Canon EOS macro lens choice

I've decided I need a real macro lens for my Canon 30D.

No more blue halos, an need relatively big mangification.
(i.e. a 2 inch field of view will do, more or less.)

So the choice is the EF f/2.8 100mm macro (to half life size) ... OR

EF-S f/2.8 60 mm macro OR (possibly)

EF f/2.5 50 mm macro

The Canon web site seems to indicate from the MTF curves that the
EF-S 60 mm is the best lens, and it goes to life size.

The 100mm seems good too, and is life size, while the 50 mm
isn't life size and seems to be of lesser quality. The 100mm costs
more than the EF-S and the 50mm costs less.

**IF** I were not drooling for the 5D Mk II I'd buy, no quibble, the
60 mm EF-S. But I AM so drooling. I'm in no terrible hurry for it to appear.
The EF-S won;t work on a full frame camera, so I'm still considering forking
over for the 100mm. But 100mm is really too long for use as a "standard"
lens on the 30D. The 60 mm is not, though it really is a tele on that camera.

Decisions, decisions!

Advice sought, though it looks like it won't help me, as this is
a rather personal "feely" thing.

How good, really, is the cheapie 50mm?

Doug McDonald

wrote in message
...
I've decided I need a real macro lens for my Canon 30D.

No more blue halos, an need relatively big mangification.
(i.e. a 2 inch field of view will do, more or less.)

So the choice is the EF f/2.8 100mm macro (to half life size) ... OR

EF-S f/2.8 60 mm macro OR (possibly)

EF f/2.5 50 mm macro

The Canon web site seems to indicate from the MTF curves that the
EF-S 60 mm is the best lens, and it goes to life size.

The 100mm seems good too, and is life size, while the 50 mm
isn't life size and seems to be of lesser quality. The 100mm costs
more than the EF-S and the 50mm costs less.

I have the 100mm f2.8 - an excellent lens.

John

lid wrote in :

But 100mm is really too long for use as a "standard"
lens on the 30D.

Your choice of lens depends a lot on what you want to photograph and you
didn't mention anything about that. The longer focal lengths are often
better for live subjects. In these situations, their longer working
distances often provide a distinct advantage over shorter macro lenses.

I'm not sure what you mean by "'standard' lens" but I've used a Canon 180mm
macro on my 20D for a couple of years and I love the lens.

Although it's probably not on your shopping list, the Canon MP-65mm 1x-5x
macro is my favorite lens. I just love the close-ups of insects that it
can produce. It's a specialty lens though and certainly not for everyone.
It also demands a proper macro flash to go with it,

Mardon wrote:
lid wrote in :

But 100mm is really too long for use as a "standard"
lens on the 30D.

Your choice of lens depends a lot on what you want to photograph and you
didn't mention anything about that. The longer focal lengths are often
better for live subjects. In these situations, their longer working
distances often provide a distinct advantage over shorter macro lenses.

For long distances, with a tripod, I find my 300 mm zoom works fine.


I'm not sure what you mean by "'standard' lens" but I've used a Canon 180mm
macro on my 20D for a couple of years and I love the lens.

By "standard" I mean just that, a lens that I can use for random subjects.
180 mm is clearly a long tele, a special purpose lens. Any of the three
macros I mention (less so the 100 mm on a 1.6 crop campera) CAN be used
that way.


Although it's probably not on your shopping list, the Canon MP-65mm 1x-5x
macro is my favorite lens.

That's a super specialty, the usual realm of the bellows. That I have,
with specialist Olympus (non-auto) lenses that do from 1/4 lifesize to
20 times lifesize, diffraction limited sharp. What I need is
a non-specialty lens that makes good picture of flowers and other small things.
I'm not worried about even a 50 mm focal length.

Doug McDonald

On Fri, 14 Mar 2008 13:50:22 -0500, lid wrote:

Mardon wrote:
lid wrote in :

But 100mm is really too long for use as a "standard"
lens on the 30D.

Your choice of lens depends a lot on what you want to photograph and you
didn't mention anything about that. The longer focal lengths are often
better for live subjects. In these situations, their longer working
distances often provide a distinct advantage over shorter macro lenses.

For long distances, with a tripod, I find my 300 mm zoom works fine.

Maybe you mean 300 mm with a close-up lens or with extension tubes,
because a 300 mm by itself isn't going to do much macro.

I'm not sure what you mean by "'standard' lens" but I've used a Canon 180mm
macro on my 20D for a couple of years and I love the lens.

