# Which Macro Lens Would You Recommend?



## Serious_Paul (May 19, 2012)

Hello fellow Canon photographers,

I was looking to eventually purchase a Macro lens to add to the arsenal. Just wanted others' opinions on which one stands out among the rest, or is the most versatile. I'm looking for L glass only. Thanks for your help!


----------



## Axilrod (May 19, 2012)

Well there aren't really many options, really just the 100mm and the 180mm f/3.5. I would strongly recommend the 100mm f/2.8L IS, and I'm sure everyone else would agree. Very versatile lens (works great for portraits), beautiful bokeh, and the hybrid IS works incredibly well. It's just a very fun lens overall. 

Now if want really, really amazing optics, the Zeiss 100mm Makro f/2 is absolutely stunning. Incredible resolving power and the separation of subject from the background almost has a 3D-like effect. But at the same time it has no IS, no AF, and it costs 2x the Canon 100mm. Now that I write all that out it is kinda hard to justify the Zeiss, but if you're flushed with cash or shoot video primarily it's a good choice.


----------



## neuroanatomist (May 19, 2012)

For general purpose and versatility, the 100 L IS wins hands-down. The longer working distance of the 180L is an advantage for insects and other skittish subjects. 

The least versatile, most challenging, but also most fun (IMO) is the MP-E 65mm 1-5x.


----------



## Razor2012 (May 19, 2012)

My vote is for the 100 2.8L also. I just picked it up the other day and I'm very happy with it.


----------



## freezehead (May 19, 2012)

Sigma 70mm macro, 105mm macro OS or even better 150mm macro OS, 70mm and 150 can be used with TX while 105 cannot


----------



## Serious_Paul (May 19, 2012)

Thanks for all your responses, everyone! Seems like the general consensus leans towards the 100mm 2.8L. I think that's the one I'll end up going with! Definitely looking forward to expanding my creativity with my photography once I add that baby to the arsenal.


----------



## Andy_Hodapp (May 19, 2012)

I have a Sigma 105mm DG EX Macro and love it to death. Was able to capture this with my first shoot with the lens 
http://i.imgur.com/aBj5D.jpg
Its a great lens, not the fastest auto focus but the lens only cost me $300 and for the quality of it, it is definitely more then worth it, it's like a nifty 50 and now almost always have it on my Canon T1i. It goes to 1:1 ratio and has a nice big 2.8 apature.
here is another pic I took with it.
http://i.imgur.com/2hzor.jpg


----------



## keithfullermusic (May 19, 2012)

say yourself some $, and get the Canon 100mm non-L.

its image quality is effing incredible. if the L image is any better it doesn't even matter at that point, there are plenty of other things much more important to worry about. also, IS is great in many situations, but it's useless in many macro situations. i take tons of macros handheld, and by far the most often cause of blur is the damn wind blowing the subject around, or the subject is moving (bugs). if you are going to be doing serious macros you're probably going to be using a tripod is which case there is no point for IS.

i know it has weather sealing and all that jazz, but if you don't *NEED* IS or weather sealing then seriously get the 100mm non-L. it is an incredible lens.


----------



## Michael_pfh (May 19, 2012)

100mm f2.8L IS.


----------



## briansquibb (May 19, 2012)

I have a Canon 180L. Being longer it means that you dont have to get so close to the little critters as to scare them away. Also useful as a short telephoto


----------



## Forceflow (May 19, 2012)

My vote goes towards the Sigma 150mm, especially since it can be combined with a 2x converter. It's incredible how much detail a 2:1 macro combination captures:







With the naked eye you can barely really tell that there is a wire connections, much less that it is two differentially colored wires intertwined. I really love that lens. Only bad thing working with the converter is that you loose AF even though it is a 5.6 aperture then. No idea why that is, but Sigma does state so in the manual...


----------



## benlanghorne (May 19, 2012)

Another vote here for the Canon 100mm Macro L Lens! I've owned one since christmas, and i must say it's incredible. The fast AF and maximum f/2.8 aperture really comes in useful. The optics are superb, and it's a pleasure to use. No hesitation in recommending whatsoever!

