Macro lens advice

[TDon187]

Hi all
Currently own a 500D with 18-55mm kit lens, 55-250mm and a 50mm f1.8 II

Really want to start taking macro shots, but can't break the bank. Are there any decent lenses out there at around £250. I've seen the 50mm macro but is it worth having that as well as the 1.8 II?

thanks in advance

 

[Lemming51]

Most economical entry into macro shooting is to get a close-up lens like the Canon 250D. It screws onto the front of the lens like a filter and allows much closer focusing and macro magnification. The Canon 250D and 500D are 2-element designs that are better corrected for CA than cheaper single element close-up lenses.

Hi all
Currently own a 500D with 18-55mm kit lens, 55-250mm and a 50mm f1.8 II

Really want to start taking macro shots, but can't break the bank. Are there any decent lenses out there at around £250. I've seen the 50mm macro but is it worth having that as well as the 1.8 II?

thanks in advance

--
Unapologetic Canon Apologist

 

[aVolanche]

A used Canon 60mm macro would fit the bill.The 50mm macro takes an additional piece (converter) to get to 1:1. So make sure it's included. I prefer the 60mm for a lot of reasons.

 

[TDon187]

Just to be clear - when I say I own a 500D I'm referring to the camera body (I see there is also a 500D close up lens)

So I can get a 250D close up lens and screw that to the front of one of my current lenses?

Would that provide a better/comparable/worse image than if I bought a set of extension tubes?

 

[lespurgeon]

used 100mm f/2.8 macro?
That lens has produced some of my best photographs - macro or not.

 

[Peter too]

T4 has a 2nd hand 50mm macro described as "in mint condition" for £199.

http://www.t4cameras.co.uk/

 

[tonyjr]

The 50 macro is 2.5 but then you add the converter . Get the 60 mm 2.8 - newer , better coatings , a little more working distance than the 50 -- or a 100 mm - more working distance than the 60 .
--
1st it's a hobby
7D gripped XTI gripped
Canon - efs 10-22 , 17-55 , ef 18-55 IS
EF 28-90 , 28 @ 2.8 , 50 @1.8 , 28-135 IS
L's 35-350 , 70-200 MK II IS
Quantaray lens 70-300 macro
Sigma 135 - 400
2X III , Life Size converter
KSM filters for all
kenko auto tubes , EF 25

 

[Pultzar]

You can get an extension tube and put it on your 50mm to take macro shots. Then you can see how much you like it.

 

[biggles267]

+1 for canon 60mm macro (used)

 

[Gunzorro]

Me too -- go for the used Canon 60mm Macro -- amazing lens!

 

[Tejas Ramakrishnan]

I suggest that you pick this one - http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B0007WK8KS/ref=as_li_ss_tl?ie=UTF8&tag=dp-rev-forum-20&linkCode=as2&camp=217145&creative=399349&creativeASIN=B0007WK8KS

The Canon 60mm macro...

 

[photonius]

Hi all
Currently own a 500D with 18-55mm kit lens, 55-250mm and a 50mm f1.8 II

Really want to start taking macro shots, but can't break the bank. Are there any decent lenses out there at around £250. I've seen the 50mm macro but is it worth having that as well as the 1.8 II?

thanks in advance

a 60mm macro would be the best choice (unless you go for 100mm).

cheaper are extension tubes and close-up lenses,
here is some info about how they work:
http://photonius.wikispaces.com/Close-up+%26+Macro

--
Life is short, time to zoom in ©

 

[mbrowne]

I don't know if this will help you, but I happened to shoot this today with my T2i + 55-250 + 500D close-up. Just a quick shot, and I have no idea what it is, which is really why I shot it. This is a 100% crop:



This is the resized uncropped shot:



I'm not interested enough in macro to get a macro lens, and the 500D lets me gross out my friends just fine

 

[arty H]

There is also the option of the Sigma 50f2.8 for macro work. A longer focal length might be better for some macro applications, like insects. However, the Sigma is sharp and less expensive than the Canon 60.

If I had the cash and wanted a shorter macro lens, I'd get the Canon 60. I own the Canon 100 and the Sigma 50 - both are good lenses, but I paid much less for the Sigma. The Sigma 50 was 1/2 the price of the Canon 100.

 

[Gary1951]

Tamron 60 mm f2 is also a great macro lens.

 

[Kevin Jorgensen]

Given what you already have I'd strongly suggest the 100f2.8 macro USM. I have several lenses but have just discovered the unique qualities of this lens. Its not just a macro its a very good medium telephoto lens as well.

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/Canon-EF-100mm-f-2.8-USM-Macro-Lens-Review.aspx

http://www.photozone.de/canon-eos/167-canon-ef-100mm-f28-usm-macro-test-report--review

 

[MarshallG]

Not what you want to hear, perhaps, but the EF-S 60mm is remarkably sharp. I absent-mindedly snapped a photo of my car's dashboard, and every grain of dust was very visible. I mostly use the lens at work, to photograph circuit boards from a copy stand. It's sharp enough to capture the smallest chip markings, as long as the lighting is correct. This was the reason for the purchase.

The EF-S 60mm is truly a great lens.

That said, the 17-55mm EF-S kit lens also focuses very closely, and I suggest that you work with it and exhaust it before buying a macro, because that way, you will know exactly what, if anything, your photos lack. I photographed cherry blossoms with the 17-55 last week, and the detail was fabulous.

 

[foy]

I have a 100mm macro, the non L version. I really like that lens, and with the new L being out, I assume you can find a used non L for cheap.

Last week I bought the Kenko extension tube set, bringing my magnifaction to X2-ish (I believe). I am really happy with the ubes so far, below are a few images I shot over the past couple days.

Also, I more or less found using the tubes with my 50mm 1.4 and my 24-105 L worthless. It turned them both into macro lenses, however I felt the quality was not present that I was getting in the actual macro lens and the tubes.

Here is a link I just found that shows more or less what I was seeing with the 50 and tubes:

http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1029&message=26032436

My setup includes a 5DII, the MT-24EX dual flash, 100mm macro and Kenko extension tubes.

Here are a few images with the tubes and 100mm (shot at f32 if I remember correctly):

BTW, the bug inside the flower pic was an accident. That flower was so small I had no idea that bug was inside.

 

[Bo Persson]

No doubt EF-S 60mm. I have that one and I love it.

If you want to break the bank 17-55mm. The 100mm f/2.8 is a third great lens and also great (and the only one) if you decide to go full frame in the future.
--
Bo Persson, M.A.
Independent Fashion Consultant & Researcher
[email protected]
http://bopersson64.wordpress.com/
Skype name bossep64
http://culturedevelopmentandresearch-cedar.freehomepage.com/
http://www.flickr.com/photos/76021273@N00/
http://www.cig.canon-europe.com/a?i=0sgcbH0TLC
You can do it because you believe you can do it. So do it!

 

[Kevin Jorgensen]

I bought the 100f2.8 USM macro in December. I thought it would be a handy tool if I ever decided to do some macro. I took it with me the other day and snapped off a few shots. No hood, no filter, no nothing just a few quick shots to try it out. I've attached some of the crops. I like it a lot and am looking forward to the next orchid season. Granted I'm only an amateur and have a lot to learn but that's what I love about photography, you're always learning.