By "standard" I mean just that, a lens that I can use for random subjects.
180 mm is clearly a long tele, a special purpose lens. Any of the three
macros I mention (less so the 100 mm on a 1.6 crop campera) CAN be used
that way.

When somebody asks you what you meant by something, to reply "just
that" usually means you don't know the meaning either. (Look the word
up.) You probably mean "walkaround" or "generally useful".

The 180mm is one of the most useful macro lenses for shooting live
creatures because it provides for a lot of working distance. It is
certainly a special purpose lens, as all macro lenses are.

Generally speaking, go with the shortest macro that works with your
photography, because short macros are cheaper. But short macros create
problems because the working distance is short. It is hard to arrange
lighting and you will scare away bugs. For greater versatility, choose
a longer lens.

For butterflies, dragonflies, and other bugs I use the 70-300mm IS
with the 500D closeup lens and get great results.

Although it's probably not on your shopping list, the Canon MP-65mm 1x-5x
macro is my favorite lens.

That's a super specialty, the usual realm of the bellows. That I have,
with specialist Olympus (non-auto) lenses that do from 1/4 lifesize to
20 times lifesize, diffraction limited sharp. What I need is
a non-specialty lens that makes good picture of flowers and other small things.
I'm not worried about even a 50 mm focal length.

Doug McDonald

wrote in message
...
I've decided I need a real macro lens for my Canon 30D.

No more blue halos, an need relatively big mangification.
(i.e. a 2 inch field of view will do, more or less.)

So the choice is the EF f/2.8 100mm macro (to half life size) ... OR

EF-S f/2.8 60 mm macro OR (possibly)

EF f/2.5 50 mm macro

The Canon web site seems to indicate from the MTF curves that the
EF-S 60 mm is the best lens, and it goes to life size.

The 100mm seems good too, and is life size, while the 50 mm
isn't life size and seems to be of lesser quality. The 100mm costs
more than the EF-S and the 50mm costs less.

**IF** I were not drooling for the 5D Mk II I'd buy, no quibble, the
60 mm EF-S. But I AM so drooling. I'm in no terrible hurry for it to
appear.
The EF-S won;t work on a full frame camera, so I'm still considering
forking
over for the 100mm. But 100mm is really too long for use as a "standard"
lens on the 30D. The 60 mm is not, though it really is a tele on that
camera.

Decisions, decisions!

Advice sought, though it looks like it won't help me, as this is
a rather personal "feely" thing.

How good, really, is the cheapie 50mm?

Doug McDonald

I have the 50mm f/1.8, which was a no-brainer. Not a macro version, but damn
good for the money. For macro, I made the mistake of actually renting the
100mm f/2.8, and then I had to have one. No regrets.

The 100mm was never intended to be my walk-about lens, and I consider it a
specialty lens for special purposes. Still, it does well for portraits or
scenes, in addition to macro.
http://www.tfrog93.com/digitals/lenses/100mm/100mm.htm

I've also just picked up the 17-40mm f/4L, which HAS become my walk-about.
In the short (relatively) time that I've owned the Rebel XT, I now have five
lenses, each with its own strengths and weaknesses.

But Spring is coming, and there will be times when I definitely have to go
macro. And the 100mm is wonderful.

dwight
www.tfrog.com

On Fri, 14 Mar 2008 09:36:38 -0500, lid wrote:
: I've decided I need a real macro lens for my Canon 30D.
:
: No more blue halos, an need relatively big mangification.
: (i.e. a 2 inch field of view will do, more or less.)
:
: So the choice is the EF f/2.8 100mm macro (to half life size) ... OR
:
: EF-S f/2.8 60 mm macro ...

I got my wife the 60mm for her XTi, and she has gotten some very nice pictures
therewithal. It's a good lens and not overpriced. I recommend it.

Bob

On Fri, 14 Mar 2008 21:48:57 GMT, Harry Poster wrote:
: On Fri, 14 Mar 2008 13:50:22 -0500, lid wrote:
:
: Mardon wrote:
: lid wrote in :
:
: But 100mm is really too long for use as a "standard"
: lens on the 30D.
:
: Your choice of lens depends a lot on what you want to photograph and you
: didn't mention anything about that. The longer focal lengths are often
: better for live subjects. In these situations, their longer working
: distances often provide a distinct advantage over shorter macro lenses.
:
: For long distances, with a tripod, I find my 300 mm zoom works fine.
:
: Maybe you mean 300 mm with a close-up lens or with extension tubes,
: because a 300 mm by itself isn't going to do much macro.
:
: I'm not sure what you mean by "'standard' lens" but I've used a Canon 180mm
: macro on my 20D for a couple of years and I love the lens.
:
: By "standard" I mean just that, a lens that I can use for random subjects.
: 180 mm is clearly a long tele, a special purpose lens. Any of the three
: macros I mention (less so the 100 mm on a 1.6 crop campera) CAN be used
: that way.
:
: When somebody asks you what you meant by something, to reply "just
: that" usually means you don't know the meaning either. (Look the word
: up.) You probably mean "walkaround" or "generally useful".

