Which macro lens for Canon 40D

[pstruck]

Fairly new to all this, but am keen on macro photography among other things. What should I be looking for in a good macro lens and any suggestions as to what might suit?

[4hero]

Hello,

How close do you want to get? Is it for insects, flowers, other stuff? What's your budget?

[pstruck]

Nature macro would be my thing, so yes, insects and flowers. As for budget, I don't really know, as it can be flexible to a degree. It wouldn't though stretch to a Canon 'L' lens, so am thinking a lower series Canon or Sigma/Tamron type.

[4hero]

I would highly recommend Canon's 100mm f2.8, it's a great all round lens and excellent for portraits too If you want that bit closer (for insects and the likes) you could also stick a set of Kenko extension tubes on. Lighting is another matter though when it comes to insects, do you have a flash?

[SamHH]

I have the Sigma 105mm ( this one). The optical quality is good IMO and most reports say it's equal to the Canon. The auto-focus is very poor though; not a problem for macro photography as you'll almost certainly be manual focussing anyway but if you're planning to use it for other sorts of photography then I'd look elsewhere.

Edited by SamHH on Wednesday 27th May 11:36

[Kermit power]

4hero said:

I would highly recommend Canon's 100mm f2.8, it's a great all round lens and excellent for portraits too

I would second that. Here's a couple of samples. The first one is quite a way off maximum magnification, but as close as I could get!

[pstruck]

Kermit power said:

4hero said:

I would highly recommend Canon's 100mm f2.8, it's a great all round lens and excellent for portraits too

I would second that. Here's a couple of samples. The first one is quite a way off maximum magnification, but as close as I could get.

Is that without extension tubes?

[LukeBird]

Very impressive examples Kermit!

[Bernie-the-bolt]

pstruck said:

Kermit power said:

4hero said:

I would highly recommend Canon's 100mm f2.8, it's a great all round lens and excellent for portraits too

I would second that. Here's a couple of samples. The first one is quite a way off maximum magnification, but as close as I could get.

Is that without extension tubes?

I have the 100mm 2.8 with Kenko extension tubes and managed these....

Needle



£2 coin



Nail scissors (tiny)



It's a great lens

Edited by Bernie-the-bolt on Wednesday 27th May 19:38

[4hero]

a little test I did a while back to let you see the comparisons, all shots straight from the camera.

18-55mm, shot at 55mm


18-55mm, shot at 55mm with +4 filter


Canon 100mm f2.8


100mm f2.8 with full set of kenko tubes


MP-E65mm, shot at 1:1


MP-E65mm, shot at 5:1


I suppose it comes down to budget and what you want to shoot!

[Bernie-the-bolt]

Interesting set/comparison 4hero

[RobDickinson]

Would love the mpe65 but its such a specialised lens.

[LukeBird]

That last shot of 4hero's is mighty impressive!

The DoF is comically short!!

[Kermit power]

pstruck said:

Kermit power said:

4hero said:

I would highly recommend Canon's 100mm f2.8, it's a great all round lens and excellent for portraits too

I would second that. Here's a couple of samples. The first one is quite a way off maximum magnification, but as close as I could get.

Is that without extension tubes?

No tubes, just the lens.

[4hero]

LukeBird said:

That last shot of 4hero's is mighty impressive!

The DoF is comically short!!

The Dof is a bit wild, especially shooting hand-held

[LukeBird]

4hero said:

LukeBird said:

That last shot of 4hero's is mighty impressive!

The DoF is comically short!!

The Dof is a bit wild, especially shooting hand-held

It certainly looks like it!!
What's the DoF, a few mm's?
Bit tricky to work out from the 5p coin shot...

[Kermit power]

LukeBird said:

4hero said:

LukeBird said:

That last shot of 4hero's is mighty impressive!

The DoF is comically short!!

The Dof is a bit wild, especially shooting hand-held

It certainly looks like it!!
What's the DoF, a few mm's?
Bit tricky to work out from the 5p coin shot...

Not even that much I shouldn't think. Take a look at my wasp up above. That was only at 1:1, although it was taken with the lens wide open. The antennae are out of focus with the eyes in focus, a distance of maybe 2mm? Got to be even less on that last 5p shot, surely?

[4hero]

Not very scientific, but you know they picture hooks, this is the end of the nail after I took it out of plasterboard (shot at 5:1), f11. Dof could have been much smaller (or larger, I always get confused by that ) shot at f2.8.



And a snails eye, I'm sure this was shot at 5:1 too, can't get the exif for 1:1 - 5:1

[LukeBird]

Kermit power said:

Not even that much I shouldn't think. Take a look at my wasp up above. That was only at 1:1, although it was taken with the lens wide open. The antennae are out of focus with the eyes in focus, a distance of maybe 2mm? Got to be even less on that last 5p shot, surely?

Looking at the shot again, you're definitely right!
It has to be 0.25-0.5mm... Madness!

[Glosphil]

The latest PhotoPlus (Canon Edition) magazine has a test on 8 macro lens for use on Canon DSLR cameras. Chose the £339 Tamron SF AF 90mm f/2.8 Di Macro over 3 Canon macro lens (50, 60 & 100mm, £227, £355 & £429)and 3 Sigma (50, 70 & 105mm, £240, £385 & £369)lens. A Tokina 100mm lens at £349 was also tested.

Also as test on ring flash units to use with macro lens.