# Canon macro lens recommendations



## solowatch (Mar 17, 2008)

I have a canon XSI digital camera, with 3 decent lenses for most shooting needs, but now I would like to get a macro lens for close up photos of watches, nature, and other small things.

I have looked at the Canon 100mm F2.8 macro lens, which I like, but at near $600 it's out of my range. Is there a decent lens at more reasonable price that you would recommend?

Thanks.


----------



## hydrocarbon (Aug 18, 2008)

Eh, pretty much any macro lens will do, even the off-brands. Extension tubes work as well. You could also look for something used, or try reversing one of your existing lenses. Heaps of options.


----------



## solowatch (Mar 17, 2008)

Thanks Hydrocarbon, this is very interesting. I'd love to find one of those reverse adapters for my camera, that looks like it would be fun to play with on a lazy afternoon. 

I'm not much of a photographer, I mean I like photography, but have never really studied the art or spent a lot of time practicing it, so I don't follow all the lingo. I guess I'm just an average amateur, but I'm finding it more interesting lately and would like to dabble in it some more.

Please tell me a little bit more about extension tubes and what they do, relative cost, and whether they're easier to use than the reverse lens deal.

Thanks.


----------



## peter-g (Jun 27, 2010)

The Tamron SP AF Di 90mm f/2.8 Macro is a very good Lens.


----------



## solowatch (Mar 17, 2008)

The Tamron looks like a great lens, but still close to $500. 

Does anyone have an opinion on the Canon EF-S 60mm Macro lens? It seems I can get one of these for under $400. Most of the comments I've seen on it are positive, and it seems to be a pretty versatile lens.

Since this will go on my Rebel XSi, which is not a full-frame camera, I'm not really sure what the effective range of this lens would be. Any ideas?

Also, are there any options for attaching additional optics to my existing lenses? I thought I read somewhere that close-up lenses can be attached to like a filter to change the magnification of a lens. Does that work?


----------



## Haf (Aug 9, 2009)

The 60mm is a great lens, but the working distance is pretty limiting compared to a lens in the 100mm area, you will have a very hard time lighting your subjects.

Since you are using an APS-C camera the 60mm will give you the equivalent field of view coverage of a 96mm lens mounted on a full frame camera.


----------



## 00Photo (Jan 4, 2008)

If you're on a budget extension tubes work great!


----------



## solowatch (Mar 17, 2008)

I've been doing some reading on extension tubes, and it seems a combination of tubes and diopters may be a pretty cheap way to get macro capability. 

I checked on Amazon and the Opteka tube set with 13 mm, 21 mm, and 31 mm tubes is about $80.

Amazon also has a 58mm 10x Opteka lens for $20. 

I currently have 3 existing lenses for my XSi, the 18-55 IS, 28-105 EF, and the 100-300. If I add these Opteka attachments, what sort of results should I expect? Will I have trouble with lighting? I have a tri-pod which I would likely use with most macro shots, but I've already had situations where I had difficulty with lighting. 

Thanks for all the input.


----------



## AirWatch (Jan 15, 2008)

I'd get a lens over tubes and extensions just about every time.

I'd get the Canon EF 50mm f/2.5 compact macro if I were in your shoes. Here's a shopping guide link for it: Canon Macro lens - 50 mm - F/2.5 - Canon EF

Let us know through samples what you got when you get it.


----------



## solowatch (Mar 17, 2008)

AirWatch said:


> I'd get a lens over tubes and extensions just about every time.
> 
> I'd get the Canon EF 50mm f/2.5 compact macro if I were in your shoes. Here's a shopping guide link for it: Canon Macro lens - 50 mm - F/2.5 - Canon EF
> 
> Let us know through samples what you got when you get it.


Well, I'm sure a dedicate macro lens is better and easier in most cases, but for about $100 the Opteka rig seems to be a reasonable alternative for occasional use, assuming that it works. I'm just wondering if that setup would produce decent results.


----------



## AirWatch (Jan 15, 2008)

solowatch said:


> Well, I'm sure a dedicate macro lens is better and easier in most cases, but for about $100 the Opteka rig seems to be a reasonable alternative for occasional use, assuming that it works. I'm just wondering if that setup would produce decent results.


