Looking for best MACRO/TELEPHOTO lens. Insights from those who know, please!!

Hey everyone, I'll cut right to the chase. I'm looking for the best lens for macro work that can also give the best telephoto results. I like to shoot EVERYTHING, so I need something versatile. Most important qualities for me are image quality and durability. I am not rich but I am more than willing to throw down big money for a lens that will produce pictures that make me smile for years and years and years. I am all about image quality; color, clarity, contrast, all the good stuff. I don't want to worry about dust/water/anything else; I want the thing to last forever.
I've narrowed it down to three lenses:

100mm f/2.8 non-IS
100mm f/2.8 IS
180mm f/3.5

I know that all these lenses are great but I'm looking for the best. I've thought about getting two lenses, one solely for macro, and a separate lens for telephoto but it seems like one of these could possibly do both REALLY well (I'm referring to the 180mm) but perhaps the 200mm f/2.8 would be better as a telephoto? In which case, I would get the 100mm non IS and the 200mm but I'd MUCH rather just get one lens ... Anyways, hopefully you get the gist of my dilemma. If anyone has relatable experiences with these lenses, I'd love to hear some insights. I'll be shooting on a 5d, mostly outdoors. I cannot go above $1600, just to give you an idea. Weight and size are not issues for me. Thanks to anyone who can help me out!!! Cheers, Josh

Guess you could add

Zeiss 100mm Makro f/2 (only 1:2) ZE (not out yet in the EF mount)
Voightlander 125mm f/2.5 APO Lanther Macro (no longer made, hard to find)

These are both manual focus, not sure that is an issue.

I have both the Canon 100mm Macro (non L) and the Voightlander which I recently bought. Probably going to sell the Canon.

-Tim

Stunning, Canon EF 100 mm F/2.8 L Macro IS USM: http://www.dpreview.com/lensreviews/canon_100_2p8_is_usm_c16/page6.asp
Bought one, sold the non-IS.
Amazing telephoto also.

Josh, all macro lenses have excellent IQ. So you need to decide your lens on other factors. What range of telephoto are you looking for ? If you are thinking of using it for wildlife or sports action shots, then I am afraid you have to have two lenses. The longest true macro lens(es) are only 180mm which is too short for wildlife photography. Also AF of macro lenses are generally slower than an equivalent non-macro lens, so they are less suitable for action photography. Tell us what is the intended use of your telephoto lens, then we can give you more informed advice.

--
Gautam

joshroe said:

100mm f/2.8 non-IS
100mm f/2.8 IS
180mm f/3.5

Click to expand...

Of these I have only used the 100mm non-IS. Great lens, super sharp and fast to focus unless you rack it all the way in and out. Works great for candid portraits at a distance. The new IS version is the same great quality + IS and that nifty red ring. The 180mm has always had the reputation of being slower to focus, but will get you the distance you need from stuff you can't approach (in the macro world).

That said, none of these are very much telephoto on a 5D. One suggestion is the 300mm F4 IS, it close focuses pretty well (max mag .24), with a 1.4x multiplier you get .33 mag, or with a 25mm tube you get .37. Granted it's not really macro but it is telephoto.

--
************************************************
Can you tell? I picked my poison well.

joshroe said:

Hey everyone, I'll cut right to the chase. I'm looking for the best lens for macro work that can also give the best telephoto results. I like to shoot EVERYTHING, so I need something versatile. Most important qualities for me are image quality and durability. I am not rich but I am more than willing to throw down big money for a lens that will produce pictures that make me smile for years and years and years. I am all about image quality; color, clarity, contrast, all the good stuff. I don't want to worry about dust/water/anything else; I want the thing to last forever.
I've narrowed it down to three lenses:

100mm f/2.8 non-IS
100mm f/2.8 IS
180mm f/3.5

I know that all these lenses are great but I'm looking for the best. I've thought about getting two lenses, one solely for macro, and a separate lens for telephoto but it seems like one of these could possibly do both REALLY well (I'm referring to the 180mm) but perhaps the 200mm f/2.8 would be better as a telephoto? In which case, I would get the 100mm non IS and the 200mm but I'd MUCH rather just get one lens ... Anyways, hopefully you get the gist of my dilemma. If anyone has relatable experiences with these lenses, I'd love to hear some insights. I'll be shooting on a 5d, mostly outdoors. I cannot go above $1600, just to give you an idea. Weight and size are not issues for me. Thanks to anyone who can help me out!!! Cheers, Josh

Click to expand...

