I need an afforable macro lens - Advice Please

I just sold my beloved Sigma 85mm and my Canon 100mm 2.8L lens and now I need to find an affordable alternative for a macro lens.

Main points to consider - Price, hand-holdable, sharp, smooth background, 1:1 magnification, versatility. What anyone wants from their macro lens!

Here is what I think my options are ...

Sigma 70mm Macro - I can't find it used but the new price is in my range. I owned it, I know I can hand-hold it a get pretty sharp images. I like the images I did get from it. Background was smooth, worked nice as a portrait lens also. Negative & why I sold it - slowest lens on the planet and noisy. But when I sold it, I knew I still had the Canon 100mm macro as backup. Now, maybe I would be accepting of its limitations and appreciate its abilities more.

Sigma 105mm OS Macro - For slightly more than the 70mm, I can pick up a used "never used" copy online that is still under warranty. It has OS, fast focusing. Length is alittle longer than than the Sigma 85mm that I really liked but not a huge issue and actually maybe a plus for nervous insects and such & help me not create shadow. The speed would give me the versatility for when I am in the garden taking macro shots and the dogs or grandkids are out and about in the yard. It accepts both Canon & Sigma TC's if that ever comes into play later on. The negative - I can't find a real lot of reviews or feedback on this lens. I know when I got a good copy of the Sigma 70mm, 50mm & 85mm, 17-50mm the Sigma was very pleasing.

Canon 100mm L non-IS Macro - Can't beat the used price of this lens but I am worried the non-IS on a lens this size will be an issue for macro work. I can use a tripod for flowers but not when chasing butterflies and other insects or when going to some botanic gardens.

Maybe someone can explain what I am looking at here (the 105mm is with OS, I just forgot to mark it as such) ...

Attachment 980
Is the 105mm the better one as far as these charts show? I don't understand them very well.

FYI - My photos posted on Flickr taken with the Sigma 70mm Macro ...

http://www.flickr.com/photos/1808587...7629585699800/


Suggestions much appreciated!

Denise

Yes, the Sigma 105mm chart looks better. Just over simplifying the higher the line at any given point the better. I think if your comparing the Sigma vs the Sigma it might give you an idea of what to expect.

But I wouldn't read too much in to the Canon's chart vs the Sigma's because two different manufactures prepared the charts. Two different manufactures preparing similar charts, may or may not be fair comparisons with each other. With the Sigma vs Sigma you would think that Sigma arrived at the charts the same for each lens and it may be a fair comparison.

This video might help

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DjCoD0_V2RM

If the charts were comparable, which I don't think they are, the Canon is beating the Sigma's wide open and it compares closely to the Sigma 105mm stopped down.

For an even cheaper macro lens, just buy extension tubes. Kenko makes some nice, relatively affordable ones (I found some used on Ebay for about $100).

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).

http://farm5.staticflickr.com/4072/4...889e98b9_z.jpg
Palm pilot by Ben__Taylor, on Flickr

http://farm5.staticflickr.com/4042/4...75d80088_z.jpg
Rawr!!! by Ben__Taylor, on Flickr

http://farm4.staticflickr.com/3384/3...36a4353b_z.jpg
The smallest of things are often very significant... by Ben__Taylor, on Flickr

Thanks for the responses guys!

@ HD - That video was very helpful with getting me to understand those charts. Thanks much for providing the link!

@ Sean & Ben - I do have the Kenko extension tube set. I am ok with using the 12mm but when it comes to using the 20mm & 36mm, I have somewhat more difficulty focusing. With those or with stacking, it takes me forever to get focus unless I am setup well with my tripod and a macro slider. I sold my slider a long while back but maybe I should look at getting another and just using the tubes more often. More practice may make them become easier to use for me.

BTW Ben - AWESOME shots!! I still have my 70-200mm f4 IS but never used tubes on it ...you may have inspired me to give it a shot!

Question: The guy that may sell me his 105mm just emailed a couple photos he took with the lens. Is it "proper" for me to post them here?? I have a question on something I am seeing in the photos. I do not know if it is something caused by the camera, the lens, or in post.

I am not sure if it is proper or improper. But it might irritate the guy if you put his lens / pictures up on the Internet for world wide critique.

Hide his exif data for sure if you do.

Ok, I won't. I had figured it wasn't the best thing to do even if it was just a crop area of one photo.

How about just forwarding the pics by email to a few for their thoughts instead?