Ben Langhorne

http://www.benlanghornephotography.co.uk


----------



## Marsu42 (May 19, 2012)

keithfullermusic said:


> i know it has weather sealing and all that jazz, but if you don't *NEED* IS or weather sealing then seriously get the 100mm non-L. it is an incredible lens.



Indeed - the pictures of the 100 non-L are practically as good as the L at the apertures you'll use for macro (i.e. not f2.8) and you can pick it up very cheap used. So if you only need it for indoor macro work - IS dosn't help that much at 1:1 and you might use a tripod often - you can get this one, too.

But the missing sealing is really an issue I personally overlooked, and the aperture on my non-L now broke down twice due to dust/sand from shooting outdoors. I have switched to the L, but really the iq isn't that different.


----------



## imkev (May 19, 2012)

I have used both canon 100mm macro lenses. For strictly macro work the non L is more than enough, as others have stated the quality of the images is outstanding. The only reason I picked up the L version is because I want to use it as an additional portrait lens to go along with the 85L and the IS helps out a bit for the non macro shots...and I got a great deal on it too.. You can get the non L for less than $400 used, less than half the price of the L...Either way you go you win.


----------



## Marsu42 (May 19, 2012)

imkev said:


> The only reason I picked up the L version is because I want to use it as an additional portrait lens to go along with the 85L and the IS helps out a bit for the non macro shots...



Since I've got the L now, can you tell me how often you use the 100L or 85L for portraits and why? I wonder if adding 85mm and a wider aperture is really that necessary or if the 100L alone does the job, too.


----------



## Marsu42 (May 19, 2012)

benlanghorne said:


> Another vote here for the Canon 100mm Macro L Lens!



Your site says you're using the "Canon EF 100mm f2.8L IS USM II" ... there is no such lens


----------



## paul13walnut5 (May 19, 2012)

It's hard to buy a bad macro lens these days, I use the Sigma 70mm f2.8 DG EX.

At the time I bought it (and perhaps even still) it was outresolving anything else in the category, including the canon f2.8 100mm.

It's got slow and noisy AF, but then for macro I tend to set my preferred scale and then focus using a manfrotto 454 micro adjust.

It works on full frame or cropped sensor (the EF-s 60mm does not) and it also makes for a very nice portrait lens on a cropped sensor as well (equiv 110mm) towards that end of the focus range, with the limiter on, it's actually ok AF.

But as I say, the clincher for me was the resolution.
http://www.flickr.com/photos/scott1shpau1/1026640641/#


----------



## adamfilip (May 19, 2012)

Ive owned the 100 2.8 USM non IS, 180mm 3.5 and MPE-65 and my vote goes for the 180
its awesome.. my fav lens of all time. super sharp

Cant wait for them to release a new version with IS. and hopefully at 2.8


----------



## ideaworx (May 19, 2012)

100mm f2.8L IS.... love it


----------



## neuroanatomist (May 19, 2012)

Marsu42 said:


> imkev said:
> 
> 
> > The only reason I picked up the L version is because I want to use it as an additional portrait lens to go along with the 85L and the IS helps out a bit for the non macro shots...
> ...



I have both, and when I intend to shoot portraits, I always grab the 85L or 135L. The 100L is used for opportunistic portraits, for example when I take my daughters to a botanical garden.


----------



## Marsu42 (May 19, 2012)

neuroanatomist said:


> I have both, and when I intend to shoot portraits, I always grab the 85L or 135L. The 100L is used for opportunistic portraits, for example when I take my daughters to a botanical garden.



Yes, if you've got lots of lenses lying around I guess that's the clever choice. But since I only got the 100L, I'd be obliged if you could tell me how much difference there is in the actual shots between 100/2.8 and the non-macro primes. Does "opportunistic" mean that the 100L would by no means serve say as a wedding/portrait lens, or is it just the added minimal dof that makes the 135mm and 85mm lenses attractive?

I'm asking because I'd like to get some lenses for professional use, but my next one would be the 35L and my budget doesn't extend to the 85L or 135L next to the 100L I just bought...


