Good points have been made by just about everyone here so, I will just share my thoughts on my third party lenses.

I use the Sigma105 and 150mm along with the Tamron 180 Macro lenses.
I get the best reach with the 180 but, it's much harder to use because of the long focal length (harder to steady), IQ is outstanding.

The 105 is the easiest to use but, has a much shorter minimum working distance. 90mm to 105mm is the most widely used lengths.

The 150 is my most used lens, for reach and ease of use.

I am very quickly becoming a Sigma fanboy due to price and quality of their lenses. So much so, that my next two lenses (24-105 and 150-600) are going to be Sigma, unless my research uncovers something I missed.

It was mentioned about future compatibility. Sigma has the USB dock for updating the firmware in their newer lenses as they become available. This also allows for more control for AF tuning than the camera can provide (if needed) among other things.

Spending more money does not insure better quality images....usually, but not always.

95% of the images on my flickr page are with the 150 and 105 Sigma lenses, handheld, no tripod. Best if viewed in full resolution to appreciate IQ.

Things like Hummingbirds will likely require longer lenses or a remote shutter release and flashes with shorter ones.

If you look far enough back on my flicr page, you will find some Butterfly shots with the EXIF data that indicates what lens was used. :wink:

Well, that's a major shift in purpose from your original post and it makes a significant difference.

Flowers are a lot less likely to phreak out and fly away when you get close, so most any macro from 90 to 105mm would be what I'd recommend.

Shorter focal length macro lenses would be more compact but may put you too close. That's not a problem because flowers don't scare easily, but too close you can cast unwanted shadow on your subject, or even cause color casts due to the clothes you're wearing. A little longer focal length often can be nice.

One macro lens I use is the Tamron SP 60/2.0... mostly for it's small size and relatively light weight. It often goes in my camera bag when macro isn't my primary purpose, but I want to have a lens handy just in case. It's slower focusing (piezo micro motor focus drive), but that's no problem for relatively sedentary subjects. It is one of only a few macro lenses that have larger than f2.8 aperture, making it more "dual purpose" than most, especially for portraiture. But due to it's focus speed it is definitely not a "sports/action" lens. It is a "crop only" lens (like the Canon EF-S 60/2.8 USM, which is another nice, compact lens... faster USM focus, but "only" f2.8).

By the time you're at 1:1 magnification, with a 60mm lens you're only a few inches from the subject. (Note: closest focus distance in lens specifications is usually measured from the film/sensor plane of the camera.... a big part of which is occupied by the camera and lens themselves).

150mm and 180mm macro lenses give much more working distance and are particularly useful for very shy subjects that you need to give some room... or for those that sting, bite, are poisonous, etc. However, longer macros like these are more difficult to use, more likely to require a tripod. The longer focal length makes them more challenging to get a steady shot, of course. But that's even further compounded because longer macro lenses render super shallow depth of field, so you often have stop them down a lot, slowing your shutter speeds (and/or making you use higher ISOs) and making them even harder to get a steady shot. They also tend to be slower focusing, and may not be as "dual purpose" useful (for non-macro purposes), as shorter focal length macros. Personally I use the Canon 180/3.5L and it's an excellent macro... but it's a rather specialized lens that I'm much more likely to use on a full frame camera, than on my crop sensor cameras.

A lens in the 90mm to 105mm focal length range is a good compromise and what I usually recommend for anyone purchasing their first macro. It gives more working room than a 60mm... typically about 12" at 1:1... although not as much as a 150 or 180 would give. It's larger than a 60mm, sure. But not as large and heavy as a 150mm or 180mm, and is generally more "handholdable" than those longer macros, and is a little easier to get a steady shot with.

A lot of the time I use a vintage Tamron SP 90mm and a modern Canon EF 100/2.8 USM macro lenses. Both these are excellent and the Canon is especially useful. As I mentioned earlier, the Canon is one of the few lenses in this focal length range that can be fitted with a tripod mounting ring and that's an important feature to me.

Other possibilities are Canon's TS-E 45mm and 90mm "Tilt Shift" lenses. I've used both for close-up and near macro purposes and currently have the 45mm in my kit. They are quite close focusing, although neither reaches full macro magnifications on it's own. They can be fitted with macro extension rings to boost their magnification. The 45mm is my "go to" lens for in-studio, table-top, small product photography. In this case, I want to be close to the subject so I can reach out and adjust it while looking through the camera viewfinder. The 45mm is excellent for that purpose when on a crop sensor camera. For full frame cameras, the 90mm is a better choice. All the TS-E lenses are manual focus only... but that's not a problem for macro and studio work. The tilt and shift movements come in very handy controlling the plane of focus, correcting perspective distortions, and "dodging" reflections on objects.

Actually, most flower photography doesn't require anywhere close to 1:1 magnification. I've often used non-macro lenses fitted with macro extension tubes to boost their magnification a little, instead of true macro lenses. This was shot with a 20mm lens with a 12mm extension tube...

The wide angle lens allowed more of the background to stay recognizable... a short tele macro lens would have blurred it unrecognizably.

The shot below was done with a 50mm f1.4 lens (at f2.0) with a 20 or 25mm macro extension tube...

I used that lens w/extension tube at large aperture because I knew it would result in some vignetting and edge/corner softening effect that I wanted, in this case.

For the shot below, I used my Canon EF 24-70/2.8 near it's closest focus, without any extension tube at all...


Flower shots generally don't require super high magnification... 1:2 or less is usually all that's needed. Of course, you also can use a true macro-capable lens such as the Canon 100/2.8 USM...


I don't know your lens' close focusing ability, but for birds and butterflies with your 150-600mm you may want to experiment with macro extension tubes, which can make the lens a little closer focusing. For a heavier lens like that I'd probably stick with the higher quality Kenko tube set or Canon OEM tubes (only sold individually). These were shot with 300mm and 500mm lenses, with 25mmm or 36mm extension tubes added to make them a little closer focusing...

Have fun shopping!