Canon macro lens recommendations - Page 3

Thread: Canon macro lens recommendations

Page 3 of 4 FirstFirst 1 2 3 4 LastLast
Results 21 to 30 of 36
  1. #21
    Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Posts
    388

    Re: Canon macro lens recommendations

    Quote Originally Posted by Dimer View Post
    As already stated, the 100mm F2.8 is one of the best out there. The L version is even better (IQ is the same though ;)).

    Until I get a 100mm, I use my 50mm 1.8 with soligor macro tubes. It may not be the most ergonomical option, but it works!
    Very nice pics Dimer. what size tubes were you using? Did you use artificial lighting on this photos?

    The 50mm F1.8 is a really fast lens, so the loss of light from using the tubes is probably manageable. Have you used the tubes with F4 or slower lenses? I'm worried that with my lenses and the tubes I may have to use artificial lighting.

    Thanks.

  2. #22
    Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Posts
    184

    Lightbulb Re: Canon macro lens recommendations

    I use the Sigma 105 1:1 /2,8 macro, superb lens. For super Macro I use the Soligor extention tubes.

    check also this

    cheers.
    Speedy / Sinn 103 St Sa / Fortis Flieger / Stowa Flieger Original #37 / Stowa Marine Original #131 / Ocean7 LM-1 #71. / Ocean7 LM-3 #177 / Steinhart 'vintage red' / Steinhart Aviation GMT.

  3. #23
    Member peter-g's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Location
    Kent, UK
    Posts
    728

    Re: Canon macro lens recommendations

    Quote Originally Posted by Dimer View Post
    As already stated, the 100mm F2.8 is one of the best out there. The L version is even better (IQ is the same though ;)).

    Until I get a 100mm, I use my 50mm 1.8 with soligor macro tubes. It may not be the most ergonomical option, but it works!

    Some of my pics with this setup:












    Very sharp....

  4. Remove Advertisements
    WatchUSeek.com
    Advertisements
     

  5. #24
    Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Aberdeen, Scotland
    Posts
    935

    Re: Canon macro lens recommendations

    I use the 60mm f2.8 macro which should suit the subject perfectly - it doesn't have the larger working distance of a 100mm macro, but since you are not exactly going to spook your watches getting close it is not such a huge worry... As well as that it is a fantastic lens, and one I use regularly as a short telephoto (paired with a 10-22mm wide angle) - decent aperture, fantastically sharp, great quality and solidly built.

    For about half as much there is also the 50mm f2.5 macro - an older build style and without USM focussing, but again a decent optic - I chose the 60mm because USM was important to me (as I use it a lot for non-macro work), but if money is an issue the 50mm is a good option.

    For even cheaper extension tubes and your existing lenses are an option, which will do the job, if not in such a refined fashion as a dedicated lens.

  6. #25
    Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Posts
    388

    Re: Canon macro lens recommendations

    Well, I didn't think I would do this, but I got a used Sigma 105mm F2.8 DG EX lens, and I also bought a set of new Opteka Extension Tubes, and a set of coated diopter lenses. All together this came to about $330, so I think this was pretty reasonable.

    I'll try some experiments with these and see how they work out. If they all produce pleasing results I may just keep the whole lot, otherwise I may end up selling some of these.

    Honestly, I would have preferred the Canon 100mm F2.8 lens, but the best price I've seen on a used one was about $360, so for less money I get the lens, which comes with case and hood included (extra for the canon), the tubes and diopters.
    Last edited by solowatch; September 13th, 2010 at 03:10.

  7. #26
    Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Location
    Marietta, GA
    Posts
    1,667

    Re: Canon macro lens recommendations

    Another inexpensive option is a set of close up filters, that attach to your lens and give you magnification. Sometimes they come in sets with different magnification but I have opted to spend the same money on just one of higher quality (B+W). I haven't used it in over 10 years. I actually forgot I had it until reading this post.

  8. #27
    Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Posts
    388

    Re: Canon macro lens recommendations

    Yesterday the extension tubes arrived. They feel and look very nice, and they have the electrical pins to allow the autofocus and ttl to work, but with my Canon 18-55mm lens it just hunts non-stop and can't seem to pull the image in. I switched to manual focus and took a few really nice pictures with it. with the middle size tube, 21mm, I could get really close shots, but the DOF is very, very shallow.

    Today the Sigma 105mm lens arrived and I couldn't wait to try it out. I took a few pictures and I was quite pleased with the sharpness and the working distance the lens affords. It lets you get some very good close ups.

    I also have a set of coated magnifying lenses (diopters) on the way. Hopefully they will arrive by Saturday so I can take some comparison pictures between all three options and see the differences.

    Right now I'm thinking the 105mm lens is really the best option, so I may return the tubes and diopters and buy a 50mm 1.8 lens. We'll see.

  9. #28
    Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Posts
    70

    Re: Canon macro lens recommendations

    I am a professional photographer. I agree about the tamron 90mm. It can be had used for around 250. I've owned one before. Noisy as hell, but SHARP!

  10. #29
    Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Posts
    70

    Re: Canon macro lens recommendations

    I am a professional photographer. I agree about the tamron 90mm. It can be had used for around 250. I've owned one before. Noisy as hell, but SHARP!

  11. #30
    Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Posts
    388

    Re: Canon macro lens recommendations

    Quote Originally Posted by shortpballer View Post
    I am a professional photographer. I agree about the tamron 90mm. It can be had used for around 250. I've owned one before. Noisy as hell, but SHARP!
    Good to know. For now I'll put the Sigma 105mm through some tests and see how it goes. If I can't get the results I want, then I may go hunting for another lens. So far though the Sigma looks pretty impressive. It seems to be pretty sharp. What I can't yet confirm is whether it is vastly superior to my Canon 28-105mm F3.5, with extension tubes that would warrant keeping it. With just one day of handling the sigma, I can tell you the construction and refinement of the sigma is not in the same league as the Canon, EF on it is very slow, and noisy, and the setup with the full vs. limited motion is cumbersome. I guess I don't have to say "you get what you pay for".
    Last edited by solowatch; September 17th, 2010 at 19:03.

Page 3 of 4 FirstFirst 1 2 3 4 LastLast

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

    Posting Permissions

    • You may not post new threads
    • You may not post replies
    • You may not post attachments
    • You may not edit your posts
    •