----------



## Michael_pfh (May 19, 2012)

The 85L's bokeh cannot be matched by the 100L macro. The 100L is alright for portraits but you just don't get those stunning portrait shots the 85L is capable of...


----------



## neuroanatomist (May 19, 2012)

Marsu42 said:


> But since I only got the 100L, I'd be obliged if you could tell me how much difference there is in the actual shots between 100/2.8 and the non-macro primes. Does "opportunistic" mean that the 100L would by no means serve say as a wedding/portrait lens, or is it just the added minimal dof that makes the 135mm and 85mm lenses attractive?



The DoF is substantially thinner, and the bokeh of the 85L and 135L is better. If there's decent physical separation between subject and background, f/2.8 is ok - my 70-200mm f/2.8L IS II does a good job for portraits. But if you want to isolate a subject from a close, busy background, f/2 or wider makes a big difference.


----------



## Marsu42 (May 19, 2012)

neuroanatomist said:


> The DoF is substantially thinner, and the bokeh of the 85L and 135L is better.



Thanks, I suspected as much. But as for the better bokeh, I'll really have to look through sample shots sometime because it's already excellent on the 100L and the like, though maybe not as blurred as with a thinner dof. 

Personally, I don't like the "complete cut-out" look that much anyway, it looks like the object was actually cut out with photoshop and then pasted in front of a blur. But the thin dof of course is good for effect portrait shots where the face itsself isn't completely in focus.


----------



## knkedlaya (May 19, 2012)

+1 for canon 100mm f2.8L. Earlier I had Tamron 90mm and was very impressed.


----------



## imkev (May 19, 2012)

Marsu42 said:


> imkev said:
> 
> 
> > The only reason I picked up the L version is because I want to use it as an additional portrait lens to go along with the 85L and the IS helps out a bit for the non macro shots...
> ...



I will usually carry the 100L with me when I I go out just in case it's needed. The 85 I will only bring if i know I will be shooting someone, or to a family holiday get together.The bokeh on the 85L is obviously one of the great reasons to go for it, it's just not a very versatile lens as opposed to the 100L. Eveyone knows its main weaknesses, extremely slow to focus and it weighs a ton. Portraits are great with the 100L but awesome with the 85L. This is just a hobby for me and I am still learning more every day and I am sure others will have better info to offer, but this is just my take on it.


----------



## Imagination_landB (May 19, 2012)

http://www.sigmaphoto.com/shop/apo-macro-180mm-f28-ex-dg-os-hsm here ;s an very interesting lens ,theres almost no information about it and nmo release date price announced..


----------



## Bennymiata (May 20, 2012)

I have owned or extensively used all the Canon macro lenses, bar the 180mm version.

My favourite macro lens?

The Sigma 150mm F2.8 with OS.
It's the sharpest of the lot, the OS is very handy and the bokeh is gorgeous, as is the colour and contrast.

The 100L is also excellent, but the Sigma is just a liitle better, and because of the extra reach, you don't need to be on top of the bug you're photographing, and the extra distance also allows you more lighting options.


----------



## Axilrod (May 20, 2012)

Marsu42 said:


> I've got the L now, can you tell me how often you use the 100L or 85L for portraits and why? I wonder if adding 85mm and a wider aperture is really that necessary or if the 100L alone does the job, too.



Honestly the 85mm 1.8 would be an excellent lens to get a feel for how you like the focal length. You can pick them up used pretty cheap (I saw one listed for $200 the other day, almost got it just because that's such a good deal) and it's a very solid lens for the money. The 100L is great for portraits but sometimes it can feel a bit tight.


----------



## briansquibb (May 20, 2012)

Bennymiata said:


> I have owned or extensively used all the Canon macro lenses, bar the 180mm version.
> 
> My favourite macro lens?
> 
> ...



