Reading mode: Light Dark

suggestion for a good macro lens for a 70D?

Go to last post
Try the EF-S 60mm f/2.8 macro. I bought one to use on my M3 and 7D, and was amazed at how sharp it is. Definitely useable at f/2.8.

It's also internal focus, so it doesn't "grow" like the 50mm f/2.5 Compact macro. I also suspect that the auto focus performance is much better.

On the 70D you'll have an equivalent focal length of 96mm, so you'll get the same angle of view, and focus distance as the 100 macro on a FF camera.

JD
 
The Canon 100mm f/2.8 macro is an outstanding lens and frequently makes the top-10 list of lenses to buy.

I just upgraded mine to the IS version but both are out there. Whether or not you're buying the IS version depends on if you're using the macro lens on a tripod or out in the field hand-held.

.../Ed
 
I have two macro lens, the sigma 180 ideal for shooting butterflies and bugs, but for general work Canons 100mm IS is superb. Unless you're just doing studio work I would suggest you stay well clear of anything under 100mm
 
I had an EF-S 60mm macro. It was very sharp, but I found the AF rather slow and it would often hunt the full focal range and back, so I mostly used manual focus. Also, you needed to be very close to your subject for decent magnification which makes it easier to disturb subjects like insects.

The EF 100L macro is significantly better, but of course much more expensive.
 
Get the EF 100mm f2.8, or if you have the money, the EF 100mm f2.8L IS. Both are absolutely amazing for macro.
 
Harry Shepherd said:
fastHID said:
so with crop sensor bodies always go to 100mm or more?
Click to expand...
IMO yes, unless in a studio. Bugs and butterflies are not to keen on you getting in close.
Click to expand...
Agree.

All depends on what you want to take closeup/macro shots of and how far you want/need to be from subjects.

The EF-S 60mm minimum focus distance is 7.8", need to remember the 7.8" distance between the subject and sensor surface (focal plane) NOT the distance between subject and front of lens.

Per the-digital-picture.com EF-S 60mm review the Minium Working Distance (MWD) with the 60mm is 3.5". Hence font of lens going to be really close to subject and will need lens mounted ring flash or off-camera flash for flash assisted lighting.
 
Last edited:
I have on the table beside me a borrowed 7D with a borrowed Canon 100mm L macro f2.8, and I will not be happy when I have to give this back on the weekend.

A practical argument can be made for a EF-S 60mm lens for a better working distance (for those who think closer is better, which is not everyone).

But this 100 I've borrowed is a beauty. I'm not even going to use it for project, which is indoor portraits in a law office, where I don' think I can get back far enough. But since my friend was willing to loan it, I took up his offer and shot some snapshots of flowers.

BAK
 
Jon_T said:
Harry Shepherd said:
fastHID said:
so with crop sensor bodies always go to 100mm or more?
Click to expand...
IMO yes, unless in a studio. Bugs and butterflies are not to keen on you getting in close.
Click to expand...
Agree.

All depends on what you want to take closeup/macro shots of and how far you want/need to be from subjects.

The EF-S 60mm minimum focus distance is 7.8", need to remember the 7.8" distance between the subject and sensor surface (focal plane) NOT the distance between subject and front of lens.

Per the-digital-picture.com EF-S 60mm review the Minium Working Distance (MWD) with the 60mm is 3.5". Hence font of lens going to be really close to subject and will need lens mounted ring flash or off-camera flash for flash assisted lighting.
Click to expand...
Other thing to consider here is what you personally define as Macro Shots.

I use mine for a lot of pics that are more in the range of 4:1 than 1:1, and at that magnification the working distance is over a foot.

Just a case of what it is you are interested in shooting.

Love mine BTW.
 
First, what do you want to shoot? For non-living subjects (stamps, watches, etc.) a shorter lens is often better because you can be closer - plus shorter macro lenses are cheaper than longer ones! The Canon 60mm EF-S macro lens is great for this, and a very good general purpose lens. For things like bugs and flowers in the wild, longer lenses are better - the 180mm macro would be great, BUT: it is expensive and the long lens basically requires a tripod (it can be used without, but not easily). For more general flexibility the 100mm macro lens can be a good choice. The standard EF 100 is great (I have one). The 100 L is better due to the phenomenal IS making it great for hand-held macros, bit it is much more expensive.

If you want to get exotic, there is the Canon 65mm MP-E lens. This is a non-focusing lens (you move the camera to/from the subject until it is in focus), that starts at 1:1 (where the image would be life size on a full frame, 1.6x life size on a crop body) and then goes to 5:1 (with the image being 8x life size on a full frame). It cannot be used for anything but macro.

Before jumping in, understand that there are cheaper ways than a macro lens: extension tubes. close-up "filters", and even general purpose lenses that can get to about 1:2 (half life size). But none can give you the clarity of a dedicated true macro lens.
 
When i was looking to get a Macro lens for my 650D i settled on the EF 100mm f/2.8L Macro IS USM. The main reason was that this is the only Canon 'Macro' that has image stabilisation as i don't have the steadiest of hands! The focal length is very good, but i can see why it's often recommended to go longer when out in the field, but the 180 has no IS.

But the 100L has also proven to be an awesome portrait lens on my crop 650D, yeah u have to step back a little so cramped places not ideal, but it's just so good! :) This has kinda made my 50 1.4 redundant.
 
The reality is that most "macro" shots are taken at less magnification than 1:1, and therefore not at the minimum focusing distance of the lens - they are close up shots, not true macro shots (assuming that you use the 1:1 definition for macro).
 
I made the opposite mistake with the macro flash. I bought the MR-14EX ring flash because the MR-24EX was just too expensive. I should have held out for the more expensive flash. The ring flash is certainly useful, but it tends to leave a ring-like highlight (a problem with eyes sometimes), but the twin-head one is much better. I have work-arounds, and sometimes use a combination of non-macro flashes, but I wish I'd waited for the overly-espensive twin head.
 
Hi,

You might want to take a look at the Tamron 90mm f2.8 SP Di Macro 1:1 VC USD It's less expensive and lighter than the Canon 100 L and is VERY sharp. Photozone gave it a hightly recommended. I think it will be the next lens I get. Note that this is the new model, the old still being available, but has no IS, noisy and slow focus and extends when focused.

Tom
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Keyboard shortcuts

f
Forum
m
My threads
Mobile site
About
Editorial content
Cameras & Lenses
Community
All content, design, and layout are Copyright © 1998–2025 Digital Photography Review All Rights Reserved.
Reproduction in whole or part in any form or medium without specific written permission is prohibited.
When you use DPReview links to buy products, the site may earn a commission.
©GPS Media - Guides, Products, Services.
Back
Top