Lens choice (Page 3): Pg.2 Amazing shots Gampa. I especially like the bee.

SpyderJan Loc: New Smyrna Beach. FL

Gampa wrote:

A few examples of the Cannon 100 F2.8 IS on an 80D. All handheld / natural light.

Pg.2 Amazing shots Gampa. I especially like the bee.

mas24 Loc: Southern CA

whitehall wrote:

I already had the 80 D, but decided to go FF. I find that because of the flip out screen the 80D is great for some low shots. Also, it is a great travel camera, when I want to go light and not worry about damage or theft to much more expensive equipment. Fortunately, I have a very understanding wife who is also a photographer…Having been married to her over 50 years I kind of know how far I can push the envelope(I hope)!

You can use the Tamron 90mm f2.8 and Tokina 100mm f2.8 as portrait lenses too. If one of them is your choice.

jackm1943 Loc: Omaha, Nebraska

I have the Tamron 90mm macro and am extremely pleased with it. I use it on a FF Canon body. I don't know if it's sharper than the Canon 100mm but it does have VR for non-macro use. It's only about $100 less than the Canon new, so cost savings is not really a major factor.

amfoto1 Loc: San Jose, Calif. USA

whitehall wrote:

As I am moving into macro photography I am keen to acquire a dedicated true macro lens. I am a canon shooter so my first inclination is to purchase the canon 100 mm L lens, but I have seen great reviews suggesting that the new 017 tamron 90 mm lens is ecellent. Any recommendation woul be very much welcome. Thanks.

IGW

Both the Tamron 90mm f/2.8 Macro lenses are good.... The older $500 model dosen't have VC (stabilization) and isn't internal focusing (it grows longer when focused closer). The newer $750 version has VC and is IF. The latter also has higher performance USD focus drive.

But both the Canon 100mm Macro lenses are even better for one reason... they can optionally be fitted with a tripod mounting ring. In fact, AFAIK they're the only macro lenses around 90/100/105mm that offer that option (aside from the two Canon 100mm, you have to buy a 150/180/200mm to get a macro lens with a tripod ring). The $600 Canon 100/2.8 USM doesn't have IS, but has just as good image and build quality as the $750 Canon 100/2.8L IS USM. They both are IF and have reasonably fast USM focus drive, too. The 100/2.8 USM doesn't come with a lens hood... its rather large hood is sold separately, like most Canon non-L-series lenses.

The Sigma 105mm f/2.8 OS HSM is another excellent macro lens, currently selling for $569. It cannot be fitted with a tripod ring, but is IF, has stabilization, fast focus drive, top image and build quality.

The least expensive macro lens in this range is the Tokina AT-X Pro 100mm f/2.8 FX, selling for about $350. It's not IF, uses slower micro motor focus drive, and doesn't have stabilization.... but is decent build quality and excellent image quality.

All of those are capable of 1:1 or full life size magnification on full frame cameras (and APS-C, of course) and I'm pretty sure all the above have focus limiters. Those can help with focus speed too, in certain situations. The Sigma, Canon 100L/IS and Tamron VC/USD have 3-stage focus limiters, while the others have 2-stage.

The Tamron 90mm (non VC/USD) and the Tokina 100mm have a "focus clutch" mechanism.... to shift the lens back and forth between manual and auto focus, you slide the entire focus ring forward or backward. When set to AF mode, the focus ring mechanism is disconnected and has no effect. The Sigma uses a fly-by-wire design that also disables manual focus when set to AF mode. Both the Canon and, I think, the Tamron 90 VC USD have full time manual override of AF possible.

Once you start working with a macro lens you might find AF a lot less important than it is with your other lenses. I often turn it off and use a manual method where I set the magnification and then simply move back and forth, closer or farther from the subject until focus is achieved (the focus ring almost acts more like a zoom ring). All macro lenses are slower than the same focal lengths in non-macro lenses. This is by design... most macro lenses use "long throw" focus mechanisms that emphasize accuracy over speed, since shallow depth of field that's typical at macro magnifications make accuracy more critical.

Also, if you get one of the macro lenses with stabilization, don't expect too much from it at the highest magnifications. The Canon 100L IS probably has the best stabilization of any and Canon only claims it to be about half as effective at 1:1, as it is at non macro distances (where it's rated for 3 to 4 stops). I wouldn't expect the Sigma OS or Tamron VC lenses to be as good as the Canon... but, hey, they might surprise me!

I'd rather put my money into a tripod mounting ring, than spend more for a macro lens with stabilization. A lot of my macro work is done using a tripod or monopod.... especially the higher magnification stuff.

I usually recommend these 90/100/105mm focal lengths to anyone buying their first and/or only macro lens. It's easily my most used focal length range with macro and is a good compromise of working distance versus size, weight and hand-holdability. Shorter macro lenses can be more compact, light weight and even easier to hand hold... but put you awfully close to your subjects. Longer focal lengths give lots of nice working distance, but are much harder to hold steady and at their highest magnifications render extremely shallow depth of field.

Another reason to love the Canon 100/2.8 USM is that it's designed to be able to directly mount the Canon macro flash. Both the MT-24EX Twin Lite and MR-14EX Ring Lite (orig. and II versions of both) can mount directly to the 100/2.8 USM (as well as the EF-S 60mm and MP-E 65mm ultra high magnification lenses). The EF 100/2.8L IS USM and EF 180mm f/3.5L USM lenses are both larger diameter and require Macro Adapter Rings (67mm and 72mm, respectively) to be able to mount the Canon macro flashes. In addition to the 67mm and 72mm Macro Adapters, there also are 52mm and 55mm available. Any of those four can be used on non-Canon lenses, to be able to mount the Canon flashes.