By your logic the Canon 180 should be best then? Which is what I use - the 580EXII on the hotshoe lights the object meaning you dont need the MT24


----------



## bdunbar79 (May 20, 2012)

I agree wholeheartedly that the 100mm and 180mm are the two best Canon macro lenses. I just wanted to add that if you ever buy the 50mm macro lens, that sucker is really sharp, especially in the center. I'd say at f/4 it competes heavily with the 50 f/1.2L and 50 f/1.8. Plus, it's cheap. Since I don't need 50mm at really wide apertures, that's my 50mm prime lens choice.


----------



## Marsu42 (May 20, 2012)

bdunbar79 said:


> I just wanted to add that if you ever buy the 50mm macro lens, that sucker is really sharp, especially in the center.



I nearly bought the 50mm macro, but after trying it refrained from it because the "80's" noisy, non-usm af and build style. It's phased out by Canon btw, if you want it new you'll have to buy it now, but if you can live with the drawbacks it's a bargain.


----------



## bdunbar79 (May 20, 2012)

Marsu42 said:


> bdunbar79 said:
> 
> 
> > I just wanted to add that if you ever buy the 50mm macro lens, that sucker is really sharp, especially in the center.
> ...



Did you find that it focused slowly? Did you have any dependability issues? I read nightmares about AF quitting on the 50 f/1.4 but I really want that lens' image quality. Do you have experience with it? Thanks.


----------



## Marsu42 (May 20, 2012)

bdunbar79 said:


> Did you find that it focused slowly? Did you have any dependability issues? I read nightmares about AF quitting on the 50 f/1.4 but I really want that lens' image quality. Do you have experience with it? Thanks.



I just read reviews and tried it in the shop. The micro usm of the 50/1.4 might be bad and due for replacement, but I just cannot live with the noise an old-school non-usm af produces, no matter what. Imho you shouldn't buy the macro as a prime replacement unless it's for a specific purpose, it's phased out for a reason or everybody would get it instead of the 50/1.4...


----------



## bycostello (May 24, 2012)

love my 100L


----------



## iaind (May 24, 2012)

bycostello said:


> love my 100L



Same here


----------



## drjlo (May 26, 2012)

adamfilip said:


> Ive owned the 100 2.8 USM non IS, 180mm 3.5 and MPE-65 and my vote goes for the 180
> its awesome.. my fav lens of all time. super sharp
> 
> Cant wait for them to release a new version with IS. and hopefully at 2.8



I personally think MPE-65 is incredible. 100L and 180 3.5 still can only do 1x mag.

I would kiss Canon if they released MPE type of macro lens that can focus from infinity to 5X magnification, WITH an actual focus ring, 4-stop IS, and longer focal length for longer macro working distance. It would be soooo sweet, and I'd be willing to let go of several L glass to get it ;D


----------



## briansquibb (May 26, 2012)

drjlo said:


> adamfilip said:
> 
> 
> > Ive owned the 100 2.8 USM non IS, 180mm 3.5 and MPE-65 and my vote goes for the 180
> ...



Except with a 2x converter on and on a crop body that is 3.2 equiv


----------



## jd (May 29, 2012)

"I'm looking for L glass only." 

Well, that certainly limits your options. Just buy the Canon 100L macro. I does go to 1:1 and the optics are seriously good. If you are really interested in a dedicated macro lens then I have a few other suggestions. The Canon 100L (which I own) has both AF and IS. Virtually all macro shooting is done with manual focus, shallow DOF and with a fixed mount such as a tripod. AF and IS are just not necessary. In fact, you'll have AF turned off for macro. 

Here are a few other dedicated superlative macro lenses that you might consider: the Zeiss 100/2 makro, the Leica APO Elmarit100/2.8 R, and the Voigtlander APO-Lanthar 125/2.5 SL. The Leica and Voigtlander are no longer produced and will require an R to EOS adapter but they are legendary macro lenses. The Zeiss 100/2 makro-planar is maybe the best of the current Zeiss glass. I own one and prefer it to the Canon 100L. The primary drawback to the Zeiss is that it goes to 1:2 compared with Canon's 1:1. It's capability to go to f2 will produce wonderful bokeh. Of course, it's all manual all the time. (I'm primarily a Leica M shooter and have a 5D2 for macro and sports.) If you do consider the Zeiss 100/2 - take into consideration that the Canon mount (ZE) version does not have a manual aperture setting while the Nikon (ZF or ZF.2) does have a manual aperture adjustment ring. If you decide to use this lens on a mirrorless camera such as the Ricoh GXR / A12 combo you will want the ZF version. ZF mount lenses work just fine (without the electrical connection) on EOS cameras - but not the other way around. One more thing - I wouldn't bother with a 50 or 60mm macro lens. They put you too close to the subject. 100 to 180 is best. The 180L Canon has a great reputation but it's awfully cumbersome and heavy. The Zeiss or one of the R mount macros are worthy of consideration.


