Which macro lens?

[MarkE70]

Hello everyone,
I'm considering upgrading my canon 50mm macro lens in the next couple of weeks. I don't really do a lot of macro photography but I would like to give it more of my attention. Do you reckon it's worth going for a better macro lens than I allready have? if so does anyone recommend a good lens in the region of £300 or so? I would appreciate any advice, cheers, Mark.

[Boddie]

Either the Sigmas 105 or 150.

The 105 is hand holdable, but the 150 neds a decent tripod to get much out of. Both produce lovely images and both are very well made.

Here is a good example of what can be avhieved with the 105 and it was probably only the second time I took it out. > Andrew Hunter Photography: Showcased: Migrant Hawker

Similarly it makes for a nice prime lens and is great for portraits http://www.insidetheheadofa.com/photo_649504.html

[Words]

I'm also new to macro, and have had the Sigma 105 for a couple of weeks and am very pleased with it. I'm working handheld.

Here's a couple of examples:

[MarkE70]

Thanks for the advice guys. Both sets of photos taken with the sigma look very good. Is there anybody out using the canon 100mm macro lens? I've read that the canon lens is better to use, with faster AF abilities. Is it worth the extra £80 or so?

[eeyore]

We do have a couple of canon 100mm users but when I trialed it i couldnt tell the difference between it and the tamron 90mm (which i eventually bought)

most people use manual focus for macro anyway so the faster AF is pretty irrelevant unless you are planning to do a lot of insects in flight - and if you are planning that IMO you need a longer lens like the sigma 150 or tamron 180 anyway

edit: and Words those are very good, especially considering that you have only had the lens for a couple of weeks

[ollyk]

Amazing images! and to think the sig makes a good prime too I would have never thought it!

[nightshade]

There is a comparison review of the Tamron 90mm and the Canon 100mm
the Tamron was slightly better alround,I preferred the handling of the Sigma
105mm

[eeyore]

the other thing mark could look at as he already has a 50mm macro (presumably f2.8) would be to put a couple of extension tubes behind it and or a teleconverter.

you can get a set of tubes from jessops for £79 , a 1.4 TC for arround the same , or a canon 1.4tc for about 150 notes.

the key if you are using both tubes and TC is to get maximum magnification by putting the TC next to the camera body then the tubes , then the lens

[MarkE70]

Thanks for the advice again. Eeyore that sounds a good option of using the lens I already have. However, do you (or anyone) know whether I would lose quality using the extension tubes and teleconverter? and is it not worth paying the extra £100 or so for the longer prime macro lens?

[eeyore]

Originally Posted by MarkE70

Thanks for the advice again. Eeyore that sounds a good option of using the lens I already have. However, do you (or anyone) know whether I would lose quality using the extension tubes and teleconverter? and is it not worth paying the extra £100 or so for the longer prime macro lens?

you wont lose quality with tubes - tho you will lose about a stop of light , with the teleconverter you will have a slight loss of quality and some light ( 1 stop with 1.4x 2 stops with 2x ) which will be less if you use a high quality converter matched to the make of your original lens - ie canon with canon sigma with sigma etc.

that said i use a generic 2xtc on my tamron lens without a problem

If you an afford it a longer macro lens will always be the best option, but tubes and tc is a viable alternative if the budget is tight - which you pick will depend on how much of a concern the money is and also how much you want to invest in taking macro shots