have the 180L for my purposes and love it, but it is definltely not an "all around" lens.



I use the 180 on a ff and 1.3 - makes a good short telephoto as well


----------



## Mt Spokane Photography (Feb 11, 2012)

rebelphil said:


> any recommendations for an “all around” Macro lens which could be used in conjunction with a Kenko 1.4x Teleplus pro 300, if needed? Any thoughts would be appreciated.
> 
> You know, with the increasing cost of lenses, and as I gradually pursue better ones, eventually I can see myself going to “L” in a hand basket.



What is your budget? 

Why use a Macro with a TC? Are you trying to get more than 1:1 magnification?

When you put the Kenko 1.4X with a Macro, plan on losing autofocus, as noted by others who have taken incorrect advice and then tried.

http://www.fredmiranda.com/forum/topic/863096

This means that you would be wasting a lot of money on a Canon 100L, since it will become a manual focus lens.

If you must use a Macro and TC combination, just get the 100 USM, along with a macro rack / tripod.


----------



## kirispupis (Feb 11, 2012)

To really answer your question on which macro lens it would help to know what you want to photography. There are a number of different lenses that may be used for macro purposes and each has its specialty.

That being said, the 100L is an awesome general purpose macro. For me the biggest selling point of the lens besides its sharpness and bokeh is the IS. I take a large percentage of my macro shots hand held and without the specialized IS on this lens it would not be possible.

In terms of using a Kenko 1.4x on it, this should work but why do you need to do this? To be honest I have never put a TC on my 100 macro but then again I have an MP-E 65 for when I need more than 1x. You should not be concerned about losing AF because you rarely use AF in macro photography. For all practical purposes I treat my 100 macro as a MF lens.


----------



## pwp (Feb 11, 2012)

If you're on a tight budget, the highly respected 100 f/2.8 macro is very reasonably priced new, and readily available pre-owned for just a few hundred dollars. As other posters have suggested, the 100L macro is a very new, stellar lens. There is plenty to read on each lens on the www. eg http://www.the-digital-picture.com/ & http://www.fredmiranda.com/reviews/showcat.php?cat=2

It looks like you're trying to kill two birds with the one stone...macro capability plus a tele lens using the macro with an extender. Your mileage may vary with this combination. 

If you have a great interest in doing macro work, get the macro lens. If you expect your greater need is for a tele lens, consider a pre-owned 70-200 f/4 (non is). Then add in a set of inexpensive extension tubes. 

Look here http://www.shutterfreaks.com/Tips/ExtensionTube.htm 
http://atinyblip.com/articles/photography/kenko-2x-teleplus-pro-300-teleconverter/ 
http://www.warehouseexpress.com/extenders-and-adapters-panasonic/b3075-m182?manufacturer=130

Extension tubes will deliver better quality than a screw-on close up filter.

Let us know which way you go with this. 

Paul Wright


----------



## briansquibb (Feb 11, 2012)

pwp said:


> If you're on a tight budget, the highly respected 100 f/2.8 macro is very reasonably priced new, and readily available pre-owned for just a few hundred dollars. As other posters have suggested, the 100L macro is a very new, stellar lens. There is plenty to read on each lens on the www. eg http://www.the-digital-picture.com/ & http://www.fredmiranda.com/reviews/showcat.php?cat=2
> 
> It looks like you're trying to kill two birds with the one stone...macro capability plus a tele lens using the macro with an extender. Your mileage may vary with this combination.
> 
> ...



+1 for the used 100 2.8

With extension tubes - you get a larger magnification if the extension tubes are longer, in percentage terms, to the focal length.

For example a 50mm lens + 25mm extension tube will get a bigger magnification than a 135mm + 25mm extension tubes


----------



## Marsu42 (Feb 12, 2012)

pwp said:


> It looks like you're trying to kill two birds with the one stone...macro capability plus a tele lens using the macro with an extender.



* macro vs prime+filters/converters: do yourself a very big favour and get a real macro if you want more than a occasional shot of a flower. The difference is like light and dark - I have a macro filter from the analog days, but these solutions simply aren't made for digital photography w/ 18mp+ ... but be aware of the fact that you'll want one or two external flashes too sooner or later, and adequate dof at macro distances requires a tripod for focus stacking (other than that, the sharpness of f/10+ is too low, the iso noise handheld is just too high or you're way out of flash sync).

