Macro lens for Canon 350D & Wildflowers

[Mark Tulley]

I was just wondering which would be a suitable lens for my 350D to get close in on flowers. I see a Sigma AF 28-300 Macro for under £200, gives a magnification of 1:3. But then the real Canon lenses cost +++ even for single focal length and a magnification of 1:1

I have mostly used my Sony T7 which focuses down to 1cm, but auto-focus can be a bit hit&miss because the system often hits on the background if it is not far from the target flower. In fact I often use a tile-spacer-screeen to focus, then move it away for the photo.

What do you recommend ?

[Boddie]

Theres macro, and theres macro. Personally, I would not suggest anything other than 1:1. Not on a DSLR anyway. Although I am about to start exploring the FZ30, which produces lovely results

[eeyore]

Originally Posted by Boddie

Theres macro, and theres macro. Personally, I would not suggest anything other than 1:1. Not on a DSLR anyway. Although I am about to start exploring the FZ30, which produces lovely results

yeah i agree - the zooms which claim to be macro tend to only give 1:4 which isnt that close really

the cheapest decent 1:1 is the tamron 90mm at arround 290 notes (there is a cosina cheaper (£99) but the build quality is shocking and the optical quality pants) the sig 105 is arround 300 notes and is also a great lens

if you cant afford these prices your best bet would be a very fast 50mm lens (the canon f1.8 is arround 80 notes) and a set of extension tubes (jessops 79 quid)

you might also want to check out dealers / ebay etc for second hand lenses - just remember that not all older models will be digital compatible

[Blackdog]

Originally Posted by eeyore

the cheapest decent 1:1 is the tamron 90mm at arround 290 notes (there is a cosina cheaper (£99) but the build quality is shocking and the optical quality pants) the sig 105 is arround 300 notes and is also a great lens

I've got the Tamron 90mm. I haven't had it very long, but I am very impressed so far.

[nightshade]

The Sigma 70-300 with its macro setting is ok for flowers
and dragonflys.The trio of Canon 100,Tamron 90,Sigma 105
are all very good lenses and are corrected for true macro use
but are also spot on for portraits

[Mark Tulley]

Thanks for the help. I apologise for not searching and finding the other thread on macro lenses which has reappeared today.
It seems that a fixed focal length is best, giving 1:1. I thought 1:3 quoted for the zoom lenses was better magnification, but the thread implies that it is only one third of the gain, not three times the gain.
I will probably look out for a second hand 105 fixed FL macro. Sigma, Tamron or Canon should all be ok by the sound of it.

Hope to post some results when I get it all together.

Mark

[nightshade]

Try googling Reviews of the various lenses including the 70-300 APO DG Sigma
I seem to recall there are some good images taken using the macro which has a
useful 5 foot stand off

[eeyore]

Originally Posted by Mark Tulley

Thanks for the help. I apologise for not searching and finding the other thread on macro lenses which has reappeared today.
It seems that a fixed focal length is best, giving 1:1. I thought 1:3 quoted for the zoom lenses was better magnification, but the thread implies that it is only one third of the gain, not three times the gain.
I will probably look out for a second hand 105 fixed FL macro. Sigma, Tamron or Canon should all be ok by the sound of it.

Hope to post some results when I get it all together.

Mark

the ratio figures are by proportion to life size - ie with a 1:1 lens a subject measuring 1cm will be 1cm on the negative - with a 1:2 it will be half life size - with a 1:4 it will be quarter life size etc

focal length (ie 90mm , 105,150,180 etc) generally effects the distance between the lens and subject at which 1:1 reproduction occurs which is why longer lenses are better for insects and other easily scared subjects

for wildflowers a 90 or 105 will be fine , and as macro lenses are generally max apperture f2.8 you can always add a teleconverter if you need more lenth occasionally

[speckled wood]

One thing to remember is that many of the cheaper lenses have not been optomised for digital, the actual glass in them is perfectly good but they are designed for 35mm film it is simply that they are not at their best when used on digital cameras, as for build "quality", quality is not the issue it is just that they are not as rugged as more expensive lenses there is no problem if they are treated with respect and not abused and for a lot of people they will be quite adequate until they can afford a more expensive lense.

I do have the 70 to 300 Sigma and to be honest I am not impressed y its macro capabities as well as the problem with the mcrothat happens when I try to switch the macro off. The quality of the macro images (lack of quality) was the reason that I invested in a Sigma 105. The real debate for a serious Macro photographer is not Sigma v Tamrom rather it is whether a shorter or longer focal length is best for you.

SW

[eeyore]

although that said i have a non digital tamron 90 and that is fine

very cheap makes such as cosina / vivitar etc (actually made in the same factory) use cheaper glass to keep the price down and this leads to a greater degree of chromatic abberation , and distortion it has little to do with being optomised for digital as they will give mediocre results on film also

and to my mind build quality is an issue - if it is cheaply made the focussing, aperture adjustment etc will not be as smooth or accurate - and also the lens will not stand up to life in the field , and is likely to die an early death. it is definitely better to buy a well made lens even if it costs three times as much as it will undoubtedly last more than three times as long and will take better pictures too.