Macro lenses

[-zax-]

I'm kind of looking for a good macro lens as I see what potential they give the user on the extreme closeups. I've become more interested in photography as of late, and want to get out there and take some outdoor shots of various odds 'n ends.

I've got a Canon Digital Rebel (non-XT), and just kind of wanting to know what a good **average** lens would be. I don't want anything like an L series lens, but something thats pretty crisp and clear, is more general purpose as far as macro shots go, and gives me the best bang for the buck as I don't really see myself using this lens constantly...

Any advice?

 

[HorsePunchKid]

I've talked this lens up an awful lot in the past, so I'll be brief unless someone asks for details. Check out the Sigma 50mm f/2.8 Macro. A quick look on Froogle suggests you can get it for under $250. That 50mm is short enough that you may end up scaring away insects and things before you get close enough. I've had excellent results, though, both with live and inanimate subjects. Samples below...

 

[-zax-]

That Sigma you have looks like quite the nice lens. I may have to look into it.

The ones I'm currently eyeing are the
Canon EF-S60mm f2.8 USM Macro <------ Thinking pretty strongly about this one...
and the
Canon EF50mm f2.5 Compact Macro

 

[Tim_axe]

If you just want to get your feet wet in macro photography, you could get a close-up filter to screw onto the front of your current lens (it lets you focus closer). The quality may not be as good as the macro lenses mentioned so far (which are spectacular), but that doesn't mean it'll be bad. (You'll likely be at f/16-f/22 anyways and using the onboard flash to light up stuff)

• Canon 250D (+4 diopter) is $72 at BH
• B+W 52mm NL4 Close-up (+4 diopter) is $18.50 at BH

If you have a 52mm filter thread, take a pick for the filter. (There are others, such as $20 for a generic-brand set of stackable +1 +2 and +4 filters, etc) It should get you started, and if you decide that macro is fun enough you can go ahead and get a real macro lens. Cheers.

 

[SidewinderX]

Since you have an EF-S compatible body, I'd look strtongly at the 60mm macro.

 

[-zax-]

Sorry.. double posted.

 

[-zax-]

Since you have an EF-S compatible body, I'd look strtongly at the 60mm macro.

The only thing I don't really like about that particular lens though is that I do not think I'll have an EF-S compatible camera down the road... (Probably jump to something beyond the 20D) I want to make sure that the lenses I get will work down the road...

Tim_axe - That is almost half tempting... but methinks that once I start shooting a little bit of macro... I'll get hooked regardless, and end up wanting to go with a regular macro lens anyway...

 

[SidewinderX]

Oh, I just remembered... I've heard alot of suprisingly good things about the Pheonix 100mm f3.5 Macro, and it's rather cheap.

 

[Tim_axe]

You might get a filter anyways though if you want to go beyond 1:1 macros for kicks...but you'd need a longer macro lens for some more working distance...


And here I am convincing myself that a filter is a good idea... I think I'm going to have to get one sometime soon because of you (and a friend whose set I played with)


BTW, on the 1.6x crop cameras 1:1 is about 22.5x15mm (the 350D has a smaller physical sensor than the 20D, and the 20D is smaller than the 300D/10D).

 

[michaelkahl]

I'm a Nikon user...please don't flame...but I have a Nikon 50mm f1.8 with a Canon 250D close up filter...and I like the results...here's an example

Not sure how close you want to get, but this is a cheap solution whether it's nikon or canon...is canon's 50mm f1.8 52mm threads? I hope so.