Macro Lens help

[Amp34]

I'm going to a jungle in a couple of months for a couple of weeks and as there will be plenty of small things I think it is time I got a macro lens rather than rely on extension tubes. Only problem is there seems to be a lot of choice in the area.

I'm currently using a 400D and want something of a good all rounder that will shoot well in woody settings, probably without a flash... Any suggestions? What sort of focal length would be recommended for example?

 

[Tachyon]

From what I understand any of the macro lens on offer are all fairly sharp. You've got the 60mm & 100mm Canons, 90mm Tamron then a couple of offerings from Sigma as well. Any of those can double up nicely for portraits although a bit limited for a general walk about lens maybe.

Thing is I like to shoot well stopped down for macro. I usually shoot around f9 -f11 to get as much DOF as I can so you're going to need a flash providing you want real close ups (which I'm guessing you do as you mentioned tubes). In saying that I don't have a dedicated macro lens at any of those focal lengths so you might be better listening to someone who shoots with them.

 

[James J]

I'd say get a 100L canon lens as it has image stabilisation. Failing that, get a second hand canon 100 or sigma 150 APO (none OS or OS).

You can get a manual macro flash from brands like yongnuo for £29 which are decent. They take 2xAA batteries and you can control how bright they actually are. They are fine for very close up shots but for anything else they are far too weak.

Due to not knowing the extent of the lighting conditions in the jungle due to how much of the sunlight is diffused by the tree canopy, I'd say a flash is a necessity regardless of lens choice.

 

[a1ex2001]

I'm guessing given your previous reliance on extension tubes and your ageing 400D that money isn't no object in this purchase in which case I'd puch you towards a second hand Tamron 90mm it really is great especially for the money and doubles up as a great length for portraits on a crop.

 

[Amp34]

I'm thinking a combination between reach and stability (longer focal lengths needing shorter shutter speeds. I'm guessing though that for true 1:1 shots of insects and "moving things" it will need to be around the 100mm mark.

Money isn't too much of an issue, depending on whether I end up getting a new camera and what other lenses I end up buying (D7000 and 70-200 f/2.8 may reduce the budget a little..), but my preference would be on cheaper if it's good enough. On the other hand I don't want to save a few pounds for a vastly inferior product. The main issue for me is always weight and size.

To you have the Tamron 90mm Alex? Same question to James, do you have the Canon 100mm? The Sigma 150 is too big and realistically out of my price range as well unfortunately. Is there really that much of a benefit of IS/VR/OS on Macro lenses as a lot of the movement is the subject itself?

 

[James J]

I'm thinking a combination between reach and stability (longer focal lengths needing shorter shutter speeds. I'm guessing though that for true 1:1 shots of insects and "moving things" it will need to be around the 100mm mark.

Money isn't too much of an issue, depending on whether I end up getting a new camera and what other lenses I end up buying (D7000 and 70-200 f/2.8 may reduce the budget a little..), but my preference would be on cheaper if it's good enough. On the other hand I don't want to save a few pounds for a vastly inferior product. The main issue for me is always weight and size.

To you have the Tamron 90mm Alex? Same question to James, do you have the Canon 100mm? The Sigma 150 is too big and realistically out of my price range as well unfortunately. Is there really that much of a benefit of IS/VR/OS on Macro lenses as a lot of the movement is the subject itself?

I've got the sigma 150mm F2.8 none OS version which I picked up second hand from the MM on here for around £380. I don't quite understand the "longer focal length needing shorter shutter speeds" comment in your initial sentence though buddy! Longer focal lengths on a macro length mean that you can be physically further away from the subject to still get 1:1 magnification. This is VERY useful when photographing insects at 1:1 or approaching 1:1 magnification as you are physically further away from them, meaning you are less likely to scare them off.

As for the OS/VR/IS part, it just allows you to use slower shutter speeds in worse lighting than the none OS/VR/IS equivalents. Its utterly pointless if you use a tripod with a sliding rail (macro rail head attachment) as they need to be switched off for tripod use anyway. If you do handheld shots most of the time, the image stabilisation is a plus, yet I've never found myself wanting it as I'll either use a flash to increase my shutter speeds or just shoot in better light.

Not used the tamron 90mm or the canon 100/100L yet they are all highly regarded lenses. The 100mm canon lens has some great optics in it, as does the sigma 105 which is the baby version of the one I own but also with the F2.8 aperture.

 

[ElDude]

I, as of this morning, have a Canon 100mm 2.8 IS USM and it's awesome. I also have a Sigma 105 non OS, which is very good. If money is an object, try getting the Sigma second hand. I had mine for a few years and it's still in mint condition, so I can't criticise it at all.

I would offer mine to sell, but I think I've already got someone that is offering a few hundred for it

The 105 is around £549 new, and the old non IS Canon version is around the same price (god, I just noticed how much they've gone up in price since I bought one!). If you can get a second hand one of either non IS/OS from a trusted source, go for it, they're both great lenses. I've no experience with the Sigma 105 OS (the new one) but the new Canon one is very nice (he says stroking his new lens ).

 

[The_blue]

I'm going to a jungle in a couple of months for a couple of weeks and as there will be plenty of small things I think it is time I got a macro lens rather than rely on extension tubes. Only problem is there seems to be a lot of choice in the area.

I'm currently using a 400D and want something of a good all rounder that will shoot well in woody settings, probably without a flash... Any suggestions? What sort of focal length would be recommended for example?

I did the jungle macro thingy last year.

1st off it's dark under the trees, real dark. I needed a flash even in mid day. Don't forget night treks! Best time in the jungle for bugs!

I took a siggy 105mm and a ttl flash (the ebay chinese one)


A few examples.

 

[Amp34]

I've got the sigma 150mm F2.8 none OS version which I picked up second hand from the MM on here for around £380. I don't quite understand the "longer focal length needing shorter shutter speeds" comment in your initial sentence though buddy! Longer focal lengths on a macro length mean that you can be physically further away from the subject to still get 1:1 magnification. This is VERY useful when photographing insects at 1:1 or approaching 1:1 magnification as you are physically further away from them, meaning you are less likely to scare them off.

Sorry, really poor wording. What I meant was you need a faster shutter speed to remove lens blur the longer the lens. If I'm not using a flash that would be fairly important. There were also some suggestions that a longer macro lens may mean you run out of space in the forest getting the right shot.

Thanks for all the other comments too, especially about needing a flash. I'm going to have a look around, probably at the 100mm length and see what I decide (after deciding whether to stay with Canon) and what other kit I want to take with me...

 

[The_blue]

I was shooting none flash at ISO 640-1200 at f4.5 with the siggy 105mm.

That kind of dark...


I also found the 105 useless at distance shots and not long enough for canopy work.