imagemeister Loc: mid east Florida

Not mentioned so far is the ability of the shorter focal lengths to accenuate near-far relationships - or a visual "distortion" if you will. This can result in giving an "artistic" effect to the image.....

The Canon 24mm TS-E f3.5 L II tilt-shift lens, while not labeled as "macro" can do 1:3 natively.......
.

gvarner Loc: Central Oregon Coast

With the 100 you can be farther away from the subject than with the 35. For bugs, the 100 is much better.

fetzler Loc: North West PA

I am not a Cannon shooter but I doubt there is a 24 mm macro lens made by Cannon.

1. The usual starting place for a macro lens is a lens about 2 x the focal length of a normal lens. 70mm for APS-C and 100mm for FF. I have a 50mm and 85mm lens for Nikon APS-C

2. Longer focal length give a longer working distance which can be useful for lighting and lessening the disturbance to your subjects (e.g. insects) There are several lenses available in the 150mm to 200mm range.
These lenses are usually more expensive and a bit more difficult to use.

3. Your choice of lens depends on the subject that you wish to photograph. Shorter focal length macro lenses can be useful when copying art works and other subjects where high magnification is not needed.

4. There is a 15mm macro lens available for Nikon (and I think Cannon) that can give interesting photos. Wide angle lenses with extension tubes can also used to give interesting results. It would be nice to have more short extension tube options, however. I have a 12-60mm zoom for micro 4/3 that focuses quite close and can be used for even small flowers with out any tubes. The working distance is very short when short focal lengths are used.

5. Macro lenses have very little pincushion or barrel distortion and are needed for copy work. Regular lenses with extension tubes can be fine for 3D subjects.

Picture Taker Loc: Michigan Thumb

The length of the Macro Lens will vary the distance you need to be from the object. I have a 100mm., and now know I was glad I did not buy a shorter one. My son has a 180mm and shoots butterflies all the time with it and after seeing his work I wish I had the 180mm. You can't get close to a butterfly so the long lens is king.

User ID

Macro with a short FL perspective effect isn’t what the OP indicates as a need ...

BUT !! Thank you verrrrrry much for the news about the near-macro TS24mm.

As 24 is normal for m4/3 and I get 80MP from that format, I see a miniature view camera there for product shots of less than an inch in size. The field of view at 1:3 is about 0.8 inch for m4/3 format.

JRiepe Loc: Southern Illinois

As stated previously for true macro you'll need a macro lens but if you want only closeups a telephoto lens will suffice. Here's a shot taken at 300mm.

(Download)

photoman43

For butterflies and other sensitive critters, I suggest a longer focal length macro lens as it allows you to get farter away from the subject. Look for macro lenses at 150mm, 180mm,, and 200mm. I use a Nikon 200mm f4 AF-D macro lens almost always in manual focus mode.

If you are willing to not have AF, check out the manual focus macro lenses made by IRIX. This is what I would be buying now if I did not already own my three Nikon macro lenses.

If you know that you will be "chasing butterflies" consider a 300mm lens and add an extension tube to allow for closer focusing. Getting AF to work accurately is always a challenge, but this isan alternative especially if you already own a 300mm lens.

User ID

Your dragonfly shot should be (sadly won’t be ... ) a great “Get real !” wake up shout to all the brainwash Hogsters who “NEED” both a long true macro PLUS “the best” 75-300 when their “macro” use is all bugs and flowers.

User ID

FWIW the oft maligned Nikon 28-300 can do that shot at 300 at near limit. Due to IF, the effective FL will be 135 even tho the scale reads 300. If you use a tele-only zoom, instead of an All in One 10X, the long end will not shrink as much.

All IF lenses have some shrinkage but non-IF lenses don’t focus very close without tubes or dioptres (dioptres for teles are harder to find).

amfoto1 Loc: San Jose, Calif. USA

The difference will primarily be "working distance"... defined as the distance between the front of the lens and your subjects.

For butterflies and other insects, a longer focal length is better because it allows more distance between you and the subject, so you are less likely to scare it away (or get bit or stung, in some cases).

For flowers some additional working distance can be important, too, because a short focal length that forces you too close can also cause you to cast a shadow over your subject or for light reflecting off the color of your clothing to cause a tint in the images.

At the same time, really long macro focal lengths (150mm, 180mm & 200mm) can be more difficult to work with. Harder to hold steady and more likely to need a smaller aperture be used, due to the shallower depth of field a longer focal length naturally renders.

Manufacturers don't specify "working distance" when you try to compare macro lenses. They cite the "minimum focus distance" (MFD). This distance is determined at the closest focus (highest possible magnification, full 1:1 or "life size" with most macro lenses) and is measured from the camera's film/sensor plane.... So part of the camera body and the lens itself both take up some of that distance, significantly effecting "working distance".

