Looking for macro, EF-S 60/2.8??

Before I received my 55-250 IS I had some hope I would be able to use it in combination with my close-up lens. That hope faded when I saw the minimum focus-distance. No problem, every lens has it's purpose but I really like macro's so I will want to buy a decent lens for it. Now I've considered a reversal-ring, but that would always mean manual focusing, and that is not always a good way with fast bugs.

As a next investment I'm considering the EF-S 60/2.8 MACRO USM. In this pricerange (300-400 dollars if I'm correct) is there perhaps something else/better from Canon or third party to use with my 450D? And are there IS options? Is IS usefull with macro?

Ow, and how does this forum feel about lens-questions on this forum? Will you send me to the lens-forum or is that for the more 'pro'-lenses?

Thanks in advance!

Erwin
--
Don't blame me for just getting started...

Sony H2
Canon 450D 18-55 IS & 55-250 IS

My Pbase is finally online:
http://www.pbase.com/ed197907/

You won't just be send there, rather you'll be escorted with a number of armed photographers

The Canon SLR lens forum is for all lenses and abilities and you'll likely get more assistance there than here really.

The most common purchases generally are the Tamron 90mm, Canon 100 USM and the 60mm.

Things to be aware of are that the smaller the focal length the deeper the depth of field will be and whether the barrel moves back and forth and also if you can keep socus while zooming in and out.

EDirkx said:

Ow, and how does this forum feel about lens-questions on this forum?
Will you send me to the lens-forum or is that for the more
'pro'-lenses?

Click to expand...

--

EDirkx said:

Is IS usefull with macro?

Click to expand...

Somewhat. It's useful for closeup but not macro - here is what Nikon says about their 105mm VR: 'As the reproduction ratio increases from 1/30x [sic], the effects of vibration reduction gradually decrease." In other literature, Nikon has flat out said to turn off VR for macro use.'

http://www.bythom.com/105AFSlens.htm

But it's not currently an option for Canon anyway in a dedicated macro lens. I use my 70-300mmIS with the "life size converter" from the 50mm macro (essentially 1.4x TC+12mm tube) for medium closeups and get some extra hand-holdability:
Example: http://www.pbase.com/maderik/image/79925291

But this combo is MF mostly (and it's best to focus with the zoom ring.)

EDirkx said:

Ow, and how does this forum feel about lens-questions on this forum?
Will you send me to the lens-forum or is that for the more
'pro'-lenses?

Click to expand...

If you ask there an you'll get a wider diversity of answers.

--
Erik

Lol Socus = focus.

I forgot to add the new Sigma 70mm and also the 105mm.

Useful read and there's images to demonstrate background blur.

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/Canon-EF-S-60mm-f-2.8-Macro-USM-Lens-Review.aspx

For a general purpose macro lens I'd recommend one with around 100mm focal length. Pretty much all the dedicated macro lenses from Canon, Sigma, Tamron and Tokina have excellent image quality. What's important is what you intend to take macros of, and how.

If it's still life stuff in a studio, then a short focal length (50mm or 60mm) is fine, generally speaking, the shorter the focal length, the shorter the "working distance" (this is the measurement from the end of the lens to the subject) for a particular magnification. For example, the Canon 60mm f2.8 EF-S Macro lens has a working distance at 1:1 magnification of around 9.5cm.

If you're going to shoot insects, then a larger working distance can make things easier, the Canon 100mm f2.8 USM Macro has a working distance at 1:1 of around 14.5cm, and the Sigma 180mm f3.5 macro a 1:1 working distance of about 23.5cm.

The longer focal length macro lenses (> 100mm) tend to be significantly larger and heavier than the 100mm and shorter ones, this makes hand-holding a bit more difficult.

Some macro lenses extend significantly as they focus closer, others (such as the Canon 100mm and Sigma 150mm and 180mm) don't extend (they're said to be internally focusing lenses).

I think the Canon 100mm is a good compromise for a first macro lens, it's got a reasonable working distance, focuses reasonably fast, and is a good size and weight for hand-holding.

--
You want macros? We got 'em! Check out:
http://www.pbase.com/cjed

If you want a nice compact macro lens that is also great for portraits, the 60mm macro is a great choice. The 100mm is also very nice, but it is significantly larger/heavier if that matters to you since you are coming from the kit lenses. Also, try the 18-55 IS that you at 55, it is able to get pretty close, but certainly not as good as the 60.

The 60 is a great choice.

