Zazzy1 Loc: Northern Ca.

Hi all,
I am looking to buy a Canon macro lens. I have looked at the 50mm f2.4. Does anyone have suggestions? Under $500 please.
Thx,
Laurie

Zazzy and Zinga

(Download)

ottopj Loc: Annapolis, MD USA

At amazon.com, enter "canon macro lens" and look under used

LFingar Loc: Claverack, NY

I had a 60mm Canon Macro lens, and though it had excellent image quality I found it to be short for most subjects. Lenses in the 100-120mm length seem to be the most popular. Haven't used it, but this lens has excellent reviews:
http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/194451-USA/Canon_4657A006_100mm_f_2_8_USM_Macro.html
A bit over your budget level, but you may be able to find a used one for a better price.

Haydon

EF 100mm f/2.8 Macro USM Refurbished

$408 refurbished @ Canon Direct.

http://shop.usa.canon.com/shop/en/catalog/269452?WT.mc_id=C126149

Curve_in Loc: Virginia

:thumbup:

CHG_CANON Loc: the Windy City

You have a picture of two good looking dogs. Hopefully, this is not the purpose for a macro lens... You can get a used CANON 100MM F/2.8 MACRO from KEH for less than $500. The suggested 60mm EF-S is also a very nice lens, but for macro use it is limiting in how close you need to be to the subject. Not so good for live & moving things that my be scared by your nearness. Excellent for other macro purposes as well as a general walkaround prime.

Bugfan Loc: Toronto, Canada

I'm into Nikon so I can't comment first hand on Canon lenses. However ...

In terms of macro lenses, the focal length is all important because that determines how close you have to go to your subject to get life size images. A 50 mm macro lens is ok if you want to do relatively large flowers, that will allow you to get close and still have some distance between that and your subject.

On the other hand if you want to do tiny things like little insects etc. a 50 is too short. You need a longer focal length so that you're back far enough from the subject when you achieve life size to get a picture that doesn't cast a shadow on the bug and also doesn't spook it.

The most common focal length for this is usually 105mm and Canon certainly has one of those, a good one. That focal length is often my favourite.

And if you really need to step back a 180 mm or 200 mm lens is ideal too.

I do mostly bugs and other tiny things so my first choice is always my 180 mm and my second choice for larger things is my 105 mm. I have a fifty as well but I tend to use that one for photographing copy rather than things.

Decide what you want to take pictures of and the minimum distance you need to be from the subject, that will help you determine the focal length to consider. Better yet take your camera to a camera store and try out the focal lengths they have, taking a picture of the same small thing each time, that tells you first hand what the advantages of each one is.

Finally, these days make sure you have a macro with an image stabilizer, that enables you to break with the tripod more often and have an internal focus motor too. Though most of my focusing is done manually (by moving the camera back and forth) there are many instances where the auto focus can save you some misery. It's also handy if you try to do insects in flight.

As to lens speed, most macro lenses are f2.8 some are f4. It's not that important. To get the depth of field you need to stop down the lens anyway so a fast aperture doesn't help. On the other hand if you want to use a teleconberter too then a fast lens is more desirable to be able to continue to focus successfully.

I hope this helps a little. Good Luck!

abc1234 Loc: Elk Grove Village, Illinois

I had this lens and it was very sharp. I believe you can get down to 1:1. I used it mainly for flowers. I sold it because when you are down all the way to 1:1, then the depth of field is very, very small leaving too much out of focus. It is also very heavy making hand-held shots iffy at best. You really need to use a tripod with this lens.

Having sold this lens, I changed my technique to shooting with my 18-200 set to 200 and the camera mounted on a tripod. While this does not work with the smallest flowers and the insects that frequent them, I never regretted selling the macro.

On the other hand, if you use this lens for studio work, then it should be great.

ronjay Loc: york Pa.

Canon f/2.8 L 100mm fist in class for macro also great portrait lens.

amfoto1 Loc: San Jose, Calif. USA

Yes, it's a nice lens. But you won't find the 100L IS for $500 or less. New it sells for $950. Used a bit less, but still often around $800.

Laurie, if this is your first/only macro lens, for general purpose macro shooting use I'd recommend something in the 60mm to 105mm focal length range. Shorter than that puts you too close to many subjects... Longer than that can be nice shooting really shy subjects or things that bite or sting, but becomes pretty difficult to hand-hold steady for a sharp shot.

Even 60mm leaves you pretty close, but it makes for a more compact lens. Assuming you are using a crop sensor camera, the Canon EF-S 60/2.8 USM Macro is a very nice lens. Personally I use the Tamron SP 60/2.0 Macro. It's one of the few macro lenses with f2 aperture, that makes it quite good for portraits, too. The Canon has USM focus, which is a lot faster than the micro motor in the Tamron. Still, the Tammy is fine for macro and portraits... it just would never be useful for sports or any sort of action shooting. Both these 60mm are "crop only" lenses. They cannot be used on a full frame camera. The Canon sells for a little under $500 new, and the Tamron right at $500 (Tamron comes with a lens hood. That's sold separately for the Canon and probably costs around $25, though there are cheaper third party versions that probably would work just as well). I bought the Tamron during a sale when they were offering a $100 rebate, so ended up only paying $400 for it.

