Camera Labs

There are a lot of different Macro lenses out there, so I am curious as to what lens(es) people chose and why.

I started a similar thread recently.
However, I realized that the question I asked was too specific to my situation and not broad enough for a general discussion. I tend to enjoy the general discussion more as it gives people more freedom to discuss their passion. This in turn gives me a greater insight into the 'why' of the choice.

So, without further ado, feel free to discuss which Macro lens(es) you acquired, or are going to acquire, and why you decided on that lens(es).

_________________
Canon 5DIII, Rebel XTi/400D
Canon EF 16-35mm f/2.8L II, 24-105mm f/4L, 50mm f/1.4, 70-300mm f/4-5.6 DO, 85mm f/1.8
Sigma 150mm F2.8 EX Macro
Sigma 10-20mm f/4-5.6 EX, Canon EF-S 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6 II
Canon 430EX II
Opteka 13mm, 21mm, and 31mm extension tubes
Vivitar 50mm f/1.8 for OM System

I chose the Canon 100mm 2.8L Macro IS USM
Why?
1) Sharpness. OK, the non-L-version is very similar in that aspect.
2) Weather sealing
3) 1:1 Macro
4) IS - can never be wrong.
5) Nice portrait lens. Similar to the 70-200mm 2.8L IS USM (II - looking at the sharpness) - just without the zoom but with the possibility of using the macro range.

_________________
Canon EOS 500D + Canon EOS 5D Mark III + Canon EOS 33v
Canon EF 24-105mm 4L IS USM + EF 100-400mm 4.5-5.6L IS USM + EF 100mm 2.8L Macro IS USM + Sigma 12-24mm 4.5-5.6 EX DG HSM + Canon Speedlite 580 EX II + Nissin Speedlite Di 466

I chose the same macro lens as Jiko. My wife had bought a pre-owned XTi and several lenses, including a Tokina 100mm, from a co-worker, which showed me what a 100mm 2.8 could do, but I wanted weather-sealing, and internal focusing. (The Tokina's front element extends during focusing.)

When I was assigned to shoot images from a helicopter at night, I needed something with as wide an aperture as possible, with IS, and preferably in the 85mm to 100mm range, and I needed it immediately, so it had to be in stock locally. (I had already made one flight with a 50mm 1.8, which simply did not show individual people well enough from 600 feet of altitude.*) A 70-200mm 2.8 was beyond my buy-it-right-now budget, whereas the 100mm 2.8L Macro IS was just barely within my budget, and available from a local dealer. I did not need another 100mm macro lens, but the 100L filled needs other than macro.

This 100L is now my most-used lens. At work, on a 7D, I can often manage to shoot a whole outdoor crime scene with just this one lens, from distance shots to macro, especially helpful when it is raining. On my new-to-me full-frame 5D, the 100L is looking like it will be really good for portraits of faces, and is good for a walking-about lens in a fairly open area.

My sample is not perfect! It has some amount of weird complex distortion, which is not symmetrical, but it behaves so well in most ways, I believe I will keep it. (Plus, it was used on that once-in-a-lifetime aerial night-shooting assignment, making it and my 40D tangible reminders of a small adventure in my otherwise relatively boring life.) Someday, as the budget allows, I may actually buy a second one, being sure to check for distortion; then, I might send the first one back, to be checked for faults.

*The daunting prospect of night aerial surveillance images was not so bad, in reality, as my images were not expected to be crisp and sharp. The images were needed mostly for estimating crowd and traffic patterns near some
large venues, in advance of a very large sporting event, the college basketball "Final Four" tournament.

I

_________________
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

Regarding the Tokina 100mm, it is an excellent lens, itself. Optically, it is as good or better than my 100L. Actually, my 100L's complex distortion makes it worse than the Tokina, though I think this distortion is probably individual sample variation. I have considered a Nikon-fit Tokina 100mm as a gift for my wife to use on her D7000.

_________________
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 chose a 100mm non IS USM for my 1000D.
Good IQ, but lacks IS. I hate tripods.

If hand-holding shots are the most common, I'd go for the IS.



Well, hell. If you got that kind of $$$ Rexgig, just save for the 70-200mm that was out of your reach before. With 2 7D's, 1 with the 100mm macro and 1 with the 70-200, you'd be the forensic maestro. If you have a store nearby, take some test shots with a display lens to compare with your own. Or rent.

What about the 135mm f/2 L that is hailed the Sharpest lens canon makes.

I may not say macro but it sure is sharp when I used my friends camera.

