Macro lens for Canon

[LeicaLens]

I am thinking about getting a macro for my Canon camera. It’s a film one, so the lens has to be full-frame compatible.
My choices are:
The Tamron 90mm 2.8
The standard Canon 100mm 2.8
The pricey Canon L 100mm lenses
The Sigma 105mm 2.8

I will be using it mainly for flowers, but also insects hopefully (not right good with them at the moment). Secondhand, there is not much difference between the Tamron, standard Canon, and Sigma in price. I was wondering if any of you have good/bad experiences with any of these lenses.

I am not seriously considering the ‘L’ lens due to its cost (from what I have seen, even secondhand it costs around 800-900 of you so-called Earthling dollars), but if it really makes an enormous difference then I may make a raid on the piggy bank.

Also, I have an 85mm lens (the f1.8 one), so I am not really looking at using the Macro as a portrait lens so much.

Any input would be most welcome.

[orionid]

Let’s put it this way. From what I’ve seen, this lens is so good, I’m considering getting it and adapting it to Nikon.

[caradoc]

Never used the Canon mount, but I think the Tamron 90mm f/2.8 is one of the best bang-for-the-buck lenses out there. I use a Nikon mount Tamron 90mm for macro and portraiture. I put some example photos in Plamadude30k’s thread.

[chupathingie]

Let’s put it this way. From what I’ve seen, this lens is so good, I’m considering getting it and adapting it to Nikon.

Now my brain hurts, so I gotta ask: How? Isn’t the mount-focal plane distance longer on the Nikon than the Canon? What happens to the focus range when an adapter is added to the train? ❓ I know this works well for Nikon glass on a Canon body since the adapter ring cancels the difference… does it just shift the focus range in towards the image plane? Obviously beinag able to achieve focus at infinity isn’t an issue with that lens…

The sample images I’ve seen for that lens really are nice…

[LeicaLens]

Let’s put it this way. From what I’ve seen, this lens is so good, I’m considering getting it and adapting it to Nikon.

Yeah, I would love that, but it’s pretty much out of my price range right now. Or, to put it another way, I could buy it, but I would have to keep its existence secret from the wife for all eternity.

caradoc
The Tamron one is actually the one I am most leaning towards. A friend has one, using it on a 5D MkII, and he is well pleased with it. Everything I have heard about it is positive.
The lens I am curious to hear more about is the Sigma: I *think* it is lighter and more compact than the Tamron and Canon, and it will give me a somewhat different focal length than my 85mm.

[orionid]

Let’s put it this way. From what I’ve seen, this lens is so good, I’m considering getting it and adapting it to Nikon.

Now my brain hurts, so I gotta ask: How? Isn’t the mount-focal plane distance longer on the Nikon than the Canon? What happens to the focus range when an adapter is added to the train? ❓ I know this works well for Nikon glass on a Canon body since the adapter ring cancels the difference… does it just shift the focus range in towards the image plane? Obviously beinag able to achieve focus at infinity isn’t an issue with that lens…

The sample images I’ve seen for that lens really are nice…

The only canon lens to nikon body adapters are the cheapos from hong kong, which conveniently includes a lense to restore infitity focus at the cost of passing your image through shitty glass. For this lens, infinity focus is obviously not a requirement, so I’d remove the lens in the converter, then dremel out the inside as wide as I felt comfortable (same as I did with my pentax to nikon conversion). The adapter would then become a 10mm-ish extention tube with a canon flange and nikon mount.

This lens is different than pretty much any other lens. It sort of zooms, but instead of changing the focal length, it moves the entire optical assembly away from the camera body, effectly turning into a giant extension tube, and is marked in increments of 1X to 5X. A grain of rice will fill up a DX sensor at 5X.

[nobigdeal]

My friend Dann has that Canon 65mm MP-E lens. It is pretty ridiculous.

http://www.flickr.com/photos/goshzilla/sets/72157605487535964/with/5399751136/

(not for the bug squeamish!!)

[orionid]

My friend Dann has that Canon 65mm MP-E lens. It is pretty ridiculous.

http://www.flickr.com/photos/goshzilla/sets/72157605487535964/with/5399751136/

(not for the bug squeamish!!)

I drool just about everytime dalantech uploads something new. It’s his lens of choice.

[Curious]

I drool just about everytime dalantech uploads something new. It’s his lens of choice.

those are outstanding. it wears me out just thinking of the time and effort that takes.

[CauseISaidSo]

^^ What he said. Also, how does one get such sharp focus with that lens when everything I’ve read says you need a rail system because even tiny changes in distance result in sharp changes in focus?

[Curious]

^^ What he said. Also, how does one get such sharp focus with that lens when everything I’ve read says you need a rail system because even tiny changes in distance result in sharp changes in focus?

a lot of his are F13 and actually fairly shallow DOF. he mentions several times shooting for an hour to get one usable frame. a rail is nice (i have one for my film camera) but even then the slightest gust of wind can defeat it.

it comes down to patience. lots and lots of it. and being willing to throw out 95% of what you shoot. so more patience. 🙂

what i don’t understand is where he finds the variety of bugs he shoots. my yard and surrounding area doesn’t have weevils. at least not that i know of.

time to get another copy of the junior guide to bugs. and specifically for here.

[Kestrana]

I know he baits for a lot of his bugs using corn syrup on leaves, but if you go to any body of water that doesn’t have a constant running source you will find a large amount of insects. Then it comes down to patience and tenacity as you described.

[sleeping]

Another thing he’s doing is very carefully placing his plane of focus – keeping it parallel to what he’s interested in as a subject rather than perpendicular to it. That’s really important when you have a mm or so of DOF.

[Curious]

once at a large body of water i got a really nice dragonfly shot. the last time i was at a large body of non running water i couldn’t get the little bastards to land for their photo.

if anyone is interested here are some rail shots. that’s a minolta XD-11 with the 50mm prime at each end of the bellows and mounted to a minolta rail system.

and just FYI if you go to flickr and some of your sets seem to be missing — check to see if your pro account expired. that was disconcerting.

[orionid]

Another thing he’s doing is very carefully placing his plane of focus – keeping it parallel to what he’s interested in as a subject rather than perpendicular to it. That’s really important when you have a mm or so of DOF.

He also explains in his blog that he adjusts his focus “too far” then brings it back until the eyes just start to sharpen, thus centering his DoF so that as much of it covers the insect as possible.

[Author]

Posts