Macro Lens recommendations?

Hi all. So I'm trying to figure out what macro lens I want to get. I've read all the reviews here several times. The Canon 100mm L is out of my price range. I've had some experience with the Tamron 90mm, and found it adequate, but didn't find it totally satisfying.


Does anyone have experience with the Tokina AT-X 100 PRO D? I have the Tokina 11-16mm, and am quite satisfied with it, and that's making me consider their macro lens as well. most reviews I've seen are pretty good, with the one knock against it being a slow AF. But the AF limiter seems to help a bit. I'm just wondering if the canon 100mm non-L is worth the extra $120. I'm most interested in using the lens outdoors, in the daylight, but I'm a little worried that a slow AF will make it harder to photograph plants or quicker insects, etc. Any help picking a lens (or a cheaper hobby) would be greatly appreciated. Thanks.


Oh, and this is for use on a 7D.

Hi gbc,


Just to add another option into the mix, I recently picked up a used Canon 100mm non-USM macro. This is an old model, discontinued in 2000, but if you can find one they are floating around for quite cheap (got mine for 200

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by gbc

I'm most interested in using the lens outdoors, in the daylight, but I'm a little worried that a slow AF will make it harder to photograph plants or quicker insects, etc.

---

Since you have a 7D, have you considered the EF-S 60mm f/2.8 Macro USM? That's about the same price as the Tokina 100mm macro, has fast AF, and doubles as a decent portrait lens on the 7D.


I suspect a slow AF will not be an issue, unless you're using the macro lens for non-macro shooting. Most macro shooting is done using manual focus (often not really focusing at all, but instead just setting the focus ring to the MFD and moving the camera or the subject until focus is achieved).


The bigger concern is light. Even outdoors in daylight, handholding a macro lens at or near 1:1 is very difficult (even with the the IS on the L version). The problem is that DoF at macro distances is very, very thin. For example, with the 100mm Macro at 1:1, even stopped down to a 'reasonable' aperture of f/11 the DoF is less than 3 mm, and added to that is the fact that you lose light at high mag, so at that 1:1 shot at f/11, you're actually getting the amount of light (apparent aperture) of f/22. It makes shooting in anything less than direct sunlight a real challenge. For that reason, macro shooting usually involves a good tripod (which won't help for moving subjects like plants in a breeze or mobile insects), or a flash. If your goal is to shoot insects, you'll really want to consider a flash. Certainly, it's possible to get shots without one, here's a handheld example:



[url="http://www.flickr.com/photos/dr_brain/4947783293/in/set-72157624616379818/lightbox/]http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4144/...d1958725_z.jpg[/url]
EOS 7D, EF 100mm f/2.8<span style="color: #ff0000;"]L Macro IS USM, 1/160 s, f/11, ISO 640


But, this was ~1:3 magnification meaning a loss of only about one stop due to apparent aperture effects, and the grasshopper is lit by direct sunlight. If he was a couple of inches to the left, in the shade, that would be ~3 stops less light. Without IS, 1/160 s is the approximate 'limit' for handholding a 100mm lens on a 1.6x body, meaning to get the same DoF and exposure in the shade, I'd be at ISO 5000 - somewhere I won't go on my 7D.


A dedicated macro flash is not in your budget, but do you have an external flash already? If so, you can adapt that for macro use for much less than the cost of a dedicated macro flash. Personally, I've used a 430EX II on aManfrotto 233B Flash Bracket with GiottosMH1004 mini ball head, connected via an OC-E3 off-camera flash cord. If you used a 3rd party flash cord and have a flash already, the setup would run about $100. Here's an example taken with that setup, in shade and on a windy day where an ambient handheld shot would have failed:



[url="http://www.flickr.com/photos/dr_brain/4875341569/in/set-72157624616379818/lightbox/]http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4118/...e7155ac5_z.jpg[/url]
EOS 7D, EF 100mm f/2.8<span style="color: #ff0000;"]L Macro IS USM, 1/60 s, f/8, ISO 400, 430EX II on Manfrotto 233B flash bracket via OC-E3


One other factor to consider in your macro lens choice is the 7D's excellent AF system. On the 7D, Canon implemented a special Macro Servo AF mode - when you are using a Canon USM macro lens(the 100mm L, the 100mm non-L USM, or the EF-S 60mm)and focusing at 1:3 (one-third life size) or greater, and in AI Servo AF, that mode is automatically activated. It increases the sampling rate for the servo AF to better correct for rapid but small changes in focus (as opposed to the normal function of servo mode where a subject is being tracked through the scene).


Hope some of that helps, and good luck with your decision!


--John

John, those pictures are extremely sharp...I can count the small

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Pieter

Do you think the picture of the grasshopper would have been even sharper if you'd used a tripod?

---

Probably not appreciably. The shutter speed combined with IS should be enough to eliminate the effects of camera shake. A tripod would have allowed a lower ISO (less noise), but ISO 640 on a 7D is ok, I think. While a tripod could also have allowed a narrower aperture for more DoF, I was already at f/11 and going beyond that, diffraction starts to have a significant effect on resolution.

If you don't have the funds for the L 100mm, I would say go with the non L, but the USM. I use it for both macro and for portrait shots. The USM is plenty fast for that. I usually don't use a tripod for any of my macro stuff, but take a couple pictures each shot. It gives pretty good results. If you need to bump the ISO up to get a good shutter speed, noise reduction software blurs the background nicely. I don't have experience with the other lenses mentioned, just my experience with this one. Check out the post your best macro section and see what everyone is using there. Most will post what lens they were using.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by gbc

I've had some experience with the Tamron 90mm, and found it adequate, but didn't find it totally satisfying

---

What was wrong with it?


I have the 100mm L and I'm very happy with it. I used to have the Canon 100mm f2.8 macro USM and I used it with an on-camera 430EX2 flash. And that worked great for me. A flash or a tripod is highly adviced. I personally prefer a flash, since I like to shoot living/moving macro's.


I had chosen the Canon over it's competitors mainly because of the internal zoom. I don't like the extending zoom at all, mainly because of wrong distance indication (by me) and shadow-problems when going from a full-insect shot to a partially insect shot (again my problem). As you can see it has everything to with user-error, so you might not even see it as a bad thing. But I do.


The Canon 100mm macro is just very sharp en the focus-ring works very good. 9/10 times I use this lens I'm using manual focus, so for macro I wouldn't say that a fast AF is an important factor in the equation. Also I think that the Canon is very usable for other uses as portraits.


I really like it. Both the L and the non-L macro lens.

Thanks for the helpful advice. I hadn