Which macro objective do you use?

Hello all, I'm thinking about buying a new macro objective for my Canon and I'd like to know which one do you use when you are making macros. Thanks.

Which camera?

Full frame sensors work better with a longer focal length (e.g. 100mm) than a 60mm for many subjects.

Canon 50mm macro.

I use the 50mm macro in place of a 'normal' lens, and the short distance to subject is rarely a problem. Also, for inside work, the shorter focal length is an advantage.

Getting close to insects without getting in my own light has hardly been a problem over the last 40 years.



(Edited on 2012-11-14 10:10:18 by Whiteway)

Tamron 90mm works quite wonderfully on all DSLRs - even the FF ones ! Just throw in a copule of auto extension tubes (I've Kenko) if you wanna get closer still !

I use Tamron 90mm on Canon 5DmkII. I also have Tamron 180mm but I use that one rarely.

I use 60, 105 and 200 macro lenses (Nikkors).  Each has its place in my macro work depending on subject matter, camera to subject distance, and the magnification I want to obtain. 


I rarely use the 60 as I like to get in close and this focal length doesn't give much working distance.  I use the 105 for most of my work but the 200 runs a close second.  The longer focal lengths give you adequate working distance so that you aren't blocking any of the light falling on your subject.  And, it you shoot insects (which I don't) the longer FL allow you to work far enough away so as to not disturb your subject.


I'm not familiar with the Canon lenses but as far as 3rd party choices are concerned take a look at Sigma.  I've read excellent reviews on their macro lenses.

Tamron 90mm

Nikon 55mm 3.2 - it is really old.

I have a canon 50 2.5 and a 100 2.8 L IS. They both have their specific applications. If you're on a budget the first generation Canon 100mm non USM is a great lens and you can find it relatively cheap used.

Tamron 90 (although if I had to do it all over I'd get the canon 100 for some non-IQ features) and I actually find that my 300 4.0L (not really a macro lens but pretty close) works quite well for insects. Some of the skittish ones prefer that you stay a few feet away.

(Edited on 2012-11-15 14:44:30 by Kolaczan)

Thank you all for your answers.

I used a Sigma 105 2.8 on my Canon 50D. Very good picture quality and nice bokeh but the focus was very slow (no HSM/USM). Of course in manual focus mode this isn't a problem. But I didn't like that the length of the lense changes when focusing.



I sold it and bought a Canon 100 2.8 L IS and must say I'm happier with it. Also very good picture quality, feels and looks well made, has integrated IS and USM. Bokeh is also pretty.

One of the best ways is the experiment with the closeup filters, rather than investing in a macro lens. Remember that one of the most important factors is lighting. Also, keep in the amount of post processing required. Will you be using the image images in a website or print media? Check out the samples of jewellery photography done with close-up filter kit ONLY.

Nice advertisement for your site. Myself, having used close-up filters - I would not do it.

Firstly, a macro lens is built for the job of taking close-ups.

Secondly, extension tubes do what you suggest without adding more glass into the line of light.

Though extension tubes reduce the amount of light entering the camera.

Close up filters are fun to play with, but if you want a usable image then get a real macro.

Is that because is too heavy?

I use Canon EF 100mm F2.8 L IS USM - and it is just fantastic and its worth every coin  

^ Agreed. It's a great lens.

Everything I've read agrees. I'm hoping so. I just ordered it an hour ago.