I chose the Sigma 150mm f2.8 macro lens plus the Sigma Apo 1.4x converter because it is a well known combination that gives superb results. Essentially you have a fairly compact 150mm f2.8 1:1 macro lens, much more compact than the 180mm macro lenses. Plus you have a 210mm f4 lens that gives greater than life size - 1.4:1. In the long combination I have also used this lens for bird photography from a hide. There appears to be very little drop in image quality with the Sigma 1.4x converter and most of the time I leave it permanently attached to the lens. In fact I cannot detect any loss of image quality in use, even when pixel peeping. Obviously being a macro lens AF is not super fast and if it misses the target it can like most macro lenses sometime hunt. The 1.4x converter slows the AF a bit, but it is still very useable. Nevertheless the HSM AF is very quiet, smooth and not really slow. All I would add is that with the 1.4x converter it is not really suitable for fast action and is not up to the performance of something like the Canon 200mm f2.8 L.

Below is a sample photo taken at f7.1 when using the Sigma 150mm + 1.4x converter for bird photography from a hide (normally I use it as a macro lens). The image has been cropped from landscape format into portrait format - the camera used was a 40D.



Here is the same combo used as a macro lens.

Thank you so much for all your replies, I'm sorry that I ended up with two posts, that was not intentional. All of your feedback has been so helpful and has forced me to think about what I need. My dilemma is that I really don't know what I need! I'm just starting out, I mean, I've been taking pictures for years, but I have only recently invested in a DSLR and I'm kind of delirious (in the best way!) when faced with all the choices of lenses. I'll try to answer your questions, but it may just be that I need to get more experience before I can really answer them for myself. I love shooting wide, so I got the 17-40 and I'm completely in love with it. I love the build quality, I love the perspective and the zoom is nice (though, I'm partial to prime lenses, because I feel they force you to be more creative. I have the 50mm 1.8 and I love it). So I love to shoot wide (architectural, landscape, street) but I'm happy with the lens I have for that. I've always enjoyed photographing things close up (way before I knew it had a name, LOL) so now that I realize I can get some AMAZING shots, I'm maybe overly eager. I do not have enough experience with macro to know exactly what I like to shoot but most likely I'd be walking around the woods, shooting anything that looks interesting or beautiful. I probably won't be doing too any studio macro stuff but you never know! It seems SUPER addictive, so I may indeed end up taking it quite seriously. But to answer some more of your questions, I really don't know if I prefer a 100mm macro or a 180mm macro. In theory, I like the idea of a 150 or 180 because it seems easier to get up close to things without disturbing them. Also, this would give me a slight telephoto experience (though, I realize it will not be suitable for full on wildlife photography) either for walks through the woods or beautiful snapshots of friends. But, I just don't know yet what I would like the most. I guess that's why I was asking, LOL ... which is absurd, I know but I cannot afford to rent lenses. And, really I can't afford $1500, something like $11-1200 is more realistic. I guess I don't mind having two lenses, since I am of the belief that everything is made to serve a specific purpose and by trying to "cheat" will only be a disservice to myself. I wanted to stick with Canon lenses because I am so happy with my 17-40, I like the look and build, and even though it's pretty shallow, I just like the idea of having all Canon lenses as I build my collection. I much prefer to spend good money on a lens that will last forever, than save a quick buck (or a few hundred) for now, but then end up having to replace it in 10 years. I want to be confident that the lens won't crap out just from some dust or dew or whatever. But after doing some research, it seems that many other Canon faithfuls have tried out the Sigma and been very happy. Hopefully this clarifies somethings, maybe you all could point me in the right direction! Thanks, Josh

These pictures are AMAZING!!!! This is flawless to my eye. I want to be able to take pics like this! Wow! Very very nice, thanks for sharing. The Sigma 150 seems like a really exceptional lens.