"Better and easier" will, over time and usage, more than offset the $160 or so price difference between a proper lens and a jury-rigged one.


----------



## 00Photo (Jan 4, 2008)

jury-rigged is rather harsh. I use extension tubes all the time with great results. I use them on my canon 100mm-400mm all the time. No other lens combo can give you the flexibility to shoot butterflies/bugs/birds over a varying distance QUICKLY and accurately. I also have a canon 100mm f/2.8L macro that I find very limiting when shooting small fast moving subjects.

These were taken with the 100mm-400mm zoom lens and extension tubes.


----------



## 00Photo (Jan 4, 2008)

slow internet double post.


----------



## DragonDan (Dec 22, 2009)

I've not experimented with extension tubes. I have a Sigma 105mm macro that I use for my (wait for it...) macro stuff. It does really well in this regard, I don't use it for anything else.


----------



## solowatch (Mar 17, 2008)

00Photo said:


> jury-rigged is rather harsh. I use extension tubes all the time with great results.
> 
> These were taken with the 100mm-400mm zoom lens and extension tubes.


Great results!!! Nice job 00Photo.

The tubes seem like a reasonably cheap way to temporarilly change your non-macro lens into a macro. As I understand it, the tubes have no glass so the optics of the lens don't change, right?

I may give this a try. Amazon has a good satisfaction policy, so if I don't like the results I can always return them. But I would still like to find a reasonable dedicated macro lens. I'm going to take a look at the used market and see if I can get a lens at a better deal than the new ones. I really don't want to spend $500-600 just to experiment with this.

Besides the Bay, does anyone have any ideas where I can find used lenses?

Thanks.


----------



## cavallino33 (Jan 7, 2008)

This probably won't help you but I have the 100mm macro and it is a very good lens with excellent clarity. It is expensive but much less than the L series lens. I bought it for watch photography but I've ended up using it for a ton of other things like hood ornament and detail pictures at car shows and portraits etc. The only downside is the lack of image stabilization which means you need a tripod for any macro distance stuff or lower light.

I'm of the opinion that it's better to get the best you can afford than to buy something lesser and have to upgrade later, but if you think you might not get enough use out of it then extension tubes are probably a good bet.


----------



## Matt2006 (Aug 28, 2006)

solowatch said:


> The tubes seem like a reasonably cheap way to temporarilly change your non-macro lens into a macro. As I understand it, the tubes have no glass so the optics of the lens don't change, right?


Correct. They are just hollow tubes. They move the lens' mount further away from the camera and basically allow the lens to focus on stuff that is closer to it than it would otherwise do without the tubes. Since the objects are closer to the lens they are bigger/more zoomed in when you take the shot. For example, say the minimum distance your current lens can focus on a subject right now is 3 meters - if you stack all those tubes it'll focus on objects at a much closer distance.

Here's a set of 3 tubes that I've seen praised before on photography forums - Kenko Auto Extension Tube Set DG for Canon EOS Lens AEXTUBEDGC -

You can also buy used lenses and other equipment from BH Photo (Used Equipment - B&H Photo Video).

Also, www.fredmiranda.com has a for sale section. You need to donate money to their site to post in that particular section (posting in other forums on that site is free), but not paying won't prevent you from sending sellers private messages about their ads. That is free.

If you eventually decide you want to spend more money on the lens, the Sigma 150 2.8 Macro always gets rave reviews.


----------



## Euterpe (Aug 25, 2010)

I use Canon 100mm F2.8 macro lens, first version USM but not IS.

This is an exceptional lens, none competitor at this range and price.


----------



## Dimer (Jun 24, 2008)

As already stated, the 100mm F2.8 is one of the best out there. The L version is even better (IQ is the same though ).

Until I get a 100mm, I use my 50mm 1.8 with soligor macro tubes. It may not be the most ergonomical option, but it works!

Some of my pics with this setup:


----------



## Dimer (Jun 24, 2008)

00Photo said:


> jury-rigged is rather harsh. I use extension tubes all the time with great results. I use them on my canon 100mm-400mm all the time. No other lens combo can give you the flexibility to shoot butterflies/bugs/birds over a varying distance QUICKLY and accurately. I also have a canon 100mm f/2.8L macro that I find very limiting when shooting small fast moving subjects.
> 
> These were taken with the 100mm-400mm zoom lens and extension tubes.


