[rob]

Hi,

I'm pretty keen on macro photography (quite a few of the images in my current showcase are macros - http://www.rshk.co.uk/index.php?p=photo&a=showcase). Shooting with my Sony F717 taking macro shots was easy, there was little to no extra effort required! However, I've recently got the 350D, with kit lense and an 55-200 Canon USM lense, I also have the 580EX. I'm wanting to get back into taking macros again, however, I'm a little confused (to say the least) about lense selections.

Since I'd probably intend to take shots of insects, as well as stationary macros I figured that a longer lense is probably what I'd want (possibly 105mm rather than 50mm). However, with the minimum focus distance of ~30cm on the 105mm I'm confused, does this mean that at ~30cm from the subject, the lense gets 1:1 reproduction on the sensor? Has anyone found that 105mm is too long, or too short for their needs? (Bearing in mind that part of the choice of this lense is so that I can have some form of flexibiility in the types of macro shots I can take.)

OK, onto the second point, since a really short DoF is usually pretty desirable in some/most/a random selection of macro shots, I'm thinking that something that goes down to at least f/2.8 would be desirable, is this a fair judgement?

Some possible candidates for the lenses. I'm really looking for something that will provide me with good, sharp images, and am prepared to make a reasonable investement (up to maybe, £300-£350).

I'm using Jessops for the database of lenses, rather than anywhere else, I'll shop around for prices when I'm decided what I want!).

Canon, 100mm, f/2.8 Macro USM (Here) - Seems a nice lense, a little bit outside my price bracket, could stretch to it, certainly seems to fit all my criteria.

Sigma, 105mm EX DG, f/2.8 Macro, (Canon AF) - (here) - Quite a bit cheaper than the Canon offering, still seems to offer the features I might want. What's Sigma EX glass like? Worth considering over the Canon? Reviews seem to think so, but say the AF is very slow, any experience of this? (Reviews).

Any additional help or commens would be great!

Cheers,
Rob

[dod]

I've got the canon 100Macro and it is a great lens. Having said that image quality on the sigma and indeed the Tamron 90mm is arguably just as good for considerably less cash. You do get 1:1 on the canon at min focus distance.

You might aslo want to consider a set of extension tubes, no loss in image quality but you do lose up to a couple of stops of light. That was my reason for not going that route.

here's a couple of links to recent insect shots with the canon

http://www.hardmuircroft.plus.com/Wi...ife/index.html

http://premium1.uploadit.org/scottyd...wbutterfly.jpg

[Matt]

I have been using the Tamron 90mm on the 10D for the last year and find it too short for insect work.
Extension tubes won't give you that longer focal disatnce, they will shorten the focal distance to enable you to get closer to your subject.

I would opt for the Tamron 180 (reported to be sharper than the canon version) Warehouseexpress review,
or the new Sigma 150mm.



I have seen images produced from both lenses and the results are outstanding.

[CT]

Originally Posted by rob

Hi,

I'm pretty keen on macro photography (quite a few of the images in my current showcase are macros - http://www.rshk.co.uk/index.php?p=photo&a=showcase). Shooting with my Sony F717 taking macro shots was easy, there was little to no extra effort required! However, I've recently got the 350D, with kit lense and an 55-200 Canon USM lense, I also have the 580EX. I'm wanting to get back into taking macros again, however, I'm a little confused (to say the least) about lense selections.

Since I'd probably intend to take shots of insects, as well as stationary macros I figured that a longer lense is probably what I'd want (possibly 105mm rather than 50mm). However, with the minimum focus distance of ~30cm on the 105mm I'm confused, does this mean that at ~30cm from the subject, the lense gets 1:1 reproduction on the sensor? Has anyone found that 105mm is too long, or too short for their needs? (Bearing in mind that part of the choice of this lense is so that I can have some form of flexibiility in the types of macro shots I can take.)

It's difficult to comment on repro ratio at 30cm Rob, as some macro lenses are actually capable of exceeding 1:1 (life size) repro on film - or the sensor. It very much depends on reading the spec of the particular lens. However it's a pretty fair assumption that if 30cm is the minimum focusing distance, then that is the distance at which the lens will be giving it's max repro size.( Assuming the lens is focused at it's closest distance)

With regard to focal length, I've owned a couple of 100mm macro lenses and they are better than 50mm ones in that they allow a bigger camera to subject working distance. The advantages are you dont scare away your bugs so easily, and it's much easier to light the subject with flash with the bigger working distance. Shorter macros often mean you're restricted in the room you have to bring your flash into play and a ringflash becomes pretty well essential.

OK, onto the second point, since a really short DoF is usually pretty desirable in some/most/a random selection of macro shots, I'm thinking that something that goes down to at least f/2.8 would be desirable, is this a fair judgement?

Depth of field is so small at macro distances anyway that I don't really think max aperture size is a big deal in that respect. Don't forget though, that with an SLR your lens is also your viewfinder and macro work is very demanding so the more light you get into your viewfinder the better. From that pointof view the larger aperture is desirable.

Some possible candidates for the lenses. I'm really looking for something that will provide me with good, sharp images, and am prepared to make a reasonable investement (up to maybe, £300-£350).

I'm using Jessops for the database of lenses, rather than anywhere else, I'll shop around for prices when I'm decided what I want!).

Canon, 100mm, f/2.8 Macro USM (Here) - Seems a nice lense, a little bit outside my price bracket, could stretch to it, certainly seems to fit all my criteria.

Sigma, 105mm EX DG, f/2.8 Macro, (Canon AF) - (here) - Quite a bit cheaper than the Canon offering, still seems to offer the features I might want. What's Sigma EX glass like? Worth considering over the Canon? Reviews seem to think so, but say the AF is very slow, any experience of this? (Reviews).

Any additional help or commens would be great!

Cheers,
Rob

It's very much a question of doing your homework Rob, and deciding how much dosh you want to dump! :lol:

I'm researching macro lenses myself at the moment and the Canon 100mmm macro out-performs all it's rivals with the exception of (I think) the Carl Zeiss macro, and those lenses are legendary and mega bucks! If you're really into macro photography, you're going to regret buying something that doesn't quite deliver the goods and macro photographers tend to be very critical once the novelty of the new lens has worn off. :wink: 7dayshop do the Canon 100mm Macro for £339.99 last time I looked.

I'm going to be getting either the Canon 180mm macro or the Tamron version Matt mentions, but it's going to have to wait a while yet.