Now that I've got a DSLR, which macro lens should I buy?

[Mandragen]

Man is there a lense that compares to that review in the Nikon field?

[Chris Witort]

Nikon makes some fine lenses, but i would say no.

[thirst]

Hows Canon EF 100mm F2.8 L IS USM Macro compared the the version without IS? I am trying to buy a good camera/lens without buying it brand new and forking over my life savings. I found a Canon 100 f2.8 USM Macro lens for sale. For someone who doesn't even own a camera right now, would I be able to notice the difference between the two?

Thanks for your help

[Brett9917]

Well for Canon, the IS means Image Stabilization, so it will correct some errors for you if your hand shakes from trying to hold for a long exposure. That being said, most aquarium shots, you are going to want/ need to use a tripod. Since you will be using a tripod, IS isn't necessary, and in fact, most people say to turn IS off (VR if you are a Nikon guy like me ) when using a tripod.

Now the first lens you mentioned is an L series, and the second one is not. I am not sure if you just left off the L for the second one, or if it isn't an L series. I believe the L series for Canon is the their top of the line lenses, Grade A professional stuff. I don't think some one who doesn't own a camera would be able to a huge difference between the two. I am not sure if I could, and I have been in the hobby for almost 3 years... haha

Anyways, good luck with your purchase, and looking forward to seeing some stuff on here.

PS: I am sure a Canon guy can chime in correct any information I messed up.

[Chris Witort]

I own the EF100mm and it is a great lens. It is good enough that unless you have used it for quite awhile and have some experience with macro photography it will take quite a while before you wished you had a better lens. The L IS USM 100mm is new and I haven't seen one. The DP review on it shows it to be an impressive improvement to the older 100mm. It isn't cheap and whether it's worth the difference in cost depends on your needs.

[Mandragen]

anyone tested or see anything wrong with this lense, Nikon 85mm f/3.5G AF-S DX Micro ED (VR-II) Vibration Reduction Telephoto Nikkor Lens - U.S.A. Warranty

[Mandragen]

Is it a Macro lense or no?

[laxing22]

Well, it is listed as a 'Micro' - not really sure what the real diff is, but really, true Macro I think really is Micro - not sure of the symantecs.

But... Per Nikkon -
Ideal for those new to macro photography, the AF-S DX MICRO NIKKOR 85MM F/3.5G VR boasts a 1:1 reproduction ratio, allowing photographers to get lifelike close-ups of more intricate textures and details, even down to the fine texture on flower petals or insect wings. On top of this, the VR II system provides both a steady viewfinder image for composition and sharper results at slow shutter speeds or when shooting movie clips.

[Brett9917]

Micro is Nikon's Macro...

[Mandragen]

thanks for the replies, yes I have done more research since posting, just gotta find some money, lol

[laxing22]

What lense are you going with? I am in the market too, but was looking at the 105 before you posted the 85 - not sure now

[Mandragen]

yeah everyday I'm back and forth about buying a nikon brand 85mm or going for the Sigma 105mm

I think it might just depend on the day I order the darn thing. I've heard that the most importan thing is to be able to fill the lens with the coral so zoom is key. This makes me think the 105mm sigma, I can't afford the 105mm nikon at this point. The only review that was sorta negative on the sigma was the auto focus, but when shooting macro it needs to be manual anyway. I think I'll probably end up going with the 105mm Sigma to save some money as I've read and heard good things.

[BlueCorn]

Both lenses provide the same magnification; 1:1. What the 105 gives you is slightly more working distance. In other words you can be a little further away and still get the same magnification.

[Mandragen]

sorry Beerguy, yeah that's what I meant to say. Not zoom but working distance, thanks for the correction

[A. IMPORTZ]

Originally Posted by thirst

Hows Canon EF 100mm F2.8 L IS USM Macro compared the the version without IS? I am trying to buy a good camera/lens without buying it brand new and forking over my life savings. I found a Canon 100 f2.8 USM Macro lens for sale. For someone who doesn't even own a camera right now, would I be able to notice the difference between the two?

Thanks for your help

I had both lenses, the old 100mm was good fast, and good picture quality but the new one is alot better, its an L lenses the picture quality is much better, much faster auto focus, i tried it out once and that was it, I dumped the old 100mm and went out and bought the IS one.

[Mandragen]

Is the sigma 150 an internal focus or does the lense extend? I'm still confused on the nikon 105 VR or the sigma 150.

[BlueCorn]

I believe that's internal focus. When you look at the specs on the Sigma 105 they mention dimensions and extended dimensions. The 150 only lists one dimension.

[Mandragen]

thanks, I see that now. I know when using a lense for Macro work you use a tripod, but it might be nice to be able to do hand held walking around outside. How big of a roll does VR play in this? Would I miss the VR of the nikon 105? Does anyone have the sigma 150, what do you think? I know I would probably be happy with either, as I don't have or never have had a macro to compare it to. I only have nikon glass now, hesitant to go third party. I am one that usually enjoys a higher magnification, plus shooting nature it could come in handy.

[BlueCorn]

The 150 gives you the same magnification as the 105VR; 1:1. What the 150 gives you is an additional 3" of working space. I rarely shoot anything without a tripod so I'm probably not the best one to ask about VR (or IS).

[Mandragen]

lol I always mess up my camera terms. so the distance between the 105 and the 150 is only 3"? Hmm, now it doesn't seem worth it to go 3rd party and give up the VR

[NEK-ap24]

Hi Beerguy,

I am new to photography but absolutely hooked on the Macro images I see. (I am still shopping for a camera)

I ew and ah at Ricordea in photos more than in aquariums I think!

I saw in the OP how you stated "(If you shoot Olympus, you'll want to be looking at their 35mm, with their 2x crop factor it's functionally equivalent.)"

A photographer friend recommended that I consider purchasing an Oylmpus E620 to me with a 50mm Macro. I see you recommended looking into a 35mm lens.

My friend has not done aquarium work