Suggestions for a macro lens for my dahlia shots: Hello. I grow dahlias and during some of our shows we also have photography contests for the growers as part of the show. I shoot with...

Haremmaster381

Hello. I grow dahlias and during some of our shows we also have photography contests for the growers as part of the show. I shoot with the lens that came with my Canon Rebel but would really like to get a macro lens. Need suggestions please. Would like to stick with Canon but am open to suggestions. Here are a few of my shots with the regular lens

Nikonian72 Loc: Chico CA

The photographs that you posted are close-ups, not macro-photographs. A true macro lens would allow you to fill your sensor (& viewfinder) when photographing a U.S. Quarter coin. True macro lenses are appreciably more expensive than a similar focal length standard lens, which will easily be capable of close-up photography.

For field macro-photography, I recommend a true macro lens in the 90-mm to 105-mm focal length range. Similar focal length for close-up photography. If you do not mind manual focus, you can find inexpensive, used Canon-mount prime lenses on eBay.

Carlo Loc: Maryland, NW.Chesapeake Bay

Nice Images...!!
I shoot with Canon also, This past summer I checked out several of the many macro options out there and got info and recommendations from the UHH Macro Forum...landed on the Sigma 105mm f2.8 Macro...check it out..I love shooting with mine ...Great value for $ spent.
Good Luck ...you will appreciate the quality of using a true macro lense... :-)

Blenheim Orange Loc: Michigan

Nice shots, beautiful blossoms.

As Nikonian72 pointed out, these are not macro shots but rather close-ups. That said, I use the Canon 100mm Macro lens for similar situations.

What is it that you cannot do now that you want to do?

Mike

joer Loc: Colorado/Illinois

Haremmaster381 wrote:

Hello. I grow dahlias and during some of our shows we also have photography contests for the growers as part of the show. I shoot with the lens that came with my Canon Rebel but would really like to get a macro lens. Need suggestions please. Would like to stick with Canon but am open to suggestions. Here are a few of my shots with the regular lens

Look at the Tokina 100 macro 2.8. A very good autofocus lens for not much money.

Nikonian72 Loc: Chico CA

If you are set on purchasing a true macro lens, then consider one of these three:
Sigma 105mm f/2.8 EX DG OS HSM; Tamron SP 90mm f/2.8 Di VC USD; or Tokina 100mm f/2.8 AT-X M100 AF Pro D
Read more here:
Third-Party Macro Lenses Compared
http://www.uglyhedgehog.com/t-213504-1.html

JimH123 Loc: Morgan Hill, CA

Haremmaster381 wrote:

Hello. I grow dahlias and during some of our shows we also have photography contests for the growers as part of the show. I shoot with the lens that came with my Canon Rebel but would really like to get a macro lens. Need suggestions please. Would like to stick with Canon but am open to suggestions. Here are a few of my shots with the regular lens

Seems to me what you need is not a new lens but SW to do some focus stacking to increase your focus depth. A macro lens gives you the power to focus on an aphid on one petal of the flower. But focus stacking allows you to take a number of images, each one focusing slightly differently, and then merging them into a single focused image with much great focus depth than any one individual.

Helicon Focus is one such product. There are others.

OldNotMold Loc: Just North of

Nikonian72 wrote:

If you are set on purchasing a true macro lens, then consider one of these three:
Sigma 105mm f/2.8 EX DG OS HSM; Tamron SP 90mm f/2.8 Di VC USD; or Tokina 100mm f/2.8 AT-X M100 AF Pro D
Read more here:
Third-Party Macro Lenses Compared
http://www.uglyhedgehog.com/t-213504-1.html

Admittedly I'm not a macro lens user at present, but I've taken several so called closeup pictures of flowers and bugs. I'm definitely intrigued about macro photography...maybe someday when $$ become available. I've read some posts about it here, and I thought perhaps a longer focal length macro would be a better option than the ~100mm length because it would allow me to be farther from my subject (think bugs) and therefore less likely to disturb them thereby increasing likelihood of successfully capturing the image. I understand that it would cost more for longer focal length lens of course.