I love my 60mm, and I chose it because I wanted to be able to use the lens as a faster prime. It does a really nice job indoors for portraits etc. Heck I walk around town with it too.

Cheers

The 60mm is a nice lens for sure, it does have light loss towards the corners somewhat, something other macro lenses do not have (they all are full frame lenses) but in macro photography one does not tend to see that.

It is compact and for a macro lens it focusses fast.
Cons:

• Does not come with lens hood, yet front element is exposed. Get the lens hood for it, it will add to the price.

(Here you can see the exposed front element

• The light loss towards the corners (slight con).
• Very close working distance makes it less suitable for subjects that are scared of you.

Pros:

• Fast silent AF
• Compact
• Nice lens to double as portrait lens

Other lenses to look at:

Sigma 70mm f2.8. It is the sharpest macro you can get, simply amazing optics.

Also will double nicely as portrait lens. Comes with hood, and front element already is not as exposed:



Tamron 90mm f2.8. Very clear optics, this lens has a big reputation. Must have the nicest manual focus "feel" and precision of all macro lenses. Front element very recessed, one does not need the hood that comes with it, really (which is good as the hood is quite useless). Can double as long portrait lens. Extends a lot, is slow in focussing, and is a Tamron, so build quality is not all that impressive.



Canon 100mm f2.8 USM. Very good optics, very good build quality, does not extend, does not come with hood but needs one as the front element is very exposed (so factor in the cost for its complementary hood). Focusses fast and accurate, a nice lens to use. A but long to double as a real portrait lens.



Sigma 150mm f2.8. The longer the lens, the more distance you can keep to the subject. This lens is better suited for things that run away than the sorter lenses like the 60mm. Of course a lens like this is a LOT more heavy than the 60mm Canon. Great build quality, great optics. Comes with hood, so exposed front element is not a problem.

Canon 180mm f3.5 L USM. Nice optics. Great build quality, very good AF. Its length makes it very suitable for insect photography. I would want one if I could afford it. Comes with hood.



So, it is up to you to decide on money, focal length and model... all lenses above are exceptional in their own right and all are a great choice.

Why do I keep mentioning hoods? Because if you shoot somewhat into the direction of the light, you will get veils and loss of contrast without a hood, and to protect the front element from your fingers touching in while handling the lens, and things you try to photograph touching the lens because you move too close to them. A hood is always a good thing.

I was at the same sitauation as u. I eventually bought the 100mm USM and I could be happier. Its the best lens I owned so far and the picture quality is amazing. Having said that, its a bit difficult to use due to tiny DOF but all macro lenses suffer the same issue.

My 2 cents
Chris

Thanks all for your wonderful advice. I'll be looking into the Canon 100mm and the third party Tamron 90 and Sigma 70. They are in the pricerange I'm looking for. Considering that I would mainly use it for shooting insects and I'm not looking for the biggest and bulkiest, I think the Sigma or Tamron will be the best choice for me. A little cheaper also then the 100mm Canon.

Brightcolours: thanks for your amazing explaination. Keep that post for everyone who ever wants advice on Macro-lenses. It's all the information I could have hoped for.

Greetings,
Erwin
--
Don't blame me for just getting started...

Sony H2
Canon 450D 18-55 IS & 55-250 IS

My Pbase is finally online:
http://www.pbase.com/ed197907/

EDirkx said:

Considering that I would mainly use it for shooting insects

Click to expand...

For insects you need to be concerned with the working distance: that's the distance from the front of the lens to the focus plane. The specified minimum focus distance is from the sensor to subject: it doesn't include the length of the lens (or the first 44mm of the body!). This is even more critical for the Sigma 70mm/Tamron because these lenses extend in length as they focus closer! The Canon 60, 100 and all of the 150mm and greater lenses are internal focusing and do not change length.

Working distance at 1-1 (longer is better).
Canon 60mm: 9cm
Sigma 70mm: 6.5cm
Tamron 90: 11cm
Canon 100mm: 15cm
Sigma 150mm: 24cm

These don't include the hood. (The Tokina 35mm macro has a working distance of only 6.3 mm when you include the hood!) Hood get problematic when you start getting close: they can either block the flash or scare the bug.

--
Erik

Keep in mind that the larger the working distance the more flexibility you get... You dont scare the insects off.. When you finaly manage to master the macro lens at 1:1 you will probably want to move towards a higher ratio (2:1 maybe?!) that can be done with the use of extention tubes which practically allows your lens to focus closer than the specified distance. With this in mind, a large focusing distance would be required...