----------



## jd (May 29, 2012)

One more thing: If you have a 5D2 you'll want to use the Eg-S micro prism focusing screen for macro - and maybe everything else. It's excellent and will give you exactly the focal plane you want with a shallow DOF that is typical with macro photography. If you have a 5d3 you are SOL because the focusing screen can't be changed on that camera. That's one of the reasons I didn't upgrade to the 5D3. With all of that shallow DOF you will get to learn about all kinds of cool stuff like focus stacking. It's a whole new macro world!


----------



## briansquibb (May 29, 2012)

jd said:


> "I'm looking for L glass only."
> 
> Well, that certainly limits your options. Just buy the Canon 100L macro. I does go to 1:1 and the optics are seriously good. If you are really interested in a dedicated macro lens then I have a few other suggestions. The Canon 100L (which I own) has both AF and IS. Virtually all macro shooting is done with manual focus, shallow DOF and with a fixed mount such as a tripod. AF and IS are just not necessary. In fact, you'll have AF turned off for macro.



The 180 is an L too

When chasing things that move or handshooting then AF and servo is what I use.

With stationary items using the tripod I focus manually with my laptop tethered and use the EOS utility working through LiveView


----------



## jd (May 29, 2012)

"The 180 is an L too"

Mentioned that. Great focal length but too heavy for me.

"When chasing things that move or handshooting then AF and servo is what I use."

I'm not that steady or fast! I do shoot plenty of bugs for my friends at the local natural history museum but we chill the live ones first to slow them down. The dead ones don't move much... I just can't get the sharpness or focal plane I want with hand shooting. AF want to chase or worse, focus where I'm not interested.

"With stationary items using the tripod I focus manually with my laptop tethered and use the EOS utility working through LiveView"

Agreed with LiveView. It's absolutely necessary for macro. The Eg-S is just a good all around screen. I also shoot tethered with a tripod. I use the WFT-4 and an IPAD (Shuttersnitch) to check images and framing. I don't use the EOS utility. I just prefer the IPAD especially outside shooting landscapes. I've gotten so dependent on Shuttersnitch / IPAD that I felt lost doing macro without it (IPAD left behind that day....)


----------



## briansquibb (May 29, 2012)

jd said:


> "The 180 is an L too"
> 
> Mentioned that. Great focal length but too heavy for me.
> 
> ...



I find the 180 fine for handshooting - it also is good as a short telephoto when out walking. I dont catch buzzy things when out walking as I dont take a fridge with me 

On a tripod of course then weight and size is not realy an issue


----------



## marinien (Aug 2, 2012)

briansquibb said:


> Except with a 2x converter on and on a crop body that is 3.2 equiv



I disagree. The subject won't be 3.2x of its life size on a crop sensor, only 2x.


----------



## CanonGrunt (Aug 2, 2012)

100L hands down. I use it for portraits as well. Super sharp and beautiful images. Best lens I own in my opinion, and I own the 70-200 f/2.8 MK II. I just love this lens.


----------



## syder (Aug 2, 2012)

Depends what you're taking pics of... Personally I struggled to get decent insect pics at 100mm because they tend to run/fly away...

The sigma 150mm or canon 180mm are much better for not pissing off your subject.

On aps-c the tokina 35mm f2.8 macro was an old favourite of mine. Rubbish for bugs (1:1 magnification is a few cm away from the lens), but great for static subjects and a razor sharp standard prime.