I ended up telling the guy I wasn't interested.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by btaylor

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:D '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.

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

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/

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."

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.

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ddt0725

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ddt0725

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.

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#

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

http://farm8.staticflickr.com/7189/6...c4b371e2_z.jpg
The Chosen One by budrowilson, on Flickr

Sean, that is VERY impressive considering it was taken with 3 tubes and a TC @ f/32!! I tried yesterday with just one tube and my 70-200mm f4 IS on a couple flowers and lost some detail.

Well, here's the latest update on my macro lens saga ...

I sold the lens on the 29th but found out today the $ won't be available until the 8th after first trying paypal & finding out he didn't have the pp funds and then Chase QuickPay and then found out he wasn't even set-up and I'd have to wait for the set-up process. So, this morning I told the guy to forget it. I missed out on a few used macro lenses waiting and I can't shoot with this one in case something were to happen to it. Plus, I've been waiting a week for funds from a guy for my 70-200mm. Stress is high, patience with people is running low!

I'm going to hang on to my 100mm IS for alittle while longer while I practice my Kenko tube skills on the lenses I have left. Since I sold my fav Sigma 85mm last week, I can wait a bit longer on the selling of the macro. Too many lens sales in one week = deep depression anyway!

If my Kenko tube skills don't improve, I decided to either purchase a 100mm non-is or go back to the Sigma 70mm. At least I narrowed it down to the two.

Thank you so much everyone for the suggestions and input! I received a great deal of helpful information even about diffraction, reading charts and lenses in general.

Denise

My wife's taken an interest in macro and she just ordered the EF-S 60mm f/2.8 macro. I'll use it too and will post if I get some good images.

Dave

I sold my 100L and have another macro coming tomorrow. I decided on another copy of the Sigma 70mm. I had it before and was happy enough with the results ...once I get passed the lack of speed and the noise!

I was 99% sure I was going to end up keeping the 100L but a few nights ago I went through many photos looking for all of my macro shots with the 100L and the 70mm and realized I really don't shoot macro all that often to justify having a $1000 lens to do it. Granted, the 100L is good for more than just macro, but I have other lenses for non-macro shots also ...so, I let it go.

Edit: BTW - I am still very interested in seeing those shots with the 60mm because I was real close on getting that one!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by HDNitehawk

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.

---

Well, the latest upate on my macro lens issue is that I received the Sigma 70mm yesterday and am returning it today. It didn't focus as well as the copy I had before and it was the old Sigma finish (ewwww) so I am still in need of a macro lens! And, I am still really torn on my decision of whether to get yet another 70mm or a different macro all together. I see Canon refurb's site has the 100mm non-L, non-IS lens in stock but I do not still have my macro flash and I guess I am worried about what was mentioned that the IQ is not as good. I'm sorry for being so indecisive on this but once you've gone "L" it is really, really hard to downgrade and accept the downgrade without constantly being critical of the results from the non-L, non-Canon consolation prize.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ddt0725

Well, the latest upate on my macro lens issue is that I received the Sigma 70mm yesterday and am returning it today. It didn't focus as well as the copy I had before and it was the old Sigma finish (ewwww) so I am still in need of a macro lens! And, I am still really torn on my decision of whether to get yet another 70mm or a different macro all together. I see Canon refurb's site has the 100mm non-L, non-IS lens in stock but I do not still have my macro flash and I guess I am worried about what was mentioned that the IQ is not as good. I'm sorry for being so indecisive on this but once you've gone "L" it is really, really hard to downgrade and accept the downgrade without constantly being critical of the results from the non-L, non-Canon consolation prize.

---

The image quality diffrence with the 100mm Canon's is there if you look wide open, if you stop it down though I don't think you will see any. Most of my Macro shots are F8 or better, I don't think I would notice.

I don't think any of the lenses you mentioned will live up to the memory of the 100mm L IS.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ddt0725

Well, the latest upate on my macro lens issue is that I received the Sigma 70mm yesterday and am returning it today. It didn't focus as well as the copy I had before and it was the old Sigma finish (ewwww) so I am still in need of a macro lens! And, I am still really torn on my decision of whether to get yet another 70mm or a different macro all together. I see Canon refurb's site has the 100mm non-L, non-IS lens in stock but I do not still have my macro flash and I guess I am worried about what was mentioned that the IQ is not as good. I'm sorry for being so indecisive on this but once you've gone "L" it is really, really hard to downgrade and accept the downgrade without constantly being critical of the results from the non-L, non-Canon consolation prize.

