macro lens for canon 60d (Page 2): I like the Venus Optics (Laowa) 60mm f/2.8 2X Ultra-Macro Lens; inexpensive and a fun macro! bwa...

bwana Loc: Bergen, Alberta, Canada

redbeard1947 wrote:

my son has a canon 60d and wants a macro lens for photos of flowers and insects. i know the canon 100mm f/2.8l is generally highly regarded: would this be the best as a walk around on a crop sensor camera? any suggestions would be appreciated.
mark

I like the Venus Optics (Laowa) 60mm f/2.8 2X Ultra-Macro Lens; inexpensive and a fun macro!

bwa

MrBob Loc: lookout Mtn. NE Alabama

I have (2) 60Ds and the 100 2.8 Macro stays on one ALL the time... NOT a walk around per se as it has an equiv. FOV of a 160mm lens on the DX body. A little long for a walk about, but it sure makes a GREAT long portrait for chasing animals around the yard. An excellent lens.

Boxcar21

Check out the Sigma 70 mm f 2.8

the f/stops here Loc: New Mexico

I would highly recommend the Canon 60mm EF-S Macro lens as it is smaller, much lighter & less expensive than a 100mm Macro lens. Yes the Canon 100mm is sharp but the 60mm is too. The big advantage of the 100mm lens is the distance between the camera and the subject is greater.

FramerMCB Loc: Northern, ID (formerly Portland, OR area)

As others have mentioned there are many options for your son to consider for macro lens options: from Canon - 50mm 3.5 macro, 60mm f2.5 ef-s (crop sensor only), 65mm MP-E (manual focus only but 1x-5x mag.), 100mm f2.8 USM macro (older version and non-IS & non-"L"), 100mm f2.8L IS, 180mm f3.5L, 24-70mm f4L Macro IS. Tamron - older 90mm f2.8 (good), newer 90mm f2.8 VC (very good). Tokina also has a couple of Macro's. Sigma has a number of lenses as well: 105mm f2.8 (very good), 150mm f2.8 (very, very good), 180mm f3.5 (stellar). I did not rate the Canon's as they are all pretty good with the "L" lenses being the best. I've read good things about the 60mm f2.5 Macro for crop sensors only also being a nice sharp lens. (All of the Canon offerings are pretty decent as far as sharpness and performance but the 180mm can tend to focus slower - but often when shooting macro work you're going to be shooting with the lens in manual mode anyway for critical focusing.)

FramerMCB Loc: Northern, ID (formerly Portland, OR area)

One other thing I forgot to mention - he could always buy a set of extension tubes - either the Kenko or Vello work fine, Kenko is better quality. Canon has them too but they are far more expensive. These allow closer focusing and therefore some amount of magnification with nearly any type of regular lens but of course also work with most of the Macro lenses to for added magnification. Not sure of how they affect the working distance if at all as it's been years and years since I used one - back in the film days with my Olympus gear.

FramerMCB Loc: Northern, ID (formerly Portland, OR area)

johnpolizzi wrote:

If you want to shoot macro and have normal angle of view shooting, check out the Canon 30mm macro with built in ring light. I think it sells for about $350. Otherwise, a Tamron or Sigma in the 16-300 range is a good all around lens with about a 1 to 3 macro capability. There is no substitute, however, for a dedicated macro for best macro results. I use a Tamron SP90mm f2.8 and I love it.

THIS FROM THE CANON USA website under SHOP/LENSES/MACRO:

EF-S 35mm f/2.8 Macro IS STM

Macro Lens
SKU: 2220C002
$349.99
In Stock

47greyfox Loc: on the edge of the Colorado front range

I'd opt for the Canon 100mm f/2.8 macro, either the IS L version or other non-L. I thought about buying the 35mm macro with the built-in ring light but decided against for the reason someone pointed out. You have to get really close and just the act could spook the subject.

Mark Sturtevant Loc: Grand Blanc, MI

The 100mm macro is a great lens for macro, and it will meet almost all of your needs for substantial close ups while also being a 100mm lens for scenery and portraiture. A smaller macro won't have all the close up power as the 100mm, but they will have a wider angle of view for non-macro situations.

Blurryeyed Loc: NC Mountains.

Mark Sturtevant wrote:

The 100mm macro is a great lens for macro, and it will meet almost all of your needs for substantial close ups while also being a 100mm lens for scenery and portraiture. A smaller macro won't have all the close up power as the 100mm, but they will have a wider angle of view for non-macro situations.

One thing that many people don't consider about Macro lenses is that the longer the focal length of the lens the creamier the background, a 35mm or even a 60mm macro lens will not produce as pleasing background blur as will a 100mm macro lens and the same can be said about the 100mm lens vs the 150's 180's or 200mm lenses which produce awesome background blur, but at a cost, those longer lenses are very difficult to work with, it is very hard to shoot the longer lenses handheld, but as always a good flash solution helps.

Below is a comparison from the Digital Picture.com of the 60, 100, and 180 lenses showing the difference in the background characteristics of each focal length.

OldSlowHans Loc: Superstition Mountains

I have a Tokina 100mm f/2.8. Very good for flowers/insects, also decent for portraits, but WAY too long for casual “walk around” purposes.

stan0301 Loc: Colorado

For what he wants nothing is going to beat the Tamron 180 f3.5--but it is a commitment--I have them all, and the 180 is the one I reach for--unless there is a good reason to use one of the others.
Stan

Blurryeyed Loc: NC Mountains.

stan0301 wrote:

For what he wants nothing is going to beat the Tamron 180 f3.5--but it is a commitment--I have them all, and the 180 is the one I reach for--unless there is a good reason to use one of the others.
Stan

Really? I have found the 180 to be the most difficult to use handheld in the field, much more difficult than a 100mm for example. I have owned both the Sigma 180/3.5 and currently own a Canon 180 and they certainly have their advantages but those also come at a cost, motion blur is very difficult to control at full 1:1 macro without flash. Certainly not the lens I would take for a walk through the woods.

Jakebrake Loc: Broomfield, Colorado

I wanted to play around with macro, but the Canon 100mm's price scared me off. I subsequently found a Sigma 105mm on ebay used in pristine condition which I bid and got for under $500, and am completely pleased with everything about it. It makes a great portrait lens as well. I shoot my family and pets with it.