I can personally vouch for both the Canon 100mm macro and the Tamron 90mm macro having owned/used both for quite a few years. Image quality from both lenses is outstanding with little to choose from between them. The Canon is slightly better built and a little sleeker in use, not that the Tamron's build quality has ever been an issue in the slightest.
If I was buying from scratch I'd go for a 180mm macro lens for several reasons; the greater working distance (always a bonus for nervous subjects), the narrower angle of view for isolating the subject from it's background a little easier, the addition of a tripod collar for increased stability and the huge advantage of being able to switch from landscape to portrait format and vice versa.
I can't really think of any disadvantages (at least for outdoor nature) to the longer focal length macro's other than they're a bit more expensive and a bit heavier than the shorter macro's.
The Sigma 150mm macro seems to get rave reviews from every one who owns one and would come in at under your £500 budget.
Another option and probably the one I'd go for myself would be either, a secondhand Canon 180mm macro, although I'm not sure if the secondhand price would be within budget, nor how often they come up on the used market. The reason I mention this option is the ability to use the lens with the Canon 1.4X and 2X extenders, which could prove useful and will certainly be a bonus if you already own the extenders.
Or a new Sigma 180mm macro, which again, gets excellent reviews and can certainly deliver the goods. According to Warehouse Express this lens would be £39 over your budget but a search on the web would perhaps find one for under £500.
If you havn't already, check out Juza's excellent images in his Macro gallery for a good selection of images taken with the Sigma macro lens (with and without converter's) and some from the Canon 180mm too. There's also some good articles/reviews of the Sigma 180mm macro in his 'articles' section.
Posted by Andy Astbury on October 5, 2008 at 3:30 AM
Hi Graeme - spend the extra and get a Sig 180mm.
Those extra 30mm make all the difference - it's a lot easier to get control of your background than with the 150mm.
And with a 150mm you'll need to get just that bit closer to your subject to get a frame-filling image, which can be somewhat problematic even with the longer lens.
It's a tack sharp lens with lovely contrast.
Yes a Canon lens will hold its value more when you come to sell it, but to be honest I don't think you ever would sell it mate as you'd be too pleased with your results.
The Sig 180 is worth a lot more than its retail price - don't for one second think you are buying an inferior lens.
I wouldn't get rid of mine even if Nikon GAVE me a 200mm - why - because it works.
I Don't know what the price structure is over there Graeme but my thoughts lean heavily The Sigma 180mm retails here in Au for about $1500.00 if you can get one I got mine at this time last year and extremely happy with my purchase. Getting some great winning shots with it.
Charles R. Kerr
Posted by Fran French on October 5, 2008 at 4:24 AM
I too recommend the Sig 180 if you can run to it. It is a lot cheaper than the Canon equivalent, and the image quality is just as good, if not better, certainly worth it for the price. The extra working distance is a bonus too. I would keep saving for a little longer....you won't regret it.
Personally, I would only consider the Sigma 150 or 180. I have the 150 and can't fault it. The extra focal length of the 180 would come in handy at times I'm sure. They're both great lenses.
Matt
Posted by John Robinson on October 5, 2008 at 6:51 AM
Hi Graeme - I agree with Matt.
I am only just getting used to the 150 Sigma but its a great lens. Personally though I like a shorter focal length as I have used a standard lens and close up lenses for years. I might even have gone for a 100mm macro if one had presented itself !
I don't seem to have a great problem getting close to the stuff I do but then I've got all the time in the world. I just used to find it nice to wander around the forest with a camera and standard lens with close ups
The 150 has a tripod collar which is great. You might find the longer ones good for Dragonflies etc. Don't forget camera shake which obviousley gets worse as the lens gets longer. There is the blurring of the background which also gets more noticeable as the lens gets bigger but there's not that much difference. I personally find carting a tripod around a pain, but then again my bones are weak. I got my 150 from One Stop Digital and cost £330
Hope that helps. Just my personal views.