Whuff Loc: Marshalltown, Iowa

amfoto1 wrote:

Both the Tamron 90mm f/2.8 Macro lenses are good.... The older $500 model dosen't have VC (stabilization) and isn't internal focusing (it grows longer when focused closer). The newer $750 version has VC and is IF. The latter also has higher performance USD focus drive.

But both the Canon 100mm Macro lenses are even better for one reason... they can optionally be fitted with a tripod mounting ring. In fact, AFAIK they're the only macro lenses around 90/100/105mm that offer that option (aside from the two Canon 100mm, you have to buy a 150/180/200mm to get a macro lens with a tripod ring). The $600 Canon 100/2.8 USM doesn't have IS, but has just as good image and build quality as the $750 Canon 100/2.8L IS USM. They both are IF and have reasonably fast USM focus drive, too. The 100/2.8 USM doesn't come with a lens hood... its rather large hood is sold separately, like most Canon non-L-series lenses.

The Sigma 105mm f/2.8 OS HSM is another excellent macro lens, currently selling for $569. It cannot be fitted with a tripod ring, but is IF, has stabilization, fast focus drive, top image and build quality.

The least expensive macro lens in this range is the Tokina AT-X Pro 100mm f/2.8 FX, selling for about $350. It's not IF, uses slower micro motor focus drive, and doesn't have stabilization.... but is decent build quality and excellent image quality.

All of those are capable of 1:1 or full life size magnification on full frame cameras (and APS-C, of course) and I'm pretty sure all the above have focus limiters. Those can help with focus speed too, in certain situations. The Sigma, Canon 100L/IS and Tamron VC/USD have 3-stage focus limiters, while the others have 2-stage.

The Tamron 90mm (non VC/USD) and the Tokina 100mm have a "focus clutch" mechanism.... to shift the lens back and forth between manual and auto focus, you slide the entire focus ring forward or backward. When set to AF mode, the focus ring mechanism is disconnected and has no effect. The Sigma uses a fly-by-wire design that also disables manual focus when set to AF mode. Both the Canon and, I think, the Tamron 90 VC USD have full time manual override of AF possible.

Once you start working with a macro lens you might find AF a lot less important than it is with your other lenses. I often turn it off and use a manual method where I set the magnification and then simply move back and forth, closer or farther from the subject until focus is achieved (the focus ring almost acts more like a zoom ring). All macro lenses are slower than the same focal lengths in non-macro lenses. This is by design... most macro lenses use "long throw" focus mechanisms that emphasize accuracy over speed, since shallow depth of field that's typical at macro magnifications make accuracy more critical.

Also, if you get one of the macro lenses with stabilization, don't expect too much from it at the highest magnifications. The Canon 100L IS probably has the best stabilization of any and Canon only claims it to be about half as effective at 1:1, as it is at non macro distances (where it's rated for 3 to 4 stops). I wouldn't expect the Sigma OS or Tamron VC lenses to be as good as the Canon... but, hey, they might surprise me!

I'd rather put my money into a tripod mounting ring, than spend more for a macro lens with stabilization. A lot of my macro work is done using a tripod or monopod.... especially the higher magnification stuff.

I usually recommend these 90/100/105mm focal lengths to anyone buying their first and/or only macro lens. It's easily my most used focal length range with macro and is a good compromise of working distance versus size, weight and hand-holdability. Shorter macro lenses can be more compact, light weight and even easier to hand hold... but put you awfully close to your subjects. Longer focal lengths give lots of nice working distance, but are much harder to hold steady and at their highest magnifications render extremely shallow depth of field.

Another reason to love the Canon 100/2.8 USM is that it's designed to be able to directly mount the Canon macro flash. Both the MT-24EX Twin Lite and MR-14EX Ring Lite (orig. and II versions of both) can mount directly to the 100/2.8 USM (as well as the EF-S 60mm and MP-E 65mm ultra high magnification lenses). The EF 100/2.8L IS USM and EF 180mm f/3.5L USM lenses are both larger diameter and require Macro Adapter Rings (67mm and 72mm, respectively) to be able to mount the Canon macro flashes. In addition to the 67mm and 72mm Macro Adapters, there also are 52mm and 55mm available. Any of those four can be used on non-Canon lenses, to be able to mount the Canon flashes.

Both the Tamron 90mm f/2.8 Macro lenses are good..... (show quote)

Not having any experience with macro, but interested in getting involved, my question would be why is a tripod mounting ring necessary for the lens if the camera can be mounted on a good tripod? Is the lens mounting ring for somehow superior to the camera tripod mounting?

Walt

Photocraig

whitehall wrote:

As I am moving into macro photography I am keen to acquire a dedicated true macro lens. I am a canon shooter so my first inclination is to purchase the canon 100 mm L lens, but I have seen great reviews suggesting that the new 017 tamron 90 mm lens is ecellent. Any recommendation woul be very much welcome. Thanks.

IGW

I've used the original 90mm 2.8 and it is an excellent lens. The Macro feature works very well on mine. And it is 20 years old. It is a super FF Portrait lens and does head shots on APS-C well.

jackm1943 Loc: Omaha, Nebraska

Photocraig wrote:

I've used the original 90mm 2.8 and it is an excellent lens. The Macro feature works very well on mine. And it is 20 years old. It is a super FF Portrait lens and does head shots on APS-C well.

I had that same lens back in the 35mm days and loved it, and that's why I chose to purchase their new lens rather than the Canon lens.