New to Photography - Macro Lens Advice Needed!

I am very new to photography and this site. I just bought a Canon EOS Rebel T1i camera and I am ready to expand my lens collection from the two kit lenses it came with. I have narrowed my macro lens decision down to two and cannot decide which is best....the Canon EF 100mm f/2.8 L IS USM Macro or the Tamron AF 180mm f/3.5 Di SP A/M FEC LD (IF) Macro. Of course,great bokeh is very important and other than the fact I like the $300 difference going with the Tamron but this one does not have IS. I am not fond of using a tripod, will not having IS be a major issue with getting good shots??????


I also am looking at getting the Canon EF 300mm f/4.0 L IS lens and I am wondering if anyone has had any problems with this lens.


Advice greatly appreciated! [:)]

I don't have a macro lens yet, but my understanding from reading others' posts here is that IS would be very important for handheld macro work, and still may not make enough difference. I preemptively got a good tripod this week just in case. You may want to consider the same tactic.


This also leads me to suggest the Canon 100mm f/2.8 L IS, since it has the most advanced hybrid IS system in any Canon lens to date, a precursor to IS in future lenses.

Thank you so much for your quick response to my post! I value your advice and the kit I bought did come with a tripod, looks like I had better get comfortable using it ...I think it's going to end up having to be my new companion! [:)]

Welcome to the forum (and photography)!


I'm sure some of the macro shooters in the forum will pick up on this thread soon. In the mean time, I'll do my best to help you out. Although I do not have personal experience using macro lenses, I'll try my best to provide some useful guidance. I'm giving you advice based mainly on the implementation and advantages of Image Stabalization. For specific information regarding image quality testing, working distance and quality of bokeh, I suggest reading Bryan's very helpful review (Canon EF 100mm f/2.8 L IS USM Macro lens review)


From my experience, both lenses perform very well with respect to their image quality. The images that I have seen shot with the Canon EF 100mm f/2.8 L IS Macro were outstanding. I've heard nothing but great things about this lens. Unfortunately, I cannot comment on the performance of the Tamron.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ddt0725

I am not fond of using a tripod, will not having IS be a major issue with getting good shots??????

---

When shooting Macro, keep in mind that depth of field is very scarce at (or approaching) maximum magnification. This means that you may opt for shooting with narrower apertures. Also, a significant amount of light is lost at high magnifications. I think that implementation of Image Stabilization is a great feature, especially when stability is very important - In macro lenses.


If you don't feel comfortable, don't have the space or time to use a tripod for your macro shooting, I think it would be wise to consider the Canon EF 100mm f/2.8 L IS Macro over the Tamron. But those are just my thoughts - Maybe your budget calls you to purchase the Tamron 180mm f/3.5 instead.


I hope I have made your purchase decision a little bit easier. I think you are thinking very clearly about your needs so far.


- Alex

This is kinda off topic but what in the world do all those letters in the Tamron lens mean?? I got a few good guesses but sheesh. Talk about going a little overboard with the model designations...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by wickerprints

This is kinda off topic but what in the world do all those letters in the Tamron lens mean??

---

I was wondering about that. I still like the sound of EF f/xx L IS USM instead. [;)]

lol! I have absolutely no idea but sure looks/sounds impressive! I'm the newbie so heck I just learned what IS is not to long ago [:)]

Thanks, Alex! I am trying to learn so much, it's starting to get a tad jumbled in head. I did read Bryan's review and it was extremely helpful ...I hope he posts one on the Tamron soon, his opinion would really make my decision a lot easier.


Since I am hoping to get the Canon EF 300mmf/4.0 L IS at the same time, saving a few $$ would help but definitely not worth it if not having IS in the macro would short change me on beautiful photos! I have seen so many nice ones posted that were taken with the Tamron ...maybe they just have a sturdier hand than I do!


Thanks so much for the reply ...keep 'em coming, I'm sure I will have many new questions in the near future [:D]


Denise (ddt0725)

AF 180mm f/3.5 Di SP A/M FEC LD (IF) somewhat decoded...