I've also used my Canon EF 100-400 with extension tubes and it works like a charm. But this is by far a cheap option ;-)


----------



## solowatch (Mar 17, 2008)

Dimer said:


> As already stated, the 100mm F2.8 is one of the best out there. The L version is even better (IQ is the same though ).
> 
> Until I get a 100mm, I use my 50mm 1.8 with soligor macro tubes. It may not be the most ergonomical option, but it works!


Very nice pics Dimer. what size tubes were you using? Did you use artificial lighting on this photos?

The 50mm F1.8 is a really fast lens, so the loss of light from using the tubes is probably manageable. Have you used the tubes with F4 or slower lenses? I'm worried that with my lenses and the tubes I may have to use artificial lighting.

Thanks.


----------



## kris (Feb 12, 2006)

I use the Sigma 105 1:1 /2,8 macro, superb lens. For super Macro I use the Soligor extention tubes.

check also this

cheers.


----------



## peter-g (Jun 27, 2010)

Dimer said:


> As already stated, the 100mm F2.8 is one of the best out there. The L version is even better (IQ is the same though ).
> 
> Until I get a 100mm, I use my 50mm 1.8 with soligor macro tubes. It may not be the most ergonomical option, but it works!
> 
> Some of my pics with this setup:


Very sharp.... :-!


----------



## narcosynthesis (Dec 28, 2009)

I use the 60mm f2.8 macro which should suit the subject perfectly - it doesn't have the larger working distance of a 100mm macro, but since you are not exactly going to spook your watches getting close it is not such a huge worry... As well as that it is a fantastic lens, and one I use regularly as a short telephoto (paired with a 10-22mm wide angle) - decent aperture, fantastically sharp, great quality and solidly built.

For about half as much there is also the 50mm f2.5 macro - an older build style and without USM focussing, but again a decent optic - I chose the 60mm because USM was important to me (as I use it a lot for non-macro work), but if money is an issue the 50mm is a good option.

For even cheaper extension tubes and your existing lenses are an option, which will do the job, if not in such a refined fashion as a dedicated lens.


----------



## solowatch (Mar 17, 2008)

Well, I didn't think I would do this, but I got a used Sigma 105mm F2.8 DG EX lens, and I also bought a set of new Opteka Extension Tubes, and a set of coated diopter lenses. All together this came to about $330, so I think this was pretty reasonable.

I'll try some experiments with these and see how they work out. If they all produce pleasing results I may just keep the whole lot, otherwise I may end up selling some of these.

Honestly, I would have preferred the Canon 100mm F2.8 lens, but the best price I've seen on a used one was about $360, so for less money I get the lens, which comes with case and hood included (extra for the canon), the tubes and diopters.


----------



## gnuyork (Aug 3, 2010)

Another inexpensive option is a set of close up filters, that attach to your lens and give you magnification. Sometimes they come in sets with different magnification but I have opted to spend the same money on just one of higher quality (B+W). I haven't used it in over 10 years. I actually forgot I had it until reading this post.


----------



## solowatch (Mar 17, 2008)

Yesterday the extension tubes arrived. They feel and look very nice, and they have the electrical pins to allow the autofocus and ttl to work, but with my Canon 18-55mm lens it just hunts non-stop and can't seem to pull the image in. I switched to manual focus and took a few really nice pictures with it. with the middle size tube, 21mm, I could get really close shots, but the DOF is very, very shallow. 

Today the Sigma 105mm lens arrived and I couldn't wait to try it out. I took a few pictures and I was quite pleased with the sharpness and the working distance the lens affords. It lets you get some very good close ups.

I also have a set of coated magnifying lenses (diopters) on the way. Hopefully they will arrive by Saturday so I can take some comparison pictures between all three options and see the differences. 

Right now I'm thinking the 105mm lens is really the best option, so I may return the tubes and diopters and buy a 50mm 1.8 lens. We'll see.


----------



## shortpballer (Aug 9, 2010)

I am a professional photographer. I agree about the tamron 90mm. It can be had used for around 250. I've owned one before. Noisy as hell, but SHARP!