* macro+extender: I would strongly recommend against this - the 100 macros are sharp and fun to use, esp. at macro distances, but other zooms and primes are much sharper at 18mp pixel-level for general distances. The reason that a macro is not a prime, but actually a zoom with a fixed focus length. At 2.8, the 100 macros are not very sharp (at least with a crop body), you really wouldn't want to extend that. This is the reason for my recommendation concerning 100l/non-l, too (the sharpness is nearly the same): get a used 100 non-l and spend the rest of a money for a good zoom with IS like the 70-200 f/4 or f/2.8+extender. IS arguably does not help (much) at macro distances; the one downside of the non-L 100 macro is missing weather sealing (esp. if you happen to drop your lens in the sand...).


----------



## mb66energy (Feb 12, 2012)

I agree with the comments above that the EF 2.8/100mm MACRO (Non-IS) would be a great choice for macro photography. I bought one new for around 400 Euro one month ago before it vanishes and I have to pay twice for the L-variant. And I want to be fit for a full frame body when I need it.

But the EF-S 2.8/60mm was my first EOS lens ever. And at the time it was the best choice. 

Here some thoughts about the two lenses, the EF 2.8/100mm MACRO and the EF-S 2.8/60mm:

Similarities:
Both lenses are sharp, contrasty and show textures with a high fidelity.
Both are capable to show contrasty pictures just in contralight - but you have to shade your lens with your hands.
Both lenses have a very fast AF motor and general AF system speed is great

Compactness:
EF-S 60mm (70mm length, 335 g) is much more compact compared to EF 100 MACRO (120mm, 600g), a good walk-around lens and fits great into a backpack with additional things like clothing, meals, etc.

Focal length:
EF-S 60mm is a great allrounder on crop bodies. Gives great perspective for landscape, portrait, etc. If someone would ask me to go to an island and only one lens allowed I would choose this one.
EF 100 MACRO is a great short/medium telephoto lens on crop bodies and I like to use it when I want to make more compressed landscapes or need a larger working distance (e.g. for insects etc.).

Full frame capability:
If you plan to go full frame or want to be open to change - the EF 100 MACRO is the better choice.

IMHO the only real difference between both lenses is hidden into three questions ...

Do I want to go full frame?
What is the right focal length for MY shooting style?
How important is compactness/weight for ME?

Best - Michael


----------



## lol (Feb 12, 2012)

I'm also a frequent macro user using an additional teleconverter. Why? You get more reach, and/or more magnification. Just check the teleconverter is mechanically compatible with the lens if it sticks out at the front.

Personally I got the Sigma 150mm macro (non-OS) and it is a great lens. A used copy on the market can be great value for a longer focal length. I often also use mine with a 1.4x on it, for 210mm.


----------



## Marsu42 (Feb 12, 2012)

mb66energy said:


> Here some thoughts about the two lenses, the EF 2.8/100mm MACRO and the EF-S 2.8/60mm



I too would like to emphasize the most important aspect for a macro lens: working distance. With the 100 macro, you don't scare live objects that quickly and might not shadow your own flash that often, esp. when using a hood (but the latter is speculation, the 60 efs is shorter and I never used it). The 100 lenght (equals 160 on a crop camera) is perfect when using the max. flash sync of 1/250s.


----------



## danski0224 (Feb 12, 2012)

rebelphil said:


> I appreciate all of the shared knowledge and insights exchanged here. I’ve learned a lot from reading many of your posts.
> 
> First, I Recently bought a 7D to replace my Rebel T1i. I thought it might be the best “all around” camera for me at this time. (Looking forward to FF in the future.)
> 
> ...



I'm no expert, but the EF-s 60mm macro seems to work pretty nicely and you can use it for other stuff.

60mm x 1.6 = 96mm full frame equivalent.

100mm x 1.6 = 160mm full frame equivalent.

You do not indicate *what* you want to take macro shots of, but if your budget only allows for 2 lenses right now *and* you need "all around", then I suggest the EF-s 60mm.

The EF-s 60 is also optimized for the APS-C sensor and the 100mm macro is not.

I will add that I think 96mm is a little long for lots of indoor stuff.

You will need a Speedlite (or two) for that Tokina 11-16. The on camera flash will cause lens shadow. The 7D can control a 430EXII (or two) and you do need lots of light at the wide end of that lens unless you are outdoors and it is sunny.

I would strongly suggest the EF-s 17-55 f2.8 as the go to "all around" lens on a 7D.


----------



## Marsu42 (Feb 12, 2012)

danski0224 said:


> I would strongly suggest the EF-s 17-55 f2.8 as the go to "all around" lens on a 7D.



Um, I know this isn't the topic - but I tried a 17-55 and will (if at all ef-s) buy the newer 15-85 instead because the reviews are correct: the 17-55 is extremely prone to lens flare which is very bad at wide angle and outdoor shots. My recommendation is: go to an electro store, put on a 17-55 and point it toward a bright light...


----------