_________________
1) Olympus OM1 [Zuiko Auto-S 50mm f/1.8]
2) Pentax MZ-60 [Sigma 28-90 & 100-300]
3) Canon 7D [EF-S 15-85 & 70-200mm f/4 IS]

Leo's Flickr Page

(dedicated) macro lenses I have in rough order of purchase:

Tamron 90mm macro. Optically great, very affordable. Didn't like the extending front section as I often bumped into things when focusing. Recessed front element didn't help with working distance.

Sigma 150mm macro (non-OS). This was bought before the 100L and the Sigma OS versions came out, so there was no IS choice then. The longer focal length meant more working distance, and I also got the matching 1.4x teleconverter for it to give even more focal length and working distance for a given magnification. "Slowness" from the TC wasn't important for macro where you generally need to stop down for depth of field anyway. If I were buying today, I'd get the OS version though, BUT now they announced the 180mm OS, I'd rather wait for that still. Since I do wildlife macro, the working distance generally can help. Why not the other 180mm lenses at the time? They seemed unremarkable for the extra cost and the 150mm just seemed to be most reviewer's favourite.

Canon MP-E 65mm. Ok, this was an extreme plaything. Extreme macro, difficult to use. Very short working distance. Non-existent depth of field unless you stop deep into diffraction softening.

Zeiss 50mm makro. This only does 0.5x magnification, but is f/2 and full frame compatible. If you like manual focus, this is a joy to handle. If you like AF, look elsewhere. Actually, if you see the price tag you probably would anyway... having used it much more now, it is a nice 50mm MF prime all round, with the bonus you can focus closer than the usual suspects. I wouldn't get it again if I were buying today though. It's good, but not enough for me to recommend it at its typical price.

Side note: I do wish for a wider angle macro lens at some point, to get a different look than typical macro shots and have more background context. Actually since I went full frame I now kinda have one in the Zeiss.

_________________
Canon DSLRs: 7D, 5D2, 1D, 600D, 450D full spectrum, 300D IR mod
Lenses: EF 35/2, 50/1.8, 85/1.8, 135/2+SF, 28-80 V, 70-300L, 100-400L, TS-E 24/3.5L, MP-E 65, EF-S 15-85 IS
3rd party: Zeiss 2/50 makro, Samyang 8mm fisheye, Sigma 150 macro, 120-300 f/2.8 OS, Celestron 1325/13
Tinies: Sony HX9V.

At the time i bought one i decided between the Canon 100mm non L and the Tokina 100mm.
Back then, the Canon L wasn´t released yet. I went for the Tokina mainly because of better build quality.
The Canon has USM but isn´t really a speed demon either.
If i had to buy one again i would probably go for the Canon L Version.

_________________
My photostream

I recently found out in some small print that both the new Sigma 105mm and 150mm macro lenses have "splash-guard". I am not sure how effective it is, but it is nice to know that it exists. What I would like to see is how it compares to Canon's weather-sealing on their 100mmL macro lens.

What I am unsure about is if their new 180mm has it or not.

_________________
Canon 5DIII, Rebel XTi/400D
Canon EF 16-35mm f/2.8L II, 24-105mm f/4L, 50mm f/1.4, 70-300mm f/4-5.6 DO, 85mm f/1.8
Sigma 150mm F2.8 EX Macro
Sigma 10-20mm f/4-5.6 EX, Canon EF-S 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6 II
Canon 430EX II
Opteka 13mm, 21mm, and 31mm extension tubes
Vivitar 50mm f/1.8 for OM System

As I am now the proud owner of a macro lens now, I figured I should come back and answer this question that I asked others.

As fair warning, I have had this lens in my possession for only the last hour and have taken only some quick pictures as testing some basic functionality, so I have not had a lot of experience with it yet.

What made me decide to purchase the Sigma 150mm F2.8 EX APO DG HSM Macro was the range and price. This is the older, discontinued, model and not the newer one with Optical Stabilization or splash guard protection. I bought this lens as a used copy which cost me less than half what the newer OS model would have cost me. It has the longer working distance, that I was wanting, and a price that I was far more comfortable with. The price is what particularly appealed to me as this is my first macro lens.

This was a safer purchase for something that I will probably not use as often as some of my other lenses.

_________________
Canon 5DIII, Rebel XTi/400D
Canon EF 16-35mm f/2.8L II, 24-105mm f/4L, 50mm f/1.4, 70-300mm f/4-5.6 DO, 85mm f/1.8
Sigma 150mm F2.8 EX Macro
Sigma 10-20mm f/4-5.6 EX, Canon EF-S 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6 II
Canon 430EX II
Opteka 13mm, 21mm, and 31mm extension tubes
Vivitar 50mm f/1.8 for OM System

I use the canon 50mm f2.5 compact macro. GREAT images and perfect for portraits too!