Sigma makes a 70/2.8 macro lens. I don't know very much about it, but I believe it will work on both crop and full frame cameras. I don't think it's an HSM lens, so wouldn't expect it to be very fast focusing.

Tamron offers two 90/2.8 SP Macro lenses. One has been around a few years and might be within your budget. The other is a newer model, more expensive, I think around $750, and has faster USD focus drive and VC stabilization.

Actually Tamron has been making excellent 90mm macro lenses since the 1980s. I have a vintage one that takes interchangeable mounts to fit most any camera, and sometimes use it on my Canons. I bought the lens used for $20 (with hood, caps and a converter, all in top condition), then paid another $40 to get a mount for Canon from China.

Tokina also makes excellent lenses and offers a 100/2.8 Macro that's likely close to your budget. I haven't used their modern macro lenses, but they have a long history of high quality.

Canon offers two 100mm macro lenses... The more expensive L-series with IS that's pricier than you want to spend.... And older, but just as capable 100/2.8 USM that you can probably find pretty close to your price range new, well within it if you consider used.

The Canon 100mm lenses have all the most desirable features on a macro lens. One of my favorites is that they both can optionally be fitted with a tripod mounting ring (sold separately and around $140-160 for the Canon, around $50 for decent quality third party rings). They also both use reasonably fast, accurate USM focus drive (even with that, macro lenses are not as fast focusing because they are designed more for high precision focus, instead of speed).

Both the Canon 100mm also are IF or Internal Focusing. This means they don't increase in length when focused closer. Many macro lenses do, and they extend a lot, significantly cutting into working distance between the front of the lens and the subject at the highest magnifications. The down side to an IF lens is that it's bigger to start with... compared to other 100mm macro lenses, both the Canons seem rather large. (By the way, both the 60mm lenses mentioned above are IF, too.)

Both also have a focus limiter, which allows the lens to focus faster in some situations. The 100L has a three range limiter, while the older 100/2.8 USM has a two range limiter. And their build quality is quite high. You might expect that with the L-series... But the non-L is just as well made, in fact it's identical in build and materials to the Canon 180/3.5L Macro of about the same age. I use the non-L myself... it's probably my single most used macro lens, in fact. Because it's not an L-series, the 100/2.8 USM doesn't come with a lens hood... Canon's is kinda large and pricey. You can find cheaper third party hoods, or just a generic 58mm screw in hood might do. The 100L comes with a hood.

Sigma has offered several 105mm macro lenses over the years, that are quite good. The current model has OS (stabilization) and you are unlikely to find one in your price range. However, if you consider used, you may find the older version without OS at an affordable price. Both have HSM focus drive, which is fairly equivalent to Canon's USM.

Regarding image stabilization (IS on Canon, VC on Tamron and OS on Sigma)... it really is of limited value for macro shooting. The Canon uses a Hybrid-IS system that is probably the best, but also probably is only good for about one stops worth of assistance at closest magnification. The other lenses likely will be almost no assistance at 1:1 mag. Stabilization on these lenses probably is most useful when using them for non-macro purposes, at greater distances and lower magnification, they might give 2, 3 or even 4 stops worth of assistance. All the stabilized lenses are newer models and likely cost more than you want to spend... Just know that for macro purposes, you really aren't missing out on much getting a less expensive lens that doesn't have stabilization.

Most macro lenses on the market are very capable of making excellent images. It's other features where they differ and we have to make choices. Again, I'd call the Canon EF 100/2.8 USM one of the most full featured. If I could only keep one of my macro lenses, that would probably be it.

All the above lenses are capable of full 1:1 magnification.

Note: The Canon EF 50/2.5 Compact Macro you mentioned can only do 1:2 mag on it's own... There's a separately sold adapter for it, to increase magnification to 1:1. By the time you buy both, the total cost is higher than the EF-S 60/2.8 USM or EF 100/2.8 USM. And the 50/2.5 also is not a USM lens... it uses a slower micro motor focus drive.)

Hope this helps with your shopping!

valley3photo

I have a 50mm macro & three extensions, no glass. Can do great close up.

valley3photo@aol.com

Zazzy1 Loc: Northern Ca.

I am looking for the lens to do close ups of flowers to make Thank you cards, and put in frames for my kitchen. Mostly to play with.

Zazzy1 Loc: Northern Ca.

Oh, I already have 3 zoom lenses all different mm, high end.

Old Timer Loc: Greenfield, In.

I also will endorse this lens. I have it, bought it last summer, less than a year old at about 2/3 of cost. All the paper work and box receipt and like new condition. Does a fantastic job.