Well done Daisy with the lens you are using. I also use the Canon 80D and when it came time for me to delve into the macro world I researched lenses until I was blue in the face. I ultimately settled on the Sigma 105mm f/2.8 OS HSM for a couple of reasons. Optical Stabilization, cost (about half the price of a Canon) and the positive reviews.

https://www.adorama.com/sg10528meos.html

There are some available on the used secondary market as well, which is where I purchased mine. (ebay)

Best of luck and enjoy macro.

I couldn't agree more. Owning a 200mm, 105mm and a 60mm allows for just about any macro shooting opportunity. I took this shot of flower buds while in Mexico last week using the 60mm macro lens on a crop sensor camera. The 60mm is my go-to lens for flowers and setup shots indoors. The 105mm is a great length for general all-around shooting and is likely the most common length +/- used. The 200mm is my hunting insect lens in the field due to its extra distance minimum focus for insects that may sting, bite or that may be skittish.

We have similar flowers here in Hawaii. I don't generally use flash. All the ones I posted were with natural light.
My advice is to get your flash off the camera and out in from of the lens in some fashion and to diffuse it in some manner as well. Macro lenses are built to a high quality so there are only subtle differences between them (camera mount specific of course). What makes the most dramatic difference is the quality of light used in macro photography for photography is 'painting with light'.

For me, macro photography has been not only highly addictive but it changed my retirement life and the UHH True Macro Community has helped and supported me every step of the way.

Enjoy your passion - Sippyjug.

I also am a Canon user and recently purchased the Sigma 105 f/2.8 OS HSM-really, really nice lens and also cost played a big factor in my decision. I'm very happy with it and highly recommend it. You could always try renting first to see if you will like using it. I'm still pretty new to macro, but it's quickly becoming one of my favorite len's to use and objects to shoot. It's a great lens I've also heard it makes a nice portrait lens, haven't tried that yet

I shoot primarily plants, macros and closeups. You can check my website: IrwinLightstone.com to check my work. I shoot a full frame camera with the following macros, 15mm, 50mm, 60mm, 70mm, 100mm, 150mm 180mm. All of these macros get to 1:1 magnification (which means the image on the sensor is the same size as the subject). I also shoot several lenses for magnifications greater than life size, as well as a number of older, classic manual focus macros. Here are my observations.

Thanks for the suggestions. I will look into them.
1. For an occasional closeup, zoom lenses (with or without extension tubes or supplemental closeup lens) work well. If you use a close up lens, get the good closeup lens rather than the cheap sets that have significant lens aberrations. Although you can get good, even publishable result with tubes and closeup lenses, noticibly better results can be had with a macro. They are less clunky to use and are flat out sharper at macro magnifications. A macro can be addictive.

I choose which macro to use by considering three factors. First, I consider my field of view. Do I want a wider field of view to put the subject in context or do I want a narrow field of view to eliminate distracting backgrounds. A longer focal length has greater ability to blur the background and to exclude distracting background elements. Second, I look at my lighting and the magnification. For the same magnification, you will be substantially closer with a 50mm macro than with a 180mm. While this may not impact a botanical closeup;with a 50mm at 1:1, you may so close that you shade the plant or scare a bug. Where available, I choose a the macro lens with a tripod mount as I am usually on a tripod and want to keep the load centered on the tripod as opposed to awkwardly hanging off to one side. I chose my Canon 100 macro over competing brands in that focal range because it had a tripod mount.

When choosing a focal length for your first macro lens, I recommend one in the 90-105mm range as a versatile performer. It gives you a decent working distance, in a lens that is not too heavy or expensive. Longer macro lenses tend to be more expensive, bigger and heavier. My 180mm macro is my most used, followed by my 100mm. A good compromise between a 90-105mm macros and the 180-200mm macros is the Sigma 150mm.

Good luck with your explorations. You might also check both the closeups and macro forums.

The images you posted are really just "close up" and not macro. Unless you are going to photograph the innards of flowers or very tiny ones, a macro lens isn't needed. If you do want one, I would think something in the 60mm range would suffice. Now, if you decide to shoot insects, then something longer would be needed. I use a 105mm macro (macro is my niche) and I have no problems getting close without scaring off the insect. Granted, some will skedaddle, but most don't as long as you know about the subjects proclivities. My Flickr stream (link below) has lots of macro images, flowers as well as insects. I use an older manual focus macro lens from the 1980's even though I have 8 choices in macro lenses from 55 to 180mm in length and MF & AF iterations. Find a link below to my "Flower" album... Note, some of these flowers are very small

https://www.flickr.com/photos/screaminscott/albums/72157594388593116

I shoot primarily plants, macros and closeups. You can check my website: IrwinLightstone.com to check my work. I shoot a full frame camera with the following macros, 15mm, 50mm, 60mm, 70mm, 100mm, 150mm 180mm. All of these macros get to 1:1 magnification (which means the image on the sensor is the same size as the subject). I also shoot several lenses for magnifications greater than life size, as well as a number of older, classic manual focus macros. Here are my observations.

1. For an occasional closeup, zoom lenses (with or without extension tubes or supplemental closeup lens) work well. If you use a close up lens, get the good closeup lens rather than the cheap sets that have significant lens aberrations. Although you can get good, even publishable result with tubes and closeup lenses, noticibly better results can be had with a macro. They are less clunky to use and are flat out sharper at macro magnifications. A macro can be addictive.

I choose which macro to use by considering three factors. First, I consider my field of view. Do I want a wider field of view to put the subject in context or do I want a narrow field of view to eliminate distracting backgrounds. A longer focal length has greater ability to blur the background and to exclude distracting background elements. Second, I look at my lighting and the magnification. For the same magnification, you will be substantially closer with a 50mm macro than with a 180mm. While this may not impact a botanical closeup;with a 50mm at 1:1, you may so close that you shade the plant or scare a bug. Where available, I choose a the macro lens with a tripod mount as I am usually on a tripod and want to keep the load centered on the tripod as opposed to awkwardly hanging off to one side. I chose my Canon 100 macro over competing brands in that focal range because it had a tripod mount.

When choosing a focal length for your first macro lens, I recommend one in the 90-105mm range as a versatile performer. It gives you a decent working distance, in a lens that is not too heavy or expensive. Longer macro lenses tend to be more expensive, bigger and heavier. My 180mm macro is my most used, followed by my 100mm. A good compromise between a 90-105mm macros and the 180-200mm macros is the Sigma 150mm.

Good luck with your explorations. You might also check both the closeups and macro forums.

Get something about 90-105mm secondhand and have a play, there is no point spending a lot of money until your present kit limits you in some way. As a start I would be looking at a Tamron 90mm macro in any guise, the later ones are AF and vibration control or IS for Canon users. There are also the sigma and Tokina offerings at about 100mm, the Sigma 105mm has a good name.

Personally, I like the Tamron, but I have been using it for a long time. In addition the Raynox range of close-up add-on lenses, which are a good way to go when you want more magnification, fit well on this lens (or any at about 100mm).

Something like this maybe https://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/Canon-fit-Tamron-VC-Di-SP-AF-90mm-f2-8-Macro-USD-Image-Stabalised-EOS-IS-EF/163231098212?epid=233854537&hash=item260154e564:g:ABMAAOSwTWZbiTqb

Danny

Be warned macro can be addictive!