Cheers
John
Posted by Rob Howard on October 5, 2008 at 7:38 AM
Posted by David Clapp on October 5, 2008 at 8:26 AM
You know what I am going to say, the Zork MFS and Rodenstock APO 90. Its the sharpest lens I own, no CA at all, Shoot it wide open at f4 or f22 there is no difference (other than DOF) You also get tilt, something exceptionally handy for macro as any TS-E 90mm shooters will tell you. Being able to keep shutter speeds up by tilting the plane of focus gives so much more versatility. Its extremely light, fits in your pocket, you can use up to 2 sets of extension rings together and get 5:1 images. I can get 'WA' in the bottom left corner of a Lexar CF card to literally fill the frame on a 5D. Its expensive but the most versatile macro there is and I wouldnt be without it. I have a 180mm Tamron that just sits at home now.
Posted by Barry Bland on October 5, 2008 at 10:00 AM
Hi,
Depends completely on what you want. DO you go for dragonflies and that sort of animals. Go for the 180mm.
If you're going for fungus or flowers I would advise go for around 100mm (Lighter, greater aperture, cheaper).
Posted by Graeme Lee on October 5, 2008 at 2:57 PM
Thanks for all the suggestions everyone. Most helpful. I would be shooting with my canon 1d2 and would like to get spiders, dragonflies perched and in flight and also Golden Eagles
Out of all the lens suggestions, would there be a clear winner for these sorts of shots? (exluding the latter of course!)
Posted by John Robinson on October 5, 2008 at 3:15 PM
The dragonflies and spiders in my opinion need different factors.
Others may not agree. It would be quite different doing a dragonfly in flight and a spider sitting still right in front of you. I even found it hard doing grasshoppers with the 150.
But as I say I like to be near the subject. Just personal choice.I would agree with Tom above.
Cheers
John
Out of all the lens suggestions, would there be a clear winner for these sorts of shots?
My vote would go to the Sigma 180mm macro with the possible option (but certainly not essential) of getting a matched converter at a later stage, if you felt the need.
Sigma 180 Macro... you can add the Canon Extenders by using a 12mm tube between the lens and extender, with very little loss in quality.... as Andy A says that extra 30mm makes quite a difference. It really is a great all rounder.
Phil
Posted by David Sewell on October 6, 2008 at 8:26 AM
I have looked at these replies with interest as I am also thinking of a new macro lens, and was mulling over the two Sigmas in my mind. I have always been pleased with a Tamron 90mm, but my autofocus version of this lens, that I have been been using for about 10 years now, just does not seem as sharp as its manual predecessor.
David
Posted by Brett Lewis on October 6, 2008 at 8:34 AM
I use the 150mm for all my macro work unless I use the 300mm F2.8 of course but that's a different story.. I am very pleased with all of the results I have been getting and once you know it's limitations you can then improve your field craft.. I think it is down to personal preference really and your versatility with the lenses.. I use field craft to get closer to the animals I work with but for some this can be more difficult so the extra 30mm is the option for them. I like the challenge..! and the extra touch of light with the F2.8.
Kind regards,
Brett.
Posted by Brett Lewis on October 6, 2008 at 9:15 AM
I use the 150mm for all my macro work unless I use the 300mm F2.8 of course but that's a different story.. I am very pleased with all of the results I have been getting and once you know it's limitations you can then improve your field craft.. I think it is down to personal preference really and your versatility with the lenses.. I use field craft to get closer to the animals I work with but for some this can be more difficult so the extra 30mm is the option for them. I like the challenge..! and the extra touch of light with the F2.8.
Discussion
17 repliesLooking to get a macro lens. Any recommendations? Something around £500 and below is my budget.
Appreciate any help
I can personally vouch for both the Canon 100mm macro and the Tamron 90mm macro having owned/used both for quite a few years. Image quality from both lenses is outstanding with little to choose from between them. The Canon is slightly better built and a little sleeker in use, not that the Tamron's build quality has ever been an issue in the slightest.