That's a bit pompous, isn't it? Where would you suggest looking up the word
"walkaround"?

: The 180mm is one of the most useful macro lenses for shooting live
: creatures because it provides for a lot of working distance. It is
: certainly a special purpose lens, as all macro lenses are.
:
: Generally speaking, go with the shortest macro that works with your
: photography, because short macros are cheaper. But short macros create
: problems because the working distance is short. It is hard to arrange
: lighting and you will scare away bugs. For greater versatility, choose
: a longer lens.

Believe it or not, some pretty good photographers never photograph bugs. (That
said, my wife's Canon 60mm f/2.8 has captured a grasshopper or two very nicely
on flowers that she's photographed.)

Bob

a écrit dans le message de news:
...
I've decided I need a real macro lens for my Canon 30D.

No more blue halos, an need relatively big mangification.
(i.e. a 2 inch field of view will do, more or less.)

So the choice is the EF f/2.8 100mm macro (to half life size) ... OR

EF-S f/2.8 60 mm macro OR (possibly)

EF f/2.5 50 mm macro

The Canon web site seems to indicate from the MTF curves that the
EF-S 60 mm is the best lens, and it goes to life size.

The 100mm seems good too, and is life size, while the 50 mm
isn't life size and seems to be of lesser quality. The 100mm costs
more than the EF-S and the 50mm costs less.

**IF** I were not drooling for the 5D Mk II I'd buy, no quibble, the
60 mm EF-S. But I AM so drooling. I'm in no terrible hurry for it to
appear.
The EF-S won;t work on a full frame camera, so I'm still considering
forking
over for the 100mm. But 100mm is really too long for use as a "standard"
lens on the 30D. The 60 mm is not, though it really is a tele on that
camera.

Decisions, decisions!

Advice sought, though it looks like it won't help me, as this is
a rather personal "feely" thing.

Although not mentionned by anyone, Canon's 300mm f4 L IS will focus close
enough to fill the frame with a butterfly (OK, a big one), it needs to be
closed down to get depth of field, at 6 feet and f16, there is only 3/4" of
DOF, good enough for a bug laying flat ;-) Sure it's not a dedicated macro
lens, but it will do in a pinch for the odd time I will need to photograph
something like butterflies. I have a friend who is a macro nut, she has the
MP-E along with the MT-24EX flash, great stuff for heavy use but expensive
for the odd time use.

Jean

lid wrote:
I've decided I need a real macro lens for my Canon 30D.

No more blue halos, an need relatively big mangification.
(i.e. a 2 inch field of view will do, more or less.)

So the choice is the EF f/2.8 100mm macro (to half life size) ... OR

EF-S f/2.8 60 mm macro OR (possibly)

EF f/2.5 50 mm macro

The Canon web site seems to indicate from the MTF curves that the
EF-S 60 mm is the best lens, and it goes to life size.

The 100mm seems good too, and is life size, while the 50 mm
isn't life size and seems to be of lesser quality. The 100mm costs
more than the EF-S and the 50mm costs less.

Unless you are using it for vertical copy-stand work where a shorter
lens is needed, the longer macro lens will be more useful. You can't
really have too long of a closeup lens because it's nice to get working
distance for comfort with a tripod and to not cast shadows, etc. Longer
macros do cost more though.

At closeup magnifications the focal length doesn't effect hand holding
shutter times; 1:1 is 1:1 at any focal length. The shorter lens will
show more context and a more in-focus background but that's rarely
useful for closeups. If I want context, I'll use a true wide angle with
close range correction and extension tubes.

**IF** I were not drooling for the 5D Mk II I'd buy, no quibble, the
60 mm EF-S. But I AM so drooling. I'm in no terrible hurry for it to
appear.
The EF-S won;t work on a full frame camera, so I'm still considering
forking
over for the 100mm. But 100mm is really too long for use as a "standard"
lens on the 30D. The 60 mm is not, though it really is a tele on that
camera.

Decisions, decisions!

Advice sought, though it looks like it won't help me, as this is
a rather personal "feely" thing.

How good, really, is the cheapie 50mm?

Doug McDonald