----------



## celliottuk (Aug 2, 2012)

100L is the sharpest lens I have


----------



## gary (Aug 2, 2012)

The 100L is a very good Macro lens, a great Portrait lens. Just put it on the camera and you will use it. I use it often and its a versatile all around star.


----------



## charlesa (Aug 2, 2012)

The 100 mm L IS. Hands down.


----------



## K-amps (Aug 2, 2012)

I got the 100 f2.8 and liked it a lot, so I ugraded to a 100L but apart from paying double, didnt see much of an IQ improvement, if anything it was less sharp (but still very sharp). I then sold that in a week or so and got the 180L. 

I love the 180L, it is decent handheld and shines tripodded. I do not have to crowd the insects and can shoot from a decent distance. Best thing is I don't cast shadows on the subject when I am that close as I did with the 100's. 

It is deadly sharp... just to show how sharp, here's a shot I took. The second shot is a crop of the first, yes those are Pollen buds. 

This was taken with a 5Diii whose AA filter is stronger than the 5Dii, or it could have been sharper.

However if you want to shoot a lot of hovering/moving insects (not only stationary ones) then the 100L is a good choice. Granted I have not used the Sigma 150mm OS.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Aug 2, 2012)

K-amps said:


> However if you want to shoot a lot of hovering/moving insects (not only stationary ones) then the 100L is a good choice.



Agreed. This is with the 100L on a 5DII:




EOS 5D Mark II, EF 100mm f/2.8L Macro IS USM, 1/640 s, f/9, ISO 1600


----------



## canon816 (Aug 4, 2012)

I know you stated you only want "L" glass.... but it is worth mentioning that the 100mm f2.8 non L lens by canon is painfully sharp and versatile. It is almost too sharp for portraits and a little NR to soften the lines actually helps.

To top it off... this is a relatively inexpensive lens. I think I paid $375 for mine second hand. (With a few extension tubes you can get really really close.)


----------



## bdunbar79 (Aug 4, 2012)

I personally went with the 180L lens. I like to be farther away and then later crop, and I can do that with the 22mp 5D Mark III. I'm sure the 100L is fantastic, it's just I don't do a whole lot of macro work, and I like the longer focal length.


----------



## briansquibb (Aug 4, 2012)

bdunbar79 said:


> I personally went with the 180L lens. I like to be farther away and then later crop, and I can do that with the 22mp 5D Mark III. I'm sure the 100L is fantastic, it's just I don't do a whole lot of macro work, and I like the longer focal length.



I have the 180L which I use on the 1D4 - the good AF works well with the macro


----------



## daveypoo (Aug 4, 2012)

I've got the 100 2.8 non-L and it is painfully sharp! I couldn't imagine the L version being any sharper. However, I use the 180 3.5L and it is my "goto" lens of choice. Sharp, sharp, sharp and the bokeh is superb at this focal length! Heavier by far than the 100, but worth the weight for the performance.


----------



## Menace (Aug 8, 2012)

I have owned both EF100 2.8 & EF100 2.8L - both are very sharp.

I traded in my 100L for a couple of extra studio lights I needed at the time and a few months later bought the non L version to fill the gap. It's IQ is superb and as I do not need IS or weather sealing for my macro work, I'm going to keep it in my kit.

To answer OP's question, I'd suggest the 100L as OP only wants an L lens.

Cheers


----------



## HoneyBadger (Aug 13, 2012)

I honestly love the 100mm 2.8l IS. The IS works great for handheld but you better use a tripod for 1:1. Also you better manual focus at 1:1. Other than that its amazing and you really cannot fault it for those two things since all macros are that way. I looked at the 100mm 2.8 non-L version when deciding and to be honest, I have never once felt regret after getting the 2.8L lens in my hand.


----------



## iaind (Aug 13, 2012)

charlesa said:


> The 100 mm L IS. Hands down.



+1


----------



## Canon6D (Aug 14, 2012)

The Canon EF 100mm f/2.8L IS USM is a very sharp lens with a beautiful bouquet. Strongly recommend.


----------