If I was buying from scratch I'd go for a 180mm macro lens for several reasons; the greater working distance (always a bonus for nervous subjects), the narrower angle of view for isolating the subject from it's background a little easier, the addition of a tripod collar for increased stability and the huge advantage of being able to switch from landscape to portrait format and vice versa.
I can't really think of any disadvantages (at least for outdoor nature) to the longer focal length macro's other than they're a bit more expensive and a bit heavier than the shorter macro's.
The Sigma 150mm macro seems to get rave reviews from every one who owns one and would come in at under your £500 budget.
Another option and probably the one I'd go for myself would be either, a secondhand Canon 180mm macro, although I'm not sure if the secondhand price would be within budget, nor how often they come up on the used market. The reason I mention this option is the ability to use the lens with the Canon 1.4X and 2X extenders, which could prove useful and will certainly be a bonus if you already own the extenders.
Or a new Sigma 180mm macro, which again, gets excellent reviews and can certainly deliver the goods. According to Warehouse Express this lens would be £39 over your budget but a search on the web would perhaps find one for under £500.
If you havn't already, check out Juza's excellent images in his Macro gallery for a good selection of images taken with the Sigma macro lens (with and without converter's) and some from the Canon 180mm too. There's also some good articles/reviews of the Sigma 180mm macro in his 'articles' section.
Those extra 30mm make all the difference - it's a lot easier to get control of your background than with the 150mm.
And with a 150mm you'll need to get just that bit closer to your subject to get a frame-filling image, which can be somewhat problematic even with the longer lens.
It's a tack sharp lens with lovely contrast.
Yes a Canon lens will hold its value more when you come to sell it, but to be honest I don't think you ever would sell it mate as you'd be too pleased with your results.
The Sig 180 is worth a lot more than its retail price - don't for one second think you are buying an inferior lens.
I wouldn't get rid of mine even if Nikon GAVE me a 200mm - why - because it works.
Get your money spent
Charles R. Kerr
Fran
Matt
I am only just getting used to the 150 Sigma but its a great lens. Personally though I like a shorter focal length as I have used a standard lens and close up lenses for years. I might even have gone for a 100mm macro if one had presented itself !
I don't seem to have a great problem getting close to the stuff I do but then I've got all the time in the world. I just used to find it nice to wander around the forest with a camera and standard lens with close ups
The 150 has a tripod collar which is great. You might find the longer ones good for Dragonflies etc. Don't forget camera shake which obviousley gets worse as the lens gets longer. There is the blurring of the background which also gets more noticeable as the lens gets bigger but there's not that much difference. I personally find carting a tripod around a pain, but then again my bones are weak. I got my 150 from One Stop Digital and cost £330
Hope that helps. Just my personal views.
Cheers
John
Another vote for the Sig 180
Keep an eye on this :
http://cgi.ebay.co.uk/Sigma-APO-MACRO-180mm-F3-5-EX-DG-IF-HSM-Lens-Canon_W0QQitemZ250303248178QQcmdZViewItem?hash=item250303248178&_trkparms=72%3A1301%7C39%3A1%7C66%3A2%7C65%3A12%7C240%3A1318&_trksid=p3286.c0.m14
Regards
Rob
Depends completely on what you want. DO you go for dragonflies and that sort of animals. Go for the 180mm.
If you're going for fungus or flowers I would advise go for around 100mm (Lighter, greater aperture, cheaper).
Out of all the lens suggestions, would there be a clear winner for these sorts of shots? (exluding the latter of course!)
Others may not agree. It would be quite different doing a dragonfly in flight and a spider sitting still right in front of you. I even found it hard doing grasshoppers with the 150.
But as I say I like to be near the subject. Just personal choice.I would agree with Tom above.
Cheers
John
My vote would go to the Sigma 180mm macro with the possible option (but certainly not essential) of getting a matched converter at a later stage, if you felt the need.
Phil
David
Kind regards,
Brett.
Kind regards,
Brett.