What would be the best macro kit?

[shanewillson]

Hello
I have a Canon 450d and would like to get more into macro photography.
What options would be best to consider.
Canon 100mm f/2.8 Macro
Canon 100mm f/2.8 L Macro
Canon EF Macro lens - 180 mm - F/3.5
then there are teleconverters etc
Would it be wise to stick with Canon or do I have other options, bear in mind I might want to get into extreme macro a bit latter.
What would peoples opinions be? Could really do with some info please.

Shane

[Geoff F]

Firstly, I would say carefully read the several recent questions about macro equipment which may well answer some of your questions.

Next, we really need some specific information about exactly what you intend to photograph. Answers will vary considerably based on this information. Also include your budget.

With regard to lens manufacturers. I don't think anything will beat the camera branded lenses, Canon in your case, but the best third party lenses are almost as good and can be quite a bit cheaper; which may be important if you are on a tight budget. Sigma macro lenses are well used by members of this site.

When it comes to macro photography there is a big difference between a 100 mm lens and a 180 mm. We also need to know if you have a decent tripod or if you would expect to have any problems using one with your macro photography intentions.

I can tell you what I use for my general macro work, but other people will have different opinions. For me it is; Canon 40D with Sigma 180 mm macro lens; manfrotto tripod with ball grip head; sometimes use a Canon Speedlite flash; occasionally add a 1.4x converter but I find that for my work it can sometimes cause as many problems as it solves.

Most of my photography is reasonably small insects like hoverflies, etc, but if a butterfly or dragonfly, or anything similar, pops up in front of me, I will snap that as well.

[Roddy]

Hi Shane,

I've recently gone for the Canon 100mm f2.8L. My reasons for the choice were:

With macro in particular, I want quality and the 100mm L is just stunning. I've compared my results with a friend's Sigma and I don't think there is a comparison - sorry Sigma fans.

I also considered the 185mm (and read The Digital Picture reviews before making the decision). Having a 1.6x crop factor camera (20D) that effectively makes the 100mm a 160mm. Whilst I try to use a tripod whenever possible, I find there are times when the situation mitigates against it. The shorter focal length, for me, is the compromise I need, enabling handheld shots when conditions demand it. It's also a lighter lens and adds little to the weight of the kit in my bag.

Incidentally, for a tripod, I use the 'heavyweight' Gorillapod plus a ball pan and tilt head - easy to carry, light in weight and also doubles a 'chest brace' with the legs suitably bent.

[johnf3f]

I can't speak for other macro lenses as I do not have much experience of them, though I played with a Sigma 150mm recently and was very pleasantly suprised!
Mine is the standard Canon 100 f2.8 USM and I can find no significant fault with it. I hear the new "L" is better but it can't be much better as the "normal" one is so good! Though the IS would be handy!
From what I read all the macro lenses from the main 3rd party makers are pretty/very good and often cheaper - but the Canons appear to have the edge that makes them worth the extra money. Note the Canon lenses have internal focussing which is much neater and better for not scaring off your subject!
As an aside I have tried (briefly) the 60mm and 180mm Canons and they (along with both the 100's) are excellent general purpose'portrait etc lenses which is certainly not the case with some of the others!
Good lucK!

[Jim Ford]

Originally Posted by Roddy

With macro in particular, I want quality and the 100mm L is just stunning. I've compared my results with a friend's Sigma and I don't think there is a comparison - sorry Sigma fans.

The difference could be down to camera shake. You were using an optically stabilised lens and unless your friend was using his Sigma on an in-body image stabilised camera, his outfit wasn't image stabilised.

Jim

[turkeyneck]

Originally Posted by Jim Ford

The difference could be down to camera shake. You were using an optically stabilised lens and unless your friend was using his Sigma on an in-body image stabilised camera, his outfit wasn't image stabilised.

Jim

I'm using a Tamron 90mm but I wish I hadn't hadn't been such a cheap scape and gone for an OS lens.
The Tamron image I find is great but I think it would've made life a lot easier with an OS type lens.
Whats the old adage 'buy cheap, buy twice' something like that.

[Roddy]

I don't think camera shake can be blamed, Jim, given that both cameras are Canon (20D and 30D) and tripods were used with IS set accordingly in my case. It seems to me that it's just down to image quality.

Roddy

[billybob99]

I use the tamron 90mm on my Sony and find it superb sharp as a tack and well worth the money

[squishy]

The sigma 150mm is an excellent lens for insects. Many photographers on this site use it, and I haven't heard a single bad thing about it. I love mine (got it a week or so ago). Great working distance, great build quality, and very sharp. I can't say anything about the 100 L, but I find it hard to see how it could be noticeably sharper than the 150. It might have an edge wide open, but wide open doesn't matter for macro. And my 150 is completely usable for general photography wide open. Still very sharp, just not quite as sharp as it is stopped down.

It's certainly well worth considering.

[Jim Ford]

I bought a Sigma 150mm macro recently for its long FL, and it seems OK so far. The focussing is excruciatingly slow though and I usually use manual. I don't expect the image quality to match that of my 50mm Zuiko macro, of which dpreview said was "the nearest we've yet found to a technically perfect lens."

Jim