Macro Lens help

[HDPete]

Hi all,

I'm in the market for a macro lens that will double up as a nice portrait lens for my 5D MkII. My subject is typically anything that moves in the garden or sometimes some macro stuff with matches lighting etc.

I was considering the Sigma 150mm lens (although couldn't find any reviews) as I was pleased with the focal length. But then Canon released the 100mm IS USM lens to throw me off the scent.

I previously used an EF-S 60mm Macro lens which was brilliant with the 1.6x crop, but I never felt it was quite long enough.

I'd be interested to hear from others whether they too have had the 100 or 150mm debate and what other considerations you had.

Regards
Pete

[chris-p]

Hi Pete

I think you're main issue is that you want to use the lens for portraits and garden macros. You would normally want a longer focal length for the garden macro shots, especially for things like insects, as you don't have to get so close and so there is less chance of disturbing them.
However, this might end up being a bit too long for portraits.

Your 60mm had an 96mm equivalent FoV so if you want to go longer Sigma make a 150mm and a 180mm as do Tamron and there is even the Canon 180mm but none of them are cheap as they range from £550 for the shorter Sigma up to over £1200 for the Canon 180mm.

Two of the most popular long(ish) macro lenses on the market are the Sigma 105mm and the Tamron 90mm. The Tamron won a head to head comparison with a load of £300 -£350 macro lenses in an issue of DCM earlier this year and I've heard nothing but good things about it. They're all full frame lenses as well so you'd have no issues in that respect.

I think it depends on how much portraiture you're likely to be doing. The more portraiture you're thinking of doing the more I would suggest sticking to the 90-110mm range otherwise you'll end up being miles away from your subject!

You could always consider 2 separate lenses. For the (roughly) £550 that the Sigma 150mm macro would cost you could buy the Tamron 90mm macro and the Canon EF 50m f/1.8 II which is less than a hundred notes (WEx prices mean you could have both for £420).

[cosmicma]

how about something like the sigma 105mm macro and extension tubes ?
iv'e seen some very good macro results using that combination and it doesn't do a half bad job of portraits ( without the tubes of course )

and... it won't break the bank

[matt wilson]

I use the non stabilised f 2.8 Canon 100.. Would have thought it ideal.

[flake]

The Canon 100mm f/2.8 is the best one to go for especially on the 5D MkII, the Sigma 105mm although optically good is too expensive to be a worth contender, plus the extending focus makes it unsuitable to use with a flash attached. Remember that the longer the focal length the shallower the depth of field so a 150mm lens is significantly more difficult to use than a shorter version.

The Canon version is very quick to focus and does it all internally, the minimum focus distance is good enough to photograph most insects, and it holds its value very well should you want to sell it. The IS version costs about twice as much and the IS is not very good for macro.

The 5D MkII is not as good for Macro as crop frame cameras are, the 1:1 on a crop frame appears much larger than it does on the FF, so if you do take up Macro photography consider the MP-e 65mm.

[HDPete]

Wow!

Thanks guys for your responses. A lot more food for thought.

I'll also dig out the review for the Tamron, which wasn't a brand I'd considered until now.

Thanks again
Pete

[flake]

Canon 100mm £414
Sigma 105mm £350
Tamron 90mm £330

While the third party lenses are optically good (as good as the Canon) you really need to try them next to the Canon lens because the time taken for the other two to rack in & out & focus can be a real pain when shooting skittish insects, plus having owned the Sigma version, the motor isn't strong enough to move a macro flash which you might want in the future.