# Best Canon macro lens? Advice please!



## RauschPhotography (Oct 5, 2010)

Hey guys,
I'm looking for a reliable Canon macro lens, as I'll be shooting ring shots for weddings and various other close up/detail shots. I've been considering the EF-S 60mm 2.8, but I'm not really sure if it's a great lens. I'm not really picky about using Tamron/Sigma lenses if the quality is worth it, so I'm keeping an open mind about my purchase.  Any suggestions or advice would be wonderful! Thanks!


----------



## Big Mike (Oct 5, 2010)

There are plenty of Macro shooters who have more experience that me, I'm sure the will chime in.

I know several wedding shooters who use the Canon 100mm Macro, and one or two that use the 60mm EF-S Macro.  They are both great lenses, the benefit of the 60mm, especially for a wedding shooter, is that it's a rather small lens and thus takes up less space & weight in your bag.  This can be helpful when you are dragging your gear around with you all day.

I believe that many people will recommend Sigma Macro lenses.  They have a few of them and the seem to be very highly regarded...and are probably less expensive than the Canon equivalent.


----------



## Hardrock (Oct 5, 2010)

I think you should look at the Canon 100 F2.8 USM its an outstanding lens and very sharp plus the price is very good around 500- 600 dollars. The focusing distance is greater  with a longer focal length macro lens and the 100 also works great for half body and headshots.


----------



## Taylor510ce (Oct 5, 2010)

If you only dabble in macro, you can also get extension tubes or reversing rings. Instead of $600 for a macro, you could get a used canon17-40L and a reverse ring. I saw a shot someone did with this setup and it was awesome. Wish I could find the link. Then you would have some L glass for other uses and it would also work on full frame if you upgraded unlike ef-s stuff. Might be a pain for weddings though although its easier to slap a reverse ring on thats in your pocket, than swap lenses.


----------



## Neil S. (Oct 5, 2010)

Check out this thread, and it may give you some useful insights.

http://www.thephotoforum.com/forum/...s-reviews/212217-canon-180mm-100mm-macro.html

I own the 60 macro only, and I dont really care for it that much. The working distance is way too close for many things.

If you could afford it the 180mm seems to be the king.

Also there are some 3rd party macros that are very good, as is discussed in the above thread.

Hope this helps.

Neil


----------



## Scatterbrained (Oct 5, 2010)

If you are shooting weddings you'll get more use out of the 100mm IS f2.8L. You can use it for your close ups and detail shots while also using it for portraits; the IS is superb as well.  The 100L focuses from macro to infinity, I don't believe the 60 does that.
Edit: I think it will focus to infinity, I must be thinking of a different lens.  Either way, I'd go with the 100mm


----------



## Big Mike (Oct 5, 2010)

> The 100L focuses from macro to infinity, I don't believe the 60 does that.
> Edit: I think it will focus to infinity, I must be thinking of a different lens. Either way, I'd go with the 100mm


The EF-S 60mm Macro will focus to infinity, like most of the other Macro lenses.  It's the 60mm MP-E that is for Macro only, it's got a built in rail type focus and gets you up to 5x magnification.  It's basically s specialty lens.


----------



## RauschPhotography (Oct 5, 2010)

Hopefully I can find one of the 100mm L-series used, looks like a great lens! Good thing I don't have to make a decision anytime soon


----------



## Big Mike (Oct 5, 2010)

Actually, unless I'm mistaken, the L version of the 100mm Macro is a brand new lens...as in it was just released this year.  So you'd be very unlikely to find a used one.  Although, because of this new lens, you might find it easier to find the older, non-L, version.


----------



## RauschPhotography (Oct 5, 2010)

Other than the glass itself,there aren't many differences between that and the non-L series, correct?


----------



## Derrel (Oct 5, 2010)

My advice is do not use a macro lens for portraiture or event work. Period. Macro lenses are unreliable art focusing on moving subjects, as compared with field telephoto lenses. I own the Canon 100/2.8 USM macro...it's only average at autofocusing at 5,6,7,8,10 to 40 feet...it's a macro lens...it has only so-so AF capabilities and accuracy at longer ranges. The dame is true of the Tamron 90mm AF-SP macro I own...it will MISS the focus when used in-studio or on-location for portraiture or field work many,many times more often than a "field" telephoto lens.

I would suggest skipping the macro lens entirely, and using a regular lens, from farther back, using your normal flash setup. If you insist on a fast prime telephoto, look at the 100mm f/2 EF lens. It would be a better lens for lower-light, longer-range shooting in churches than any macro lens.