---

For what it's worth. I started with the 100mm non-L macro, then upgraded to the L-lens. Now I don't have any of the two, because just for the macro-work the L lens wasn't justifiable to me.
I have used both lenses a fair amount of time and I never got the results with the L-lens that I got with the non-L lens for some reason. You will not notice any difference in image quality. Well perhaps wide open and pixel peeping, but in real life normal use(no scientific hobby work:rolleyes:) you simply won't. The only thing you'll notice is the IS on the L-lens, which is nice but no necessity and also the shape of the barrel, which is just a little more comfortable in the hand. And perhaps the weathersealing if you're adventurous. However none of those really matter to me for macro shots so if I'd have to buy a macro lens again it would be the non-L lens.
I also have had the macro ringflash, but I still prefer a normal 430 or 580 flash on a flash bracket over it.
What I do like about the 100mm is the working distance. I think a shorter lens with less working distance would not be a good option for me and would make it even harder to get great shots.

Denise,

I've got a 60mm 2.8 macro that I am gonna be putting on the market soon. (can't use it with the 5D3). Holler if you think that may fit your needs.

Dave.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dave Johnston

Denise,

I've got a 60mm 2.8 macro that I am gonna be putting on the market soon. (can't use it with the 5D3). Holler if you think that may fit your needs.

Dave.

---

OMG! I wish I would have seen this 5 minutes sooner! I just pulled the plug on another lens but if it doesn't work out for me I will most definitely be interested!

I have three macro lenses currently (one is a loaner). Here's the order of sharpness I would give them compared to the rest of my kit:

1. EF 180mm f3.5L macro
2. EF 400mm f5.6L
3. EF 70-200 f2.8L IS II
T4. EF 50mm f1.4
T4. EF 50mm f2.5 compact macro
5. EF 60mm f2.8 macro
6. EF 24-70 f2.8L

...granted, this is all subjective, but these are my opinions. The 60mm may be hurt in my scoring b/c I can't use it on my 5d(I). My 50mm compact macro is typically on loan to my friend that is still in grad school, and to tell you the truth, when I need a short macro I just stick a 12mm extension tube on my 50mm f1.4 instead of using my 60mm. Of course, this is about as macro as I tend to get (5d + 50mm f1.4 with 12mm extension tube):

http://farm8.staticflickr.com/7058/6...6b248496_b.jpg

...but when I'm bored I will use the 60mm, and although I don't think it is as sharp as the others, it still produces nice images:
http://farm7.staticflickr.com/6122/6...941aa14d_b.jpg

...and of course, while I have the 180mm macro on loan, I have been using it religiously. The details and color are amazing. The shots above both had to be sharpened from Raw files in post processing before conversion to jpegs. Below is a shot with the 180mm that I didn't touch besides adjusting the contrast. It is truly an amazing lens. Maybe I accidentally lost it and cannot return it :)
http://farm8.staticflickr.com/7178/7...2a50a541_b.jpg

Affordable macro? How about a 105mm f/4, manual focus, for just $125? You can get a $25 Nikon-to-Canon adapter, and the lens is about $100 on keh.com. It's sharp as a tack. Plus, I love the 70's-era aesthetics, which make me feel at home in any discotheque. :D

Denise,

The 60mm macro is supposed to be in Monday.

Reasons for getting it:

a) Renowned as being very sharp at just about every review I looked at
b) Relatively low cost ($429 with instant rebate)
c) She appreciates the small size and light weight
d) Ring type ultrasonic AF with full time manual focus
e) Useful focal length that we didn't have covered for portrait use etc...
f) Lens does NOT extend during focusing

The only 3rd party we gave any look at was the Tamron 60mm f/2 and were put off by the micro-motor and lack of full time manual focus. It was either this one or the 100mm and we appreciated the cost savings and smaller size.

Dave

Wednesday, I should have the Sigma 105mm OS. I just had to give it a try! After all, it's returnable if it doesn't work out but I figured it was worth trying before excluding and it had a $200 rebate going. It is a little more than I wanted to spend but I made some good $ on my macro I sold so I still came out ahead. Keeping my fingers crossed!

One thing I've noticed is how the 60mm really has some mixed reviews stated above! I guess overall the decision would be so much easier if only the 180mm didn't cost so much!