I need an afforable macro lens - Advice Please

[Sheiky]

Yep, and they work too! Here's a couple of shots with the Kenko tubes on my 70-200mm f/4L IS and 40D (from a while back).

I bought a set of extension tubes myself as well. They are definitely not as handy as a dedicated macro-lens, because you lose pretty much all of your focus range. This means that the area you can focus on is very small. Not that bad if you have found your subject, but if you need to quickly focus on something it might be hard.
However the good part is that they do work very well. Combined I have 65mm of extension tube and it works great on my girlfriends 85mm, but I also really like it on my 70-200 F4L IS. And you keep the IS 'm not sure what magnification it gives exactly, but it's pretty nice. For the 85 and 70-200 you also keep a nice working distance. I tried it on my 50mm prime and 24-105, but those weren't good. Quite nice magnification, but so little owrking distance that it wasn't really usable in the field.

[Lars]

I don't want to make things more difficult, but the Tamron 90mm macro always gets good reviews. The IQ is good, and in the comparisons I have read, it beats Sigma, but as is the case with most Tamron lenses, the autofocus is rather slow. So if you are hunting bugs, I guess it is out of the question. Also, no IS. But it considered a good buy, due to its low price and high IQ.

Lars

[Jayson]

Another + for the Tamron 90mm. This guy I consider one of the best bug photographers out there and he uses this lens and a 65mm MP-E. He really likes the Tamron. http://www.flickr.com/photos/lordv/

[ddt0725]

I have thought about the Tammy 90mm but this statement on Photozone is what stops me from purchasing it ...

"Typical for most macro lenses the Tamron AF 90mm f/2.8 SP Di macro performed very good to excellent in the lab. The lens is already very good in the center at wide-open aperture with marginally worse corners. The lens reaches its peak performance at f/5.6 where is scratches the resolution limits of the 8 mega pixel sensor of the EOS 350D. Beyond f/8 diffraction is the limiting factor - a physical barrier where no smart lens design can help. Generally you should avoid stopping down beyond f/16."

Many times for macro shots, I stop down to f/8 and beyond. So, I always thought this lens wouldn't be a good choice.

This is their statement for the Sigma 70mm ...

"Macro lenses tend to be stellar performer thanks to a usually very conservative max. aperture and the Sigma follows this tradition. The resolution characteristic is generally excellent straight from f/2.8 all the way down to f/11 with a slight peak in the f/4-5.6 vicinity. Due to the usual diffraction effects the resolution is reduced to very good levels at f/16 and good quality at f/22."

[Jayson]

Reviews are one thing, but how one uses the lens to produce photos makes the difference to me. I often stop my 7D to f/11 and f/13 where defraction is suppose to be terrible, but don't really see a problem. Brian uses a 5D for his tamron photos and as you can see, they are beautifully done. Its all about PP. YOu have a couple good choices there and I don't think you can go wrong with either one. I was just thinking that the 90mm Tamron would give a little more working distance if you needed it.

[ddt0725]

Without a doubt the added focal length would be beneficial so the Tammy is still under consideration.

Sorry for being so dense and maybe I am getting to analytical about this but could someone explain to me what this means on the difference in the two Canon 100mm macros as far as does it make a difference on use or IQ or does it just have to do with one having IS and the other not ...

100mm IS - Lens Construction: 15 elements in 12 groups
100mm non-IS - Lens Construction: 12 elements in 8 groups

[Daniel Browning]

I have thought about the Tammy 90mm but this statement on Photozone is what stops me from purchasing it ...

"[...] Beyond f/8 diffraction is the limiting factor - a physical barrier where no smart lens design can help. Generally you should avoid stopping down beyond f/16."

Many times for macro shots, I stop down to f/8 and beyond. So, I always thought this lens wouldn't be a good choice.

You understood photozone to say "Generally, you should avoid stopping down beyond f/16 *on this particular lens*". But they didn't mean that particular lens -- they meant every lens from every manufacturer. For whatever reason, they don't mention the same thing on other lens reviews, but it's not because of anything specific to the Tamron lens. In any case, as you already know, you can get perfectly acceptable results from f/22 and beyond, so ignore that particular bit of advice.

[HDNitehawk]

Sorry for being so dense and maybe I am getting to analytical about this but could someone explain to me what this means on the difference in the two Canon 100mm macros as far as does it make a difference on use or IQ or does it just have to do with one having IS and the other not ...

100mm IS - Lens Construction: 15 elements in 12 groups
100mm non-IS - Lens Construction: 12 elements in 8 groups

In and of itself it is just how the lens is constructed. The IS version is an L lens, so theoretically much more went in to its design. Really it doesn't tell you it will have better or worse IQ because a lens with the same elements and groups could be improperly made or designed.

Not to make sellers remorse for you, but yes the IQ of the 100mm IS L is better than the 100mm non L's. The L version is a newer lens, and has the new coatings Canon started putting on lenses with the release of the 24L II. The charts show the L version to be better, and the ISO charts show it to be better.

Keep this in mind though; in the real world the difference in IQ is very fractional. Only when you pixel peep the fine detail would you probably notice.

As for your loss of IS, do you still have your macro flash? You could still chase the very small critters.

[Joel Eade]

Canon has the 60mm f/2.8 macro refurbed on sale for $375 and the 100mm f/2.8 for $479, just saw them on the canon site.....


http://shop.usa.canon.com/webapp/wcs...0051_-1_22751#

[Sean Setters]

After reading this thread a couple of times, I challenged myself to make a decent macro shot with the gear I had at hand (and was advising on)--extension tubes, teleconverters, a normal tripod, and photoshop. I also wanted to go well past the DLA to see just how bad it can be with the quality loss from 1) the teleconverter and 2) diffraction.

As usual, I also utilized some lighting I had at my disposal. After taking the shot, I darkened it in post and added a fair amount of contrast. I also added a high-pass filter. When viewing at 100% on the monitor, it's not great. However, it's not too bad when scaled down to a reasonable viewing size. The image is uncropped.

Canon 7D
70-200mm f/2.8 L IS Mk I
3 Kenko extension tubes, Kekno 1.4x Teleconverter
f/32 1/250sec ISO 100


The Chosen One by budrowilson, on Flickr