Canon offers a half dozen or more "macro" lenses...

- EF-M 28mm f/3.5 IS STM is only usable on the Canon M-series mirrorless cameras.

- EF-S 35mm f/2.8 IS STM is designed for use on Canon APS-C DSLRs, not usable on full frame DSLRs, can be used on Canon mirrorless via an adapter.

- RF 35mm f/1.8 IS STM is only usable on the Canon R-series mirrorless cameras.

- EF-S 60mm f/2.8 USM is designed for use on Canon APS-C DSLRs, not usable on full frame DSLRs, can be used on Canon mirrorless via an adapter.

- MP-E 65mm f/2.8 1X-5X is a full frame DSLR lens that can be used on both full frame & APS-C DSLRs, or on Canon mirrorless via an adapter. This is a specialized ultra-high magnification, manual focus macro lens.... It cannot be used for non-macro purposes, the least magnification it can do is 1:1 (life size) while its highest magnification is 5:1 (5X life size... you can fill a full frame camera's viewfinder with a grain of rice).This lens comes with Tripod Ring B and will typically need to be used on a tripod. I've seen it stated that this lens doesn't have means of focusing, which isn't quite true. It has a manual focus ring. But at the extreme levels of magnification this lens has, this ring acts more like a zoom than a focus ring! But it's a magnification zoom, not a distance zoom. In fact, the magnification level is marked under the focus ring, along with working distance in millimeters and inches (which is minimal!), rather than Minimum Focus Distance. It's also NOT an internal focusing (IF) lens.... more than doubles in length from least (1X) to maximum (5X) magnification. It's usually easiest to use the focus ring to set the desired magnification and then use a focusing rail or similar, moving the entire lens/camera rig to focus with this lens.

- RF 85mm f/2 IS STM is a newly announced lens just starting to reach stores that's only usable on the Canon R-series mirrorless cameras.

- EF 100mm f/2.8 USM is an older design that's still in production and the lower priced of the two Canon 100mm macro lenses. This is a full frame capable lens usable on both full frame and APS-C DSLRs, as well as adaptable for use on either of the Canon mirrorless cameras series. It can optionally be fitted with Tripod Ring B, a handy feature that's unusual on macro lenses around this focal length.

- EF 100mm f/2.8L IS USM is a newer design that is higher priced and features a somewhat more modern design, image stabilization and slightly improved image quality compared to its predecessor (above). It's a full frame capable lens that's usable on both full frame and APS-C DSLRs, as well as adaptable for use on either of the Canon mirrorless cameras series. It can optionally be fitted with Tripod Ring D, a handy feature that's unusual on macro lenses around this focal length.

- EF 180mm f/3.5L USM is an older design (very similar style and materials to the older EF 100mm USM above) and Canon's longest focal length dedicated macro lens. Note that it doesn't have image stabilization, but it comes with Tripod Ring B and most users will want to use that pretty regularly.

- TS-E 50mm f/2.8L, TS-E 90mm f/2.8L and TS-E 135mm f/4L are Tilt Shift lenses that are able to do up to 1:2 (half life size) magnification on their own, or higher with added macro extension tubes. These are relatively specialized, manual focus lenses for product photography, architecture and some other applications. They are rather large, heavy and expensive, too, but can be used on both full frame & APS-C DSLRs or on Canon mirrorless via adapters. (There are also TS-E 17mm and 24mm lenses, but they are not considered "macro".)

To give you some idea of "working distance", compare a couple of the above lenses....

The Canon 180mm Macro claims to have a minimum focus distance (MFD) of 18.9". The lens itself is 10.48" long (and it is internal focusing, so doesn't increase in length when focused closer). Subtract that 10.48" and approx. 1.74" allowance for the depth of the sensor plane behind the lens from the MFD and what's left is 6.68 inches "working distance" from the front of the lens to the subject when it's set to full 1:1 magnification. (This working distance doesn't include any lens hood, filter or flash mounted to the front of the lens... any of which would further reduce working distance.)

Canon EF 100mm f/2.8 USM has MFD of 12.28" and measures 4.69" long. It's another internal focusing (IF) lens, so that's not a concern. Subtracting 4.69 and 1.74 from MFD leaves working distance of 5.85" .

Canon EF 100mm f/2.8L IS USM has MFD of 11.81", measures 4.84" long. Yet another IF lens, so no worries. Subtracting 4.84 and 1.74 from MFD leaves working distance of 5.23".

Canon EF-S 60mm f/2.8 USM has MFD of 7.87", measures 3.15" long and is an IF lens. Subtracting 3.15 and 1.74 from MFD leaves just 2.98" working distance.