I would suggest that you start with a 100mm macro lens that can double up as a long portrait lens as well. You can add a Kenco 1.4x TC to increase the magnification and reach. If you feel like doing wildlife, you can add a 300 or 400mm lens at a later date. A cheaper but not that high IQ solution for both is to get Sigma 70-300 APO. It will give you 0.5x magnification (cf. macro lenses go to 1x magnification) and long enough reach to do some wildlife photography. Here are some samples of Sigma 70-300 APO at both ends.







--
Gautam

Excellent !

The Sigma 150mm with TC (kenko in my case) is indeed a great combo:



Without TC also:



--
Philippe

on flickriver: http://www.flickriver.com/photos/photophilde/popular-interesting/
on Google : http://picasaweb.google.fr/philippe.dermine

Ugh, too many choices!!! Please let me know if I am correct in assuming that there is very little actual (detectable) IQ difference between many of the most popular macro lenses. The main dif is brand, possibly build quality, and focal length.
So it would be difficult to compare the Canon 100mm to the Sigma 150, correct?

For what its worth, I'm leaning towards getting 2 lenses. I'm really excited about the Canon 200mm for telephoto reach, and I'm thinking about the 100mm for macro. Seems like both lenses get really high ratings, and it would be a pretty affordable combo. I may get the Sigma 150 instead of the 100, but I'll have to try them out before I decide. Is it usually possible to try a lens in a camera store just to get an idea of the difference?

Also, for the 200mm, can anyone give me an idea of how much magnification is going on? If I was standing 20 feet away from an adult person, how close (roughly) would this lens get? Would their bust fill the shot? Head only? Or does it go even closer? I really need to go try some of these things out to get an idea of how "tele" they are!! I'm really excited about the 200, so if anyone can comment on it, I'd appreciate it. Thanks again.

joshroe said:

Ugh, too many choices!!! Please let me know if I am correct in assuming that there is very little actual (detectable) IQ difference between many of the most popular macro lenses. The main dif is brand, possibly build quality, and focal length.
So it would be difficult to compare the Canon 100mm to the Sigma 150, correct?

For what its worth, I'm leaning towards getting 2 lenses. I'm really excited about the Canon 200mm for telephoto reach, and I'm thinking about the 100mm for macro. Seems like both lenses get really high ratings, and it would be a pretty affordable combo. I may get the Sigma 150 instead of the 100, but I'll have to try them out before I decide. Is it usually possible to try a lens in a camera store just to get an idea of the difference?

Also, for the 200mm, can anyone give me an idea of how much magnification is going on? If I was standing 20 feet away from an adult person, how close (roughly) would this lens get? Would their bust fill the shot? Head only? Or does it go even closer? I really need to go try some of these things out to get an idea of how "tele" they are!! I'm really excited about the 200, so if anyone can comment on it, I'd appreciate it. Thanks again.

Click to expand...

Yes you are right that in reality there is very little difference in most of the macro lenses when it comes to image quality. It is only at the extremes, wide open at the edges and a bit of serious pixel peeping that you will notice any difference. As to what focal length macro lens is best depends a lot on how you intend to shoot with it. If it is mostly for use on a tripod then one of the longer focal length macro lenses with a tripod collar is undoubtedly the best. However, for handholding I prefer a macro lens in the 100mm range. I think the 100mm macro lenses are the most versatile and are the best all-rounders.

Most decent camera shops should allow you to at least try out the lens in the shop. It would be a good place to try out the held and shoulders framing because I couldn't give you the distances off the top of my head.

Image Quality is close indeed.

Considerations are the following IMO:

• Longer focal allows higher distance from the subjects (usefull for insects)
• Longer focal have reduced shallow dof compared to shorter focal at the same opening (can be usefull for some effects)
• Longer focal have reduced angle of vue compared ot shorter focal (both are however interresting, depending on the subject)
• At macro distance, hand holding any macro lens requires a shutter speed of about 1/250sec or faster (preferably) to avoid blur. Here, the Canon 100L IS looks to be a real evolution with its special IS.
• USM / HSM is usefull for faster focusing on moving subjects (like flying insects)
• The bokeh produced by the lens is very important to smooth the background when needed.

Today, If the money was not an issue, I would choose the Canon 100L IS instead of the Sigma 150mm. Else I'll stay with the Sigma 150.

--
Philippe

on flickriver: http://www.flickriver.com/photos/photophilde/popular-interesting/
on Google : http://picasaweb.google.fr/philippe.dermine