So bottom line, if one was to choose between 100 and 150 mm macro lens of similar quality, for example, and $$ wasn't an issue, which would you choose and why? I will review the information in the link that you provided as well... just wondering about your thoughts on it. Thank you... good advice here usually.

ronichas Loc: Long Island

i am a nikon user, for macro i use a sigma 105 f2.8 on my nikon full frame camera. i have also used Macro ART Variable Auto-Extension Tube. i was able to get very close up images.

http://savageuniversal.com/products/macro-photography

http://ronichas.zenfolio.com/img/s3/v42/p1556043459-2.jpg

Nikonian72 Loc: Chico CA

OldNotMold wrote:

. . . if one was to choose between 100 and 150 mm macro lens of similar quality, for example, and $$ wasn't an issue, which would you choose and why?

I use a 105-mm macro lens. To capture true macro (1:1 magnification), my Minimum Working Distance (lens front element to subject) is 157-mm (6.2-inches). With a 150-mm lens, MWD is 225-mm (8.8-inches). The longer the focal length, the more difficult to hold subject in field of view, sort of like viewing through a long straw compared to viewing through a short straw. Also, the increase in weight is significant, which matters for hand-held macro-photography in the field.

The Macro Forum has several photographers who are proficient at true macro with macro lenses of 150-mm, 180-mm, and 200-mm. The vast majority of us fall in the 90-mm to 105-mm range.

Harvey Loc: Pioneer, CA

I too am struggling to get a prime Macro lens on my S.S. budget - I did a search on Amazon and found this: Tokina 100mm f/2.8 AT-X M100 AF Pro D lens priced from $360 new and $260 used.
Think I will still keep practicing and experimenting with my reversed 50mm and ext. Tubes - 49mm seems to be bringing me up to the true macro image.
It looks like I will still be shooting a lot of close-ups LOL

Nikonian72 wrote:

If you are set on purchasing a true macro lens, then consider one of these three:
Sigma 105mm f/2.8 EX DG OS HSM; Tamron SP 90mm f/2.8 Di VC USD; or Tokina 100mm f/2.8 AT-X M100 AF Pro D
Read more here:
Third-Party Macro Lenses Compared
http://www.uglyhedgehog.com/t-213504-1.html

OldNotMold Loc: Just North of

Nikonian72 wrote:

I use a 105-mm macro lens. To capture true macro ... (show quote)

Thank you for the quick and complete response.

stan0301 Loc: Colorado

I have a bunch of them--but usually reach for my Sigma 180 Macro--think you would like it
Stan

Blenheim Orange Loc: Michigan

OldNotMold wrote:

So bottom line, if one was to choose between 100 and 150 mm macro lens of similar quality, for example, and $$ wasn't an issue, which would you choose and why? I will review the information in the link that you provided as well... just wondering about your thoughts on it. Thank you... good advice here usually.

I have and use both the Canon 100mm macro and the Canon 180mm macro. I love both. Either will give you 1:1 and flat-field focus, which is the traditional definition for a macro lens.

The 180mm lens puts more distance between you and the subject, which can often be an advantage, but it is heavier to carry in the field and harder to use handheld. For those reasons, and given what I do, I gravitate to using the 100mm more often.

If I could only have one of them, I would keep the 100mm, but that does not mean that it is "better," merely that it fits better with my personal work habits and choice of subjects.

Mike

abc1234 Loc: Elk Grove Village, Illinois

Very lovely flowers and pictures. Thanks for posting.

I have used a 100 mm Canon macro but did not like it. Optically, it was wonderfully sharp...when shooting static, sharp objects and on a tripod. When handheld and shooting flowers, I got out-of-focus shots with movement from the flower and camera. That is a big lens that I found hard to hold.

Focus stacking is one answer. For me, I put the camera with my 18-200 lens on it. Crank it out to 200 and stand back from the flower. You get better depth of field, better bokeh, better isolation of individual flowers, and no camera or subject motion. Works for most of the flowers I shoot. If, on the other hand, you want to capture that bee supping on nectar, then get the macro.

Good luck.