I’m interested in getting a macro lens and I was wondering if I could get your thoughts on which one you prefer or use yourself. Please try to stick to true 1:1 macro lenses only.
Rod Clabaugh wrote:
I’m interested in getting a macro lens and I was wondering if I could get your thoughts on which one you prefer or use yourself. Please try to stick to true 1:1 macro lenses only.
If you are a Nikon person, their Nikon Micro Nikkor 105MM sets the standard.
for Canon, my go to macro lens is a 100 L series, 2.8 with image stabilization. I have a very short macro lens from canon with a built in lamp ring, but that is for set ups where I bring something into the house and make a real settin but in the field, as close as i need to get, is just not every going to be my "go-to"
Rod Clabaugh wrote:
I’m interested in getting a macro lens and I was wondering if I could get your thoughts on which one you prefer or use yourself. Please try to stick to true 1:1 macro lenses only.
If you are not a Nikon or Canon guy, please tell us your camera you will be using for Macro?
If you are a Canon person, there is a macro "L" lens for sale at the end of this email. Check it out. Let us know what camera you are using, please.
Oh sorry about that. I have a Canon 80D.
Rod Clabaugh wrote:
I’m interested in getting a macro lens and I was wondering if I could get your thoughts on which one you prefer or use yourself. Please try to stick to true 1:1 macro lenses only.
There are some very excellent dedicated older/cheaper macro lenses that go to 1:2......I would not dismiss them .
Can you please list some examples of those cheaper lenses?
I shoot with both manual focus and autofocus macro lenses. When the images are in perfect focus, there's no difference between AF and macro. But if you're shooting anything moving, autofocus will give so many more keepers, by a factor of 2x to 3x. Either of Canon's 100mm f/2.8 macros are well matched to your EOS 80D. Look for the non L version used with the tripod and hood included from the seller. If you go with a manual lens, you have to have a tripod, and if you're going to use a tripod, the non L EF lens is just as good as the IS-enabled version.
Gene51
Loc: Yonkers, NY, now in LSD (LowerSlowerDelaware)
Rod Clabaugh wrote:
I’m interested in getting a macro lens and I was wondering if I could get your thoughts on which one you prefer or use yourself. Please try to stick to true 1:1 macro lenses only.
I shoot natural subjects so I enjoy the working distance provided by 150mm to 180mm lenses.
Whether a lens is internal focus (physical length remains the same as you focus from minimum focus distance to infinity) and external focus lenses where the lens gets longer as you focus closer. The IF lenses shortens the focal length which often results in "focus breathing" and the external focus lenses lose an drop stop or two of light.as the lens gets longer.
Mine is not a 1:1 macro but it is made by Nikon for my Nikon cameras. I have heard good things of the Tamron 90 mm f2.8 macro but I have never used one.
Tamron, as I am sure you know makes lenses for different cameras.
Rod Clabaugh wrote:
I’m interested in getting a macro lens and I was wondering if I could get your thoughts on which one you prefer or use yourself. Please try to stick to true 1:1 macro lenses only.
I have a 7D and for maximum vesatility for me I have found the 100mm f2.8 L IS works very well and is easy to carry.
At 1:1 I use a tripod or rock etc for support but outside of 1:1 the IS is amazing for near 1:1 shots of bugs and other things that move.
I use it with the 100-400mm L MII on walks when I see very small whatever and easily hand hold the near macro shot that would never have worked without IS.
Both the Canon 100mm 2.8, and Tamron 90mm 2.8 are both really good lens. Build quality of both are excellent.
and these lens are weather sealed. You can't go wrong with either. Like you my camara of choice is Canon.
If you want to reply, then
register here. Registration is free and your account is created instantly, so you can post right away.