[The Edge]

I've only recently got into macro stuff, currently using a 50mm f1.8 with extension tubes.

I think i've got some reasonable shots, including the frosty photo in the critique forum.

Now, i'm enjoying this but will i get better results with a macro lens? Should it be my christmas present to myself?

cheers!

[Dave]

Really down to whether you like the small stuff A dedicated lens will always be better than a conversion of another lens. A simple view would be, have you exhausted the limits of what you have now ?

[The Edge]

good point!

I don't know really until i try one i suppose.

I doubt i've exhausted the potential of what i have, but i'm all for making life easier

[dod]

Originally Posted by The Edge

Should it be my christmas present to myself?

Yes. Next question please

[RobertP]

Originally Posted by dod

Yes. Next question please

Whats the best focal length to go for? I've been reading stuff that says longer is better.

[CT]

What Doddy said. Don't forget either that if you go for a longer version of the macro lens, then combined with the 1.6X crop factor, you're also getting a bitingly sharp moderate tele lens.

[CT]

Generally speaking, the longer the macro lens the better, as you get a bigger working distance from your subjects and there's less likelihood of scaring the critters off.

[dod]

Originally Posted by RobertP

Whats the best focal length to go for? I've been reading stuff that says longer is better.

I've got the canon 100mm, like CT says a longer working length is desirable. I think the lens to go for at the moment is probably the sigma 150mm, just my opinion though.

[Braeden]

so based on everything said above, you guys wouldn't recommend the 60mm canon ef-s f/2.8 macro lens?

I Was thinking of using the 60mm both as a portrait lens (60x1.6 = 96mm effective focal length) and as a dedicated macro lens.

£280 is a lot of money so I want to be 100% sure before I get one.

Looking at what you say above, if I want a pure macro lens then I should get at least a 100mm lens (effective 160mm), is that right?

[CT]

I wouldn't discount the 60mm EF-S at all, particularly as you're also interested in the portrait capabilities. The only thing I'd say is that macro lenses are brutally sharp for portraits, in fact dedicated portrait lenses tend to be on the soft (flattering) side.

The only thing with EF-S lenses is make sure you don't want to get a 1 Series body at some stage. I just bought a 1D and now my 17-85 EF-S wont fit so I need something wide which will. :eyesup:

[Garnock]

CT has a point about macro lenses being very sharp.
I dithered about the Canon 100 and the Sigma 150.
Both are great lenses with not much to choose between them.
I won't go into why I bought the Sigma but I would suggest if you want to use the lens for something other than macro ( ie portraits ) then you have to consider the camera you use. ( 1.6 1.3 1.0 )

BTW. I love the Sigma for portraits, but then again I shoot my portraits outdoor and not in a studio. It's not too difficult to soften the image if needs be. Having said that this is a macro lens first and foremost.

Cameron

[CT]

For the money, a 50mm 1.8 is a steal, and with the 1.6 crop factor, gives you an effective 80mm portrait lens, with the big aperture being great for throwing backgrounds out of focus.

[Garnock]

Originally Posted by CT

For the money, a 50mm 1.8 is a steal, and with the 1.6 crop factor, gives you an effective 80mm portrait lens, with the big aperture being great for throwing backgrounds out of focus.

You're right CT, the 50 1.8 is a steal but this guy's after a macro lens.
You know what the working distance of the 50 1.8 and a set of tubes to get it to lifsize will be. :icon_eek:

[CT]

I agree Cameron, I was just trying to separate the portrait and macro functions, but in the end it all comes down to money, money, money!

[Garnock]

Originally Posted by CT

I agree Cameron, I was just trying to separate the portrait and macro functions, but in the end it all comes down to money, money, money!

I see where your coming from CT.
There's a queer ( forgive the expression ) difference between the price of the 50 plus tubes and the Canon 100 or Sigma 150.
Lets not talk about the price of the Canon 180. :icon_eek: But what a phenomenal lens.

So, yeh, It all comes down to money.

[CT]

Originally Posted by Garnock

Lets not talk about the price of the Canon 180. :icon_eek: B.

7dayshop was a sad loss when they stopped selling Canon stuff. I bought it over 200 quid cheaper than you can get it anywhere now.