----------



## shortpballer (Aug 9, 2010)

I am a professional photographer. I agree about the tamron 90mm. It can be had used for around 250. I've owned one before. Noisy as hell, but SHARP!


----------



## solowatch (Mar 17, 2008)

shortpballer said:


> I am a professional photographer. I agree about the tamron 90mm. It can be had used for around 250. I've owned one before. Noisy as hell, but SHARP!


Good to know. For now I'll put the Sigma 105mm through some tests and see how it goes. If I can't get the results I want, then I may go hunting for another lens. So far though the Sigma looks pretty impressive. It seems to be pretty sharp. What I can't yet confirm is whether it is vastly superior to my Canon 28-105mm F3.5, with extension tubes that would warrant keeping it. With just one day of handling the sigma, I can tell you the construction and refinement of the sigma is not in the same league as the Canon, EF on it is very slow, and noisy, and the setup with the full vs. limited motion is cumbersome. I guess I don't have to say "you get what you pay for".


----------



## Dimer (Jun 24, 2008)

I've got an EF 100mm 2.8 on loan and here is my first watch shot with it (I'm quite pleased with the result ):


----------



## hydrocarbon (Aug 18, 2008)

shortpballer said:


> I am a professional photographer. I agree about the tamron 90mm. It can be had used for around 250. I've owned one before. Noisy as hell, but SHARP!


I've never seen the term "noisy" used to describe a lens. What exactly do you mean by that?


----------



## Janno (Jul 26, 2010)

he meant that the autofocus motor inside the lens is not "silent"

i, too hate the sound those tiny plastic gears make inside my sigma 70mm f/2.8 macro, but the tack sharp images make it all worthwhile :-!


----------



## hydrocarbon (Aug 18, 2008)

Janno said:


> he meant that the autofocus motor inside the lens is not "silent"
> 
> i, too hate the sound those tiny plastic gears make inside my sigma 70mm f/2.8 macro, but the tack sharp images make it all worthwhile :-!


Ah, yes. It shouldn't be much of a problem for macro use, since you should be focusing manually under those circumstances anyway.


----------



## solowatch (Mar 17, 2008)

hydrocarbon said:


> Ah, yes. It shouldn't be much of a problem for macro use, since you should be focusing manually under those circumstances anyway.


Under many (not all) macro situations I could see wanting to go manual, but for non-macro usage I would rely on the AF. So far, the Sigma motors are quite annoying, I almost want to go manual just I don't have to listen to them. My canon lenses are whisper quite by comparison.


----------



## solowatch (Mar 17, 2008)

Over the last couple of days I've been playing with the new Sigma 105mm Macro lens, and a set of Opteka tubes I have mated to my Canon 28-105mm zoom lens. Following are some comparisons and some samples from each. Unless otherwise stated, the Sigma image appears first, followed by the Canon with the extension tubes.

Sigma








Canon + 21mm tube









Sigma








Canon + 21mm tube









Sigma








Canon + 21mm tube









Sigma








Canon + 21mm tube









Sigma








Canon + 21mm tube









Now, this next set of shots are to demonstrate the challenges when you work with an extension tube. First is the Sigma at 105mm.









Now, the Canon 28-105 with the 21mm extension tube.









As you can see, only half the sign fits into the image. So, now here is the same sign with no tubes, just the Canon at 105mm.









-------------------------------------------------------------
Alright, now some photos just from the Sigma 105mm




































----------------------------------------------------------------
And here are some pictures from the Canon 28-105mm with 21mm extension tube




































-----------------------------------------------------------------

This was an interesting and fun exercise for me. The thing that cannot be derived from the pictures is the difference in working distance. The Sigma really gives you a lot more room to work from, and frankly, it is more versatile for the length it is limited to. However, for much less money a set of tubes can add a lot more capability to an existing lens, and the picture quality is not too bad, very comparable.

In the final analysis, I will most likely return the tubes, and keep the Sigma. Not because the Sigma makes the tubes a moot point, but because I don't think the $80 EF tubes are any better than the $20 non-EF tubes. In all my tests, I could not get the EF to focus at all, it hunts endlessly, no matter what distance I tried, so I may as well save $60 and get non-EF tubes.


----------

