Canon macro lenses

M

Modderrhu

New member
From another thread, Spacemunkie said
I\'d recommend one of these as your macro lens if you decide to get a Canon SLR:

EF 50mm f2.5 Compact Macro
Click to expand...
Apart from price, why would I want a 50mm macro (with extension to take it to a 1x magnification) instead of the >>EF 100mm f2.8 Macro<<?

I\'d imagine that the wider 50mm lense would be better for minis, but I also like getting close and personal with nature. Till now, I\'ve been using a standard zoom lense with a 25mm extension tube.
 
B

Beelzebrush

Active member
I\'ve got a 90mm macro lens with 1:1 and you have to be quite far away from the mini to photograph it... as a rule, my camera is 2-3 feet from the mini. With a shorter focal length of 50mm, you can reduce that... which is useful when using a light tent etc.

I went for a 90mm for the reason you said... for outdoor macro photography, you can be a good distance from your subject (bug, fly, spider etc) without scaring it off. If I was using it for just taking pics of minis I\'d go for a shorter focal length like a 50mm or 65mm macro.
 
Avelorn

Avelorn

Sven Jonsson
No reason at all except the price. That specific 100mm lens is a much better one.

But I imagine that for miniature photo when you more or less can shoot under perfect conditions the difference between the two won\'t show up too much in the kind of imagesizes we use. But it is a better allround lens for macro, that\'s for sure.

EDIT:

@Beezlebrush: Hm. Remember, different lenses have different minimum focal distances.

This 100mm Canon lens has a minimimum of about 1 feet which is roughly the same as the 50mm. ( Exact: 23cm for the 50mm and 31cm for the 100mm)
 
M

Modderrhu

New member
Yes, the 100mm lense has had some excellent reviews that even compare it to a \'L\' quality lense. The EFS 60mm Macro, which would be my other choice, doesn\'t fare much worse either.

True, the 100mm Canon lense can focus a lot closer than what it seems Beel\'s 90mm can, but surely for a much smaller frame. 100mm at 30cm is going to be a much smaller frame than 90mm at 60cm.

Okay, so pretty much as I thought, it really is compromise time, 60mm for minis so I can get close to them, 100mm for crawlers so I can stay away from them... hmmm... ponder. Both? :D
 
B

Beelzebrush

Active member
The minimum focus distance on my 90mm is about 300mm. A 50mm sigma 1:1 macro for instance is about 190mm, which is quite a difference. The Canon 50mm compact macro is 230mm. The problem is that if you get as close as that with my lens, the mini either totally fills the frame or it\'s simply too large. You are much better off with a 50-65mm for mini photography.

Also the sensor on a DSLR increases the focal length of a lens... I forget the amount but from memory, its by about a third?
 
Avelorn

Avelorn

Sven Jonsson
Aight, didn\'t think that would be a problem.. But on the other hand maybe I should keep quiet as I don\'t have worked with either of the lenses! ;)

yeah.. I think a 100mm is about 150mm and the 60mm will be like a 90mm approximately.

The 60mm is a great lens no doubt... for miniature photography as Beezlebrush says it should be easier to use. Probably easier to hand-hold as well if you need to do that.

But for bugs.. maybe you need even more then a 100mm... I don\'t know.

You don\'t have chance to test them out?
 
M

Modderrhu

New member
Longer than 100mm? If I could justify the price of the EF 180mm L Macro lense, then I could justify buying the EFS 60mm Macro as well. The conversion on APS-C sensors is 1.6, so the 100mm would efectively be 160mm.

It would be nice if I could try them out, but this sort of thing is a niche market in South Africa, and stores would have to specifically order speciality lenses.

grrrrrrr, decisions, decisions.
 
Avelorn

Avelorn

Sven Jonsson
Yeah.. you will probably still have to be close enough with 100mm to risk scarying them off. Again I am theorising here...

Maybe there is a photography-club somewhere near?
 
L

Legacy Account

Active member
Originally posted by Avelorn
No reason at all except the price. That specific 100mm lens is a much better one.
Click to expand...

You tested them have you?

I have. Unless you really need 1:1 and the working distance I can assure you that you will see negligible difference in image quality - the 50mm is a very fast lens at an extremely useful focal length and produces super-sharp images for less than half the price of the 100mm.

Saying that, if it\'s nature you\'re after the 100mm is the lens. The EF-S 60mm is great as well, but you\'re fooked if you get a full-frame body later on....
 
M

Modderrhu

New member
Thanks for helping me figure out what I need (want), people.

Since nature is my primary subject,
since a miniature isn\'t going to run away while I\'m trying to compose a shot,
since I\'ve not even finished painting a mini in two years,
since I have a 50mm f1.4 for non-macro purposes already,
since I prefer a shortened perspective on macro shots,
I\'ll get a 100mm f2.8 Macro.

Lense Lust, it\'s an amateur photographer\'s bane, I tell ya.
 
Avelorn

Avelorn

Sven Jonsson
Good choice!

@Spacemunkie: bah! you mean you actually have experience of the lens before deciding which one is better or not! Humbug! ;)

Now.. I never said sharpness was the issue here did I.. :) I used the term \"allround\" and USM autofocus is very useful in nature photography and that I\'ve tried.

/the armchair general
 
B

Beelzebrush

Active member
Originally posted by Modderrhu


True, the 100mm Canon lense can focus a lot closer than what it seems Beel\'s 90mm can, but surely for a much smaller frame.
Click to expand...

Actually... the Canon lens minimum focus distance is 310mm,,, which is 10mm more than my Tamron.... I\'m sure you\'ll find your working distance from the subject will be similar to mine... ie 2-3 feet depending on the mini or whatever... I took some shots of some pottery for ebay recently and I had to take the camera back to about 7 feet to get the stuff in the frame...
 
M

Modderrhu

New member
Originally posted by Spacemunkie
I say it aint considering how much more expensive it is.
Click to expand...
Using that logic, the 180mm L Macro lense must be absolute shit. ;)
Originally posted by Beelzebrush
the Canon lens minimum focus distance is 310mm
Click to expand...
That\'s according to the specs on Canon\'s site? Reviewers have needed to get to 15cm or so, to achieve 1:1, so 310mm doesn\'t seem all too accurate. The lense has been ordered, so I\'ll test that minimum focus distance as soon as I get it.

These are 100% crops, otherwise completely untouched, taken with a 28-105mm lense with a 25mm extension. I\'m itching to improve on them. :)
Clip2.jpg

Clip1.jpg
 
L

Legacy Account

Active member
Originally posted by Modderrhu

Using that logic, the 180mm L Macro lense must be absolute shit. ;)
Click to expand...

No, using that logic the 100mm should be more than TWICE AS GOOD!!

The images it produces aren\'t twice as good and that was the point I was making. If you\'re doing studio based macro photography of minis, the 50mm will do the job perfectly well at less than half the cost. I\'m not argueing that the 100mm isn\'t better spec\'d, just that image quality is similar.
 
M

Modderrhu

New member
Just had another look at the auction - that\'s the previous version of the 100mm lense. No real matter, it\'s probably quite similar.

Well, I got mine. At 40cm, a 28mm mini will fit comfortably in the frame, and a bit less than 0.5x magnification. I think that Scott was right: for mini photography, the 50mm macro lense is probably better. However, this is simply a god-awesome lense. For other macro work and for tightly-framed portraits, this lense is god-awesome. My favourite by far.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back To Top
Top