Need advice on a macro lens purchase + Poll

[Brendan7]

Hi all,


I am a wildlife photographer and am currently shooting birds, etc. with a 300 f/4 IS and Canon EOS 7D (I LOVE this combination []). This is, as of now, my only DSLR equipment (besides rentals).


I am now looking at macro lenses. I am budget-constrained and so just buying everything that seems like it might help is not where I'm going. I am considering three lenses:


Canon 180 Macro


Sigma 180 Macro


Canon 100 Macro


And... I've said it myself, Sigma lenses are usually inferior, but after reading Juza's (you guys know him, right?) test reviews and conclusions, I am considering it seriously. I will be shooting insects and plant life. The Sigma 180 macro is by far the cheaper, the 100 has IS... OMG this is a tough decision. The Sigma 180 has the same IQ as the Canon 180 at 1/2 the price... So tempting.


Please reply and vote in the poll below...

[Mark Elberson]

If you want to save some coin you could consider the EF 100mm f/2.8 USM. If you're using it mainly for macro use you'll probably want to utilize either a tripod or a flash anyway so the missing IS won't be that big of a deal. If you're using it around the house or for available-light portraiture then you'll really miss the IS.

[Sinh Nhut Nguyen]

I agree with Mark, otherwise get the 100 f/2.8L IS

[neuroanatomist]

I'll echo Mark's response - if you plan to use it for anything other than macro shooting, get the Canon EF 100mm f/2.8L IS Macro USM lens. I have one, and it's amazing. But, macro requires a tripod, even with the IS, unless you're shooting in full daylight and still willing to sacrifice some DOF. If you intend macro only, get the Canon 100mm non-IS. If you'll use it for other shots, get the Canon 100mm IS.

[HiFiGuy1]

I could be wrong, as I don't own one, but isn't part of the attraction of the 300mm f/4 that it has a fairly good magnification/short MFD that allows it to masquerade as a macro already? This would seem to be especially true on a crop body like the 7D. I know it doesn't allow really intimate macro shots where your shutter is literally inches from your subject, but unless that's critical, it seems like it would do a pretty good job for most stuff, and would let you work more with natural light, since the lens/body wouldn't be blocking the light source(s).

[wickerprints]

I own both the EF 300/4L IS and the EF 100/2.8L macro IS. They are really very different lenses, in my experience. The maximum magnification of the 300L is 0.24x, or just a bit under 1:4. The maximum magnification of the 100L is, of course, 1:1, so that is a 4x increase in magnification. You can't really factor in the sensor size, since you can apply the same logic to both lenses equally, but even so you would have at best 0.38x "magnification," not anywhere near 1:1.


There are plenty of times when I can get a shot with the 100L that I could not get with the 300L, in so far as close-up shooting of small subjects. But interestingly, there are also times when I can't get close enough to my subject to warrant using the shorter focal length of the 100L. I was shooting little crabs hiding in tidepools last week and for having a rather primitive nervous system, they are awfully good at sensing motion from a distance. The only way I could get shots of them with the 100L was by parking my lens right outside a crevice, and sit super still until they ventured out again. Not easy. On the other hand, I could sit at a distance with the 300L and get a reasonable shot. It's a tradeoff; the 100L is easily sharper in the macro regime, but the 300L has a much more comfortable working distance, provided you don't need more than 1:4.


As I don't have experience with macro lenses @ 180mm, I can't really recommend one way or another. But keep in mind that the 180mm macros are much more difficult to handhold. You will find that you need really good light, a very small aperture, and a very fast shutter speed. That's the reason why I went straight to the 100L macro, starting out. I knew I didn't have the technique to handhold a macro near MFD and get sharp shots. The 100L has about 1-1.5 stops stabilization near 1:1, has a maximum aperture of f/2.8 instead of f/3.5, and is lighter and less front-heavy. You might think that you need a tripod and macro rail, and those would be fine for still subjects, but the experienced macro shooters really need to move quickly and many of them handhold. Some even manage to focus stack with the MP-E 65mm, which to me is a skill that seems to verge on magic.


Here is a recent photo of a spider that I caught in my house. It barely moved; it must have been old or something?


5D Mark II, 100/2.8L macro IS @ 100mm @ f/10 @ 1/500s, manual focus, manual flash.


[img]/cfs-file.ashx/__key/CommunityServer.Components.UserFiles/00.00.00.30.26/2010_5F00_01_5F00_13_5F00_0023.JPG[/img]


100% crop of the above image.


[img]/cfs-file.ashx/__key/CommunityServer.Components.UserFiles/00.00.00.30.26/2010_5F00_01_5F00_13_5F00_0023c.JPG[/img]

[Mark Elberson]

5D Mark II, 100/2.8L macro IS @ 100mm @ f/10 @ <span style="color: #ff0000;"]1/500s, manual focus, <span style="color: #ff0000;"]manual flash.

Was this using your PocketWizard FlexTT5? Did you use HyperSync or Optimized High Speed Sync? How are you liking them? To me, the max sync speed of 1/200th on the 5D is reason enough to seriously consider the PocketWizard Flex system.

[wickerprints]

5D Mark II, 100/2.8L macro IS @ 100mm @ f/10 @ <span style="color: #ff0000;"]1/500s, manual focus, <span style="color: #ff0000;"]manual flash.

Was this using your PocketWizard FlexTT5? Did you use HyperSync or Optimized High Speed Sync? How are you liking them? To me, the max sync speed of 1/200th on the 5D is reason enough to seriously consider the PocketWizard Flex system.
<div style="clear: both;"]</div>

Good observation--yes, this was using the PocketWizards (TT5). What I basically did was set out a piece of regular copy paper on a table, took the spider and placed it on the paper, got my (mostly useless) gorillapod and mounted my flash+PW on it, and pointed it at a low angle at the spider. Turned on high-speed sync in the flash unit, calibrated, and shot away. I wasn't getting as much flash power as I liked--couldn't get shutter speed above 1/50s since ambient light was low--so I turned off ETTL and cranked the flash up to full power, but for some reason my camera didn't figure out I was no longer in ETTL. Manually calculated my exposure. As I was literally inches away from both the spider and the speedlite, I was not prepared for the intensely blinding power of full flash right beside my face....


Good times, good times.





Anyway, high-speed sync works well. I can confirm that. Remote triggering works well too. Would not try this with a more...active subject. I don't know what was going on with mr. spider. Even with eight eyes exposed to that kind of flash intensity, he barely made a move. But as soon as I released him in the backyard, he went scurrying off. Lucky for him I found him photogenic--I usually squash spiders. [:P]

[Dan Fleming]

I voted for the Sigma, but that is not really my choice. I have the Sigma 150mm 2.8 Macro lens. For $700 ish you get good glass, longer than 100mm which gives you more working distance and smoother background blur, and still the 2.8 open aperture. The 180mm offerings cost you 2/3 of a stop which sometimes is a big deal. This lens has worked excellently for me. I was on a budget constraint which is why I didn't get the 180mm canon, and I didn't want the shorter working distance of the 100mm. (the L didn't exist at the time and wasn't a consideration)


So that's my two pence!

[Brendan7]

So, if it's between the Sigma 180 and Canon 100 f/2.8L IS, which would be better for macro?


Yes, I like portraits too, but I am a wildlife photographer at heart and the Sigma is $400 cheaper.


brendan