From Bryan's review of the Tamron 28-75mm f/2.8 XR Di Lens, the breakdown is:



SP - Super Performance (Tamron's highest quality lens line)

AF - Autofocus

XR - Extra Refractive Glass (reduces lens size)

Di - Digitally Integrated Design (to reduce ghosting, flare, CA and peripheral light fall-off along with improved resolution)

LD - Low-Dispersion lens elements (to reduce chromatic aberration for sharper images)

Aspherical - contains aspherical elements (compensates for spherical
aberration and distortion, making for better performance with fewer
elements (and thus allowing for smaller, lighter lenses)

(IF) - Internal Focusing


[and not in Bryan's review]


FEC - Filter Effect Control function that enhances operational ease of Polarizing Filter use.


A/M - Autofocus & Manual focus (they may be referring to the clutch mechanism, or else a full time manual focus)

WoW!


Thanks for the breakdown, Sean. Now I won't have nightmares of Tamron's lens-naming system any more...[:)]

Between the Canon and Tamron, get the Canon. IS makes a GINORMOUS difference and overall the canon has a better value. I have rented the 4/300 twice. It is not a perfect lens, but for the price you get a sharp, fast-focusing white L lens that is something of a hybrid between a super telephoto and a macro lens. aaaaahhhhh[:D]

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ddt0725

Thank you so much for your quick response to my post! I value your advice and the kit I bought did come with a tripod, looks like I had better get comfortable using it ...I think it's going to end up having to be my new companion! [img]/emoticons/emotion-1.gif[/img]

---

Yep, I thought I had a tripod, too, but after I picked up my new tripod, I realized I never had a tripod before! My previous Sunpak 7500 isn't even in the same league as the new Manfrotto 055CXPRO3 I just received from myself for Christmas. [;)]You owe it to yourself to look into a real tripod. Only now do I see what I had been missing before. This particular one has a fantastic feature that is tailor-made for macro work, too, with the Q90 rapid column that can be locked in parallel to the ground. Very cool.

I will second that. I kicked myself in the face a few times before I mustered the courage to blow $550 on a tripod. I had a cheapo promaster tripod from (?, 5) years ago. Deciding that "6X carbon fiber" tripods like the ones in bryans reviews were overkill, I bought a gitzo basalt tripod with a weight rating of like 30 pounds. Never blown $550 better.

I will second that. I kicked myself in the face a few times before I mustered the courage to blow $550 on a tripod. I had a cheapo promaster tripod from (?, 5) years ago. Deciding that "6X carbon fiber" tripods like the ones in bryans reviews were overkill, I bought a gitzo basalt tripod with a weight rating of like 30 pounds. Never blown $550 better.

Definitely get comfortable with that tripod! Or, consider a flash (Canon twin light, or a Speedlite with a bracket + off-shoe cord). I actually just got myEF 100mm f/2.8<span style="color: red;"]LMacro IS USM - this is the first shot I took, part of an arrangement sitting on the dining table. Natural window light, early afternoon in New England. This is at f/11, and you'll need an aperture in the f/8-11 range for decent DOF when shooting macro. Why do I recommend a tripod? This exposure was 10 seconds (at ISO 200, but even going to 1600 would mean a 1.25 second exposure - way too long even with IS). But, for outdoor shooting in daylight, IS does make handheld macro shots feasible. All around, so far, I love this lens. [:D]


[img]/cfs-file.ashx/__key/CommunityServer.Components.UserFiles/00.00.00.35.15/1st_2D00_Macro.jpg[/img]

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ddt0725

I also am looking at getting the Canon EF 300mm f/4.0 L IS lens and I am wondering if anyone has had any problems with this lens.
<div style="CLEAR: both"]</div>

---

I have had this lens for about 3 years and have had no problems at all. Its a great piece of kit, very sharp. Be aware that the IS is the older version, giving about 2 stops. You might consider getting a 1.4x teleconverter with it if you need more reach. This will give you a 420mm f/5.6 for a little extra cost. IQ is still very good with the T/C attached.

Macro and Flora Photography


Sigma 180mm f3.5 EX APO Macro HSM Field Review

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sean Setters

Di - Digitally Integrated Design (to reduce ghosting, flare, CA and peripheral light fall-off along with improved resolution)

---

And Di-II means that it can be only used with APS-C sensor cameras.


