Posted by Dale Gardner on November 15, 2007 at 3:51 AM
I have all the lenses I need for my camera except for a good macro lens. Is there a certain (quality) macro lens that any of you would suggest for the Canon Rebel XTi?
Thank You!
Posted by Kah Kit Yoong on November 15, 2007 at 5:59 AM
I have used Canon's 100mm 2.8 USM Macro lens on my 5D & 40D. All the rest of my glass is L-class and I think this lens is up to that standard even though it is non-L.
Posted by Jim Salge on November 15, 2007 at 6:16 AM
You'll get alot of varying thoughts here...but the general thought is that the longer the lens, the more working distance you have when you go 1:1 with it. Besides that, macro lenses typically have better than average build quality, and great optics. It's hard to go wrong with any dedicated macro lens.
I have the Sigma 150 and the Canon 50 for macro work, and they both have their place. I do strongly rec the Sigma though!
Posted by Ed Cordes on November 15, 2007 at 8:29 AM
Another vote for the Canon 100 f 2.8 macro. Excellent optics and outstanding build. It is also light weight and easy to handle. There are times I need longer focal length, but not often. When I shoot butterflies and things I need a few feet of working distance I use my 100-400 set at abut 380 or so with extension tubes.
I also hear great things about the Sigma Jim uses. I believe you can't go wrong either way.
Posted by Steve Foss on November 15, 2007 at 8:47 AM
I have what Ed does and use both lenses the same way. The Canon 100 f2.8 also doubles as a wonderful portrait lens in certain situations. Because it is a non-L, it does not come with hood and tripod ring. I haven't checked prices lately, but if I recall I paid $140 for the tripod ring and $40 for the hood. Using the tripod ring on any macro that length or longer very much improves the balance of your setup, especially when adding an extentsion tube or two.
For IQ and build quality in a non-L Canon lens, the 100 macro is one of the best deals out there for the money at $425. But add nearly $200 for the things you want to go with it that already come with an L and you're right up there in L-land at $600.
Simple matter to start with the lens alone and add the accessories as you go.
I hear continually nice things about the top-line sigma and tamron macro lens choices, too. I would recommend at least 90-100mm. It's a good compromise between the short 50-60mm macros and the 150-200 macros. While I of course drool over the Canon 180mmL macro, there are quite a few situations in the thick woods where I shoot that the 180 would actually keep me from composing the shots I want because I don't have enough room to back that far away from my subject.
That being said, most macro shooters prefer the longer focal length because in most situations the longer the working distance the better. Better when working with bugs/butterflies, better for isolating subject from background.
Posted by Gene Lugo on November 15, 2007 at 4:11 PM
Current OEM prime macro lenses are true macros and do not adjust focal length to get you close or to give you 1:1 magnification. Not so with the aftermarket - Sigma, Tamron, Tokina etc. Typically a 100 macro from one of these companies will reduce the focal length to 75-85 mm in order to get you close and give you the magnification.
That being said, I use a Sigma 150 2.8 macro - and outside of some funny bokeh on specular highlights, the lens is absolutely sweet. Fast focusing, I have even used it at sporting events (high school lacrosse games). In close this lens is bright, contrasty and super super sharp. The lens gives me a minimum working distance of approx 6.5 in from the front element or approx 14 in to the film(sensor) plane on a Nikon D200.
As far as working distance is concerned, you can see that a 150mm lens is more than adequate for bugs - as long as you observe and wait for the shot. Shorter focal length lenses are more suitable for in studio work where close working distances are more desirable.
Posted by Douglas Gould on November 17, 2007 at 5:17 PM
I purchased the Canon EF-S 60mm 2.8 macro that was designed for Canon's APS-C cameras like the XTi, and I think it takes beautiful pictures.
Doug
Posted by Basil Greber on November 20, 2007 at 4:25 PM
Gene Lugo wrote:
Current OEM prime macro lenses are true macros and do not adjust focal length to get you close or to give you 1:1 magnification. Not so with the aftermarket - Sigma, Tamron, Tokina etc. Typically a 100 macro from one of these companies will reduce the focal length to 75-85 mm in order to get you close and give you the magnification.
You sure about this? I think the 105/2.8 AF-D as well as the 60/2.8 AF-D Micro Nikkors reduce their focal length, and since the 105/2.8 AF-S VR and the Canon 100/2.8 USM do 1:1 at the same distance as the AF-D, I'd guess they'll do it, too.
Basil
Posted by David Hamman on November 25, 2007 at 6:01 PM
To my understanding any lens with internal focusing adjusts it's focal length in order to focus, and is only at the listed focal length (my sigma 150mm, for example) when focused at infinity. I'm more than happy with the tradeoff, and it seems most other people are as well.
-Dave
Posted by Greg Barteluk on January 29, 2008 at 7:05 PM
Another vote for Canon's 100mm f/2.8. As was mentioned, it's not an "L" series lens, but you would never know it by looking at your photos. Regards.
Discussion
9 repliesThank You!
I have the Sigma 150 and the Canon 50 for macro work, and they both have their place. I do strongly rec the Sigma though!
I also hear great things about the Sigma Jim uses. I believe you can't go wrong either way.
For IQ and build quality in a non-L Canon lens, the 100 macro is one of the best deals out there for the money at $425. But add nearly $200 for the things you want to go with it that already come with an L and you're right up there in L-land at $600.
Simple matter to start with the lens alone and add the accessories as you go.
I hear continually nice things about the top-line sigma and tamron macro lens choices, too. I would recommend at least 90-100mm. It's a good compromise between the short 50-60mm macros and the 150-200 macros. While I of course drool over the Canon 180mmL macro, there are quite a few situations in the thick woods where I shoot that the 180 would actually keep me from composing the shots I want because I don't have enough room to back that far away from my subject.
That being said, most macro shooters prefer the longer focal length because in most situations the longer the working distance the better. Better when working with bugs/butterflies, better for isolating subject from background.
That being said, I use a Sigma 150 2.8 macro - and outside of some funny bokeh on specular highlights, the lens is absolutely sweet. Fast focusing, I have even used it at sporting events (high school lacrosse games). In close this lens is bright, contrasty and super super sharp. The lens gives me a minimum working distance of approx 6.5 in from the front element or approx 14 in to the film(sensor) plane on a Nikon D200.
Check out some examples:
http://flickr.com/photo_zoom.gne?id=1800363098&size=l
http://flickr.com/photo_zoom.gne?id=1642415649&context=photostream&size=l
http://flickr.com/photo_zoom.gne?id=1163907865&size=l
http://image52.webshots.com/452/1/7/38/2180107380012455291ZZaFtb_fs.jpg
http://image30.webshots.com/466/4/50/16/2589450160012455291XyOenS_fs.jpg
http://image52.webshots.com/452/9/43/71/2443943710012455291TZlhXo_fs.jpg
As far as working distance is concerned, you can see that a 150mm lens is more than adequate for bugs - as long as you observe and wait for the shot. Shorter focal length lenses are more suitable for in studio work where close working distances are more desirable.
Doug
You sure about this? I think the 105/2.8 AF-D as well as the 60/2.8 AF-D Micro Nikkors reduce their focal length, and since the 105/2.8 AF-S VR and the Canon 100/2.8 USM do 1:1 at the same distance as the AF-D, I'd guess they'll do it, too.
Basil
-Dave