Canon EF-S 35mm f/3.5 IS STM has MFD of 5.15, measures 2.59" long and is an IF lens. Subtract 2.59 and 1.74 from MFD and you only get 0.82" working distance!

All the above happen to be IF lenses which don't change length when focused closer. Some macro lenses are not IF and grow considerably longer when focused to their maximum magnification. This has to be taken into consideration.

I suspect all the above measure lens length all the way to the base of the bayonet mount, which will exaggerate lens length by approx. 1/4". Because of this, all the above "working distances" might actually be 1/4" longer than noted. I measured a couple of my own macro lenses and they appear to be about 1/4" shorter than specified, but decided cannot say if the same is true for the specifications of all the lenses.

For macro and close-up work, personally I have...

- Canon TS-E 45mm f/2.8
- Tamron SP 60mm f/2 (crop only)
- Canon MP-E 65mm f/2.8
- Tamron SP 90mm f/2.5 (vintage, manual focus version)
- Canon EF 100mm f/2.8 USM
- Canon EF 180mm f/2.8L USM

The Canon 100mm is by far my most used macro lens. Using it on both APS-C and full frame cameras, I find it the best compromise of size, working distance, hand holdability, and general performance with excellent image quality and reasonably fast AF (macro lenses are by design slower focusing... emphasizing accuracy over speed). I use the optional Tripod Ring B on my 100mm.

The Tamron 60mm is quite compact and I will sometimes substitute it when I'm going to be hiking with an APS-C camera and want to lighten my load. With its f/2 aperture it also is a better portrait lens than other macro, most of which are f/2.8 at best.

The old Tamron 90mm (from the 1980s, I think) is an interchangeable mount, fully manual (focus and aperture) lens that's slower to work with and only does 1:2 on it's own. It's also quite compact.... and only cost me $20! I currently have it set up with an EF-M mount for use on Canon M-series mirrorless. But I also have EF mount for it, for use with full frame and crop Canon DSLRs... as well as mounts for Nikon, Konica, Pentax and other vintage film cameras in my collection.

I consider the Canon 45mm, 65mm and 180mm lenses all to be pretty highly specialized.

BTW, I try to always have some macro extension tubes with me. Those make possible higher magnification close-up work with almost any non-macro lens. Even without any extension, my Canon 100-400mm II IS USM and EF 300mm f/4L IS USM are both capable of quite close focusing (approx. 1/3 life size). I don't have, but see that the Canon 24-70mm f/4L IS USM has an unusually high magnification for a zoom lens... 0.70X or almost 3/4 life size. For comparison, my EF 24-70mm f/2.8L USM claims about half that: 0.29X. Even worse, my EF 70-200mm f/2.8L IS USM only can do 0.13X on it's own (but I've used it for close-ups by adding one or more extension tubes behind it).

Keep in mind that with larger insects and many flowers you really won't need anywhere close to 1:1 magnification. You just need more moderate "close up" abilities in a lens. Following shot of a fence lizard, about 2.5" to 3" long, was done with my 100-400mm II, without any extension tube.



And, for this slightly cropped image of a spider I used my non-macro lens...



But for higher magnification, macro lenses can be necessary...

100mm:


100mm:


180mm:


65mm @ approx. 3X or 4X:


Finally, if I were shopping for a macro lens today, the Canon EF 100mm f/2.8 USM would still be my top choice, but I'd give the Sigma 105mm serious consideration since they've discounted it a lot recently. It's a fine lens too and a good value.... My only complaint is that there's no provision to use a tripod ring with it. I'd hate to be without that, so would probably stick with the Canon lens.

imagemeister Loc: mid east Florida

Well, thannnnnk you ! I am so GLAD I am good for something !

The OP wanted to know the "DIFFERENCE between the Canon 24mm, 35mm and 100mm macro lenses" - and the perspective effect IS one of the differences !
.

Architect1776 Loc: In my mind

https://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/112541-USA/Canon_2539A007_Telephoto_EF_180mm_f_3_5L.html/overview
For sale new still.

User ID

Well yes that is a difference.

Given the intended subjects (insects) the idea of getting short lenses close enuf for perspective effect seems to be impractical ... whereas that other difference, working distance, looms large as the only practical difference.

OK, so “looms large” is not so punny or funny when proof reading ... but I kept it anywho :-/

imagemeister Loc: mid east Florida

Reread the OP - OP says flowers are part of what he wants to do - this is also also where wide angle close up CAN be done !
.

User ID

Agreed. Flowers. And if he gets a 24 who knows what discoveries he’ll then sneak waaaay close up to. If he gets the 24.

“Crowd Wisdom” will sell him on a 100 or maybe longer. Mustn’t forget the bugs ... Seems he’d hafta get two lenses if he’s gonna do close perspective flowers AND not scare away the bugs.