I do a lot of macro work, and recommend the 100/2.8 non-IS. It is (relatively) inexpensive, SHARP, and does almost everything that 100L IS can do. I've never missed IS with it, simply because with macro, it is often necessary to use small apertures to get adequate DOF. With small apertures, light becomes a problem quickly, especially with light loss at such close focusing distances. Thus it is often necessary to use flash or tripod. It is also somewhat difficult to handhold so close and keep your subject in focus, making a tripod even better. Flash also has the advantage of "freezing" your subject, so you can shoot with an active subject where IS would be worthless.


Short story: Spend less on the lens and spend more on lighting and a good tripod and (very) sturdy ballhead.


Also, about the telephotos, I recommend trying both the 300/4L and 100-400L before you buy. They are both excellent.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ShutterbugJohan

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sean Setters

Di - Digitally Integrated Design (to reduce ghosting, flare, CA and peripheral light fall-off along with improved resolution)

---

And Di-II means that it can be only used with APS-C sensor cameras.


I do a lot of macro work, and recommend the 100/2.8 non-IS. It is (relatively) inexpensive, SHARP, and does almost everything that 100L IS can do. I've never missed IS with it, simply because with macro, it is often necessary to use small apertures to get adequate DOF. With small apertures, light becomes a problem quickly, especially with light loss at such close focusing distances. Thus it is often necessary to use flash or tripod. It is also somewhat difficult to handhold so close and keep your subject in focus, making a tripod even better. Flash also has the advantage of "freezing" your subject, so you can shoot with an active subject where IS would be worthless.


Short story: Spend less on the lens and spend more on lighting and a good tripod and (very) sturdy ballhead.


Also, about the telephotos, I recommend trying both the 300/4L and 100-400L before you buy. They are both excellent.
<div style="CLEAR: both"]</div>

---

I agree 100%. IS on a macro is of limited use. I'm not planning to trade in my 100 f/2.8 non IS any time soon. I've never tested the 100-400L so I can't compare tomy 300 f/4L but suggest you rent both and see which one suits your own needs best. I fing lens choice is a very personal issue, we all have our own preferences.

Take a look at the "other" macro Sigma makes...the 150mm f/2.8 EX Macro. Check out the Sigma 150 Macro Club on Flickr and take a look at Bryan's own tests against the new Canon 100 2.8L Macro. The build quality is extremely good - I've had some great success with this lens both for macro and portrait.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ShutterbugJohan

do a lot of macro work, and recommend the 100/2.8 non-IS

---

I want to add a thought here.


When I use the EF 100 f2.8 USM for macro work, 99% of the time I use flash. #1 because cool bugs come out at night and #2 because I shoot at f8-f16 to get as much depth of field as possible. My flash fires at somewhere around 1/10,000 of a second so hand holding is never an issue. If I shoot macro innormaldaylight I use a tripod but not 1:1. You can't shoot 1:1 from a tripod unless the tripod has some sort of dove-tail base and screw that can move the camera forward and backward. When I shoot for 1:1 mag. I manually focus and rock until I get the focus I want. I can shoot 25-40 shots of the same subject and get 2-5 great keepers. If money were no issue I would love to own the new IS version. I do not think at 1:1 it would result in any more keepers. I would take advantage of the IS in indoor/static portrait like shotsand use it for artistic motion blurr effects. For me, I can't say it would benefit the way I do Macro.


I agree with ShutterbugJohan's recommendation.


Here's a Macroexample:


http://chucklee.zenfolio.com/img/v4/p699168173-3.jpg


Canon EOS 5D, <span class="nowrap"]f/11 @ <span class="nowrap"]100 mm, <span class="nowrap"]1/160, <span class="nowrap"]ISO 200 - Two Vivitar 285 in umbrellas triggered with Cactus V2s.


<span class="nowrap"]Notice that even at f11 on FF how quickly the slug gets out of focus. And this isn't even close to 1:1!


<span class="nowrap"]Here's a sorta portrait example @ f2.8 on APS-C:


<span class="nowrap"]http://chucklee.zenfolio.com/img/v6/p533617847-3.jpg


<span class="nowrap"]Canon EOS 40D, <span class="nowrap"]f/2.8 @ <span class="nowrap"]100 mm, <span class="nowrap"]1/200, <span class="nowrap"]ISO 320