----------



## Neil S. (Oct 5, 2010)

Big Mike said:


> Actually, unless I'm mistaken, the L version of the 100mm Macro is a brand new lens...as in it was just released this year. So you'd be very unlikely to find a used one. Although, because of this new lens, you might find it easier to find the older, non-L, version.


 
Yes this is right Mike.

Also it has a new hybrid IS that corrects up and down movement as well as tilt shake.

This is good for macro handheld shots I believe.

Here is the official Canon press release:

Canon


----------



## Neil S. (Oct 5, 2010)

RauschPhotography said:


> Other than the glass itself,there aren't many differences between that and the non-L series, correct?


 
IS (new hybrid type)

L series build quality (including weather sealing)

The L uses an UD element as well, and this helps to reduce CA and improve image quality in general.

As you can see they are very different lenses...


----------



## Dao (Oct 5, 2010)

If you just need it for close up ring shots, you maybe able to get by without getting a dedicated macro lens.

A Canon diopter 500D may work for you.


----------



## Scatterbrained (Oct 5, 2010)

Derrel said:


> My advice is do not use a macro lens for portraiture or event work. Period. Macro lenses are unreliable art focusing on moving subjects, as compared with field telephoto lenses. I own the Canon 100/2.8 USM macro...it's only average at autofocusing at 5,6,7,8,10 to 40 feet...it's a macro lens...it has only so-so AF capabilities and accuracy at longer ranges. The dame is true of the Tamron 90mm AF-SP macro I own...it will MISS the focus when used in-studio or on-location for portraiture or field work many,many times more often than a "field" telephoto lens.
> 
> I would suggest skipping the macro lens entirely, and using a regular lens, from farther back, using your normal flash setup. If you insist on a fast prime telephoto, look at the 100mm f/2 EF lens. It would be a better lens for lower-light, longer-range shooting in churches than any macro lens.


I disagree here. 
I have owned both of the 100mm macro lenses and can say the 100L is just fine for portraiture or event work.   The whole reason I got the first 100mm is because of the amazing shots my wedding photog was able to get with it, many of which were portraits.   I did hate struggling with the auto focus of the ef 100mm 2.8 macro so I sold it when the L came out and couldn't be happier.  The L has an auto focus limiter switch with 3 different settings that helps speed things up, as well as being just generally faster.    The IS is superb, allowing you to grab your macro shots on the fly and the 100mm focal length means you aren't crowding out your light source due to a very short minimum focus distance.  At the minimum focus distance I can light the subject with my camera mounted flash (sto-fen attached).


----------



## Stormchase (Oct 5, 2010)

I don't shoot people but I have a little experience in macro. From what I have gathered the 100mm range is good. Any Canon 100 or I can speak on behalf of the tamron 90mm as a very Sharp lens. Been told its great for people. If you are wanting to get ontop of the hands you might want to consider a smaller mm for the focusing distance. You might be pretty far back to get a whole hand in with a 100 or 180.


----------



## Neil S. (Oct 5, 2010)

Stormchase said:


> I don't shoot people


 
Well thats good lol.

I hear they lock you up in some places for that! :lmao:


----------



## Taylor510ce (Oct 5, 2010)

You could also use a 50mm prime fast lens by itself or add a 12mm or 25mm tube to get a bit closer. I am not sure why you would want to spend an arm and a leg on a macro just for ring shots? That sounds like a needless expense. A 50mm f/1.4 would be able to be used more during the wedding portraits as well. Slap a 1.4x kenko tc on it and you have a 70mm f2 which could also be very useful.


----------



## Stormchase (Oct 5, 2010)

Neil S. said:


> Stormchase said:
> 
> 
> > I don't shoot people
> ...



Lol type first... think later...


----------



## RauschPhotography (Oct 5, 2010)

Taylor510ce said:


> You could also use a 50mm prime fast lens by itself or add a 12mm or 25mm tube to get a bit closer. I am not sure why you would want to spend an arm and a leg on a macro just for ring shots? That sounds like a needless expense. A 50mm f/1.4 would be able to be used more during the wedding portraits as well. Slap a 1.4x kenko tc on it and you have a 70mm f2 which could also be very useful.



The ring shots and very minor detail shots would be about the main use of the lens, which is why it make it kind of difficult making a decision. The primary shooter for the studio I work for also shoots Canon, and misfocuses 9/10 ring shots they take, so I want to make sure I'm getting the right lens/making the right decision so I can avoid this in my own work... 

*Thank you again everyone for your input! *


----------

