Camera Labs

Hi

I'm starting to get interested in macro photography but I don't have a macro lens as such, and I'm pretty confused.
I'm planning on taking pictures of small flowers etc.

They range from 50 to 180 mm the ones I've seen, but I really cant figure out what would be better or any reccomendations on that.
I've seen a lot of reviews, read other posts here on this and other sites.
As far as I can see the ones that get the best reviews are
- canon 100 mm f 2,8 macro
- canon 100 mm f 2,8 L macro
- Sigma 150 mm f 2, APO EC HSM

Some reviews say that the two canon lenses only differ by the build qality, but isn't IS nessesary on a 100 mm lens?
So is IS worth twice the price of the non-IS.

Unfortunatly I live far far away from a store, so I cant go try it out.

And a pretty stupid question. Macro lensens, can they be used for non-macro shots as well or is it only macro?
I assume they can, but I just wanted to be shure.

M

I'm not a macro photographer but here's my 2 pence on IS.
If your doing close ups of flower etc your going to need a tripod to keep camera shake to a min. Therefore I don't think IS is that important, especially as you say the lenses are twice the price! IS is nice to have but pro photographers have been using non IS lenses for years, they managed and got spectacular results. Don't get blurry eyed on IS, I'm sure you'll be fine without it.

Mark

not an expert in macro photography, but on a cropped body I think around 100mm is a good starting point.

Over at thedigitalpicture there is good reviews on various macro lenses from all three Canon, Sigma and Tamron. All make excellent macro lenses. If you are really serious the 150-180 range seems to be the way to go.

But the lenses around 100 also make a nice portrait lens, if you are going to find that useful I would go with that.

For what its worth I find that often I come across insects and flowers and naturally don`t have a tripod handy or they are too fast anyway. Therefore IS is a must have, in my opinion anyway.

_________________
Canon Powershot S95, Canon 7D, 15-85, Canon 85 1.8 USM, Sigma 30 1.4, 50mm 1.8, Canon 100 2.8L IS Macro, Canon 70-300L IS USM+Kenko 1.4 Pro 300DGX, Canon 430EX II and RS 4 Classic

Well I'd like to be abel to shoot hand held, so I think IS is probably a must.

But the Sigma 150 gets some great reviews at photozonehttp://www.photozone.de/nikon- ... rt?start=2

But it is more pricy than the canon 100 mm L.
Does anyone know if it is worth the extra money.
And if 100 og 150 mm is better, I really cant decide.
Not risking to scare the bee or what ever I am photographing, is an advantage I would say.

M

Throwing in my Nickel, I've been using the 100mm 2.8 'non-IS' about three months. Very happy with what I'm getting. 95% of what I'm doing is on a tripod. when I start using large f: #'s (16 and up) Shutter speeds become long and even IS won't help me past 1/4 sec. Regular shooting I'll just keep the shutter speed above 1/200. and I saved some bucks for the wide angle next on my list.

_________________
Smile often and Laugh Loud! because my country is run by clowns.

Image Stabilization is not necessary when using a tripod. The general consensus is that IS should be turned off when using a tripod, except for certain newer lenses which have IS systems that recognize tripod use.

Yes, a macro lens is useful for longer-distances, too, unless it is specifically labeled otherwise. A very few macro lenses cannot focus on infinity, but both Canon lenses mentioned in the opening post can focus to infinity. I specifically purchased my 100mm 2.8L Macro because it had IS, and could be used for an assignment with subjects at 600 feet and beyond, yet could also be used for quick macro shots under circumstances that preclude tripod use, such as the busy trauma room of an ER, where I try to get shots of assault-induced injuries before they are stitched and bandaged. (evidence for court) This lens is also useful for my nephew's soccer matches and swim meets. Yes, it does flowers very well, too.

My Macro L was definitely a good value for me, and I have no buyer's remorse whatsoever. Your needs and circumstances may vary. I have read reviews that tried both of the Canon 100mm macro lenses, and found no optical difference, and one reviewer said the non-L 100mm he tested was slightly better in some aspect(s) than the L. (I cannot remember the
reviewer, or what was better about the non-L.) This could well be a simple
matter of sample variation, of course. I wanted the additional benefits of
weather sealing and IS, so I bought the L.

_________________
Canon 7D/5D/40D/1D2N; Nikon F6, FM3A, & Coolpix A; Canon 40mm Pancake, 135L, 50L, 35L, pre-II 50mm 1.8, 100mm 2.8L Macro, 10-22mm EF-S, 28-135 EF, 400mm 5.6L; Nikkor 50mm 1.2 AI-S, 50mm 1.4G, 50mm 1.8D, 16mm 2.8D Fisheye, 180mm 2.8D, 100-300mm 5.6 AI-S; Tokina 17mm & 100mm 2.8 Macro

Perhaps, I should mention that my wife owns a Tokina 100mm 2.8 Macro, that produces superb images. This lens has had multiple excellent reviews.

_________________
Canon 7D/5D/40D/1D2N; Nikon F6, FM3A, & Coolpix A; Canon 40mm Pancake, 135L, 50L, 35L, pre-II 50mm 1.8, 100mm 2.8L Macro, 10-22mm EF-S, 28-135 EF, 400mm 5.6L; Nikkor 50mm 1.2 AI-S, 50mm 1.4G, 50mm 1.8D, 16mm 2.8D Fisheye, 180mm 2.8D, 100-300mm 5.6 AI-S; Tokina 17mm & 100mm 2.8 Macro

I have the 100mm 2.8 (no IS) for some time now. When I shoot macro I always use I tripod. DoF is so shallow at close to 1:1 magnification that I have to stop it down. F: 8 is considered “wide opened” for macro. Most of the time I have to use f: 11 – f: 16 and the shutter speeds are too long for shooting handheld, even with IS. I don’t have a flash suitable for macro so I’m limited to available light. But it would be nice to have IS in low light situations for non macro shots. So my advice is to get the lens with the IS, it will make it much more usable in general, not necessarily for macro.

_________________
Radu
Canon PowerShot S100
Canon 50D , SIGMA 10-20 f3.5 ,Canon EF 24-105 L IS USM, Canon EF 100/2.8 macro Canon EF 50/1.4 ,Canon EF 85 f1.8,Canon EF-S17-85 4-5.6 Old Tamron 28-300 inherited from my Canon Rebel G film camera
Canon580EXII
http://www.errre.net

Thanks for all of the replies.
So what would be better having 100 og 150 mm? I think of the distance to the motive?

Well I ended up ordering the Sigma 150 mm.

The specs are pretty much the same, and 150 mm seemed like a better distance for me, at 100 mm I feel I'd scare the insects away or cast a shadow on the subject.

Now it's just waiting for the postman to bring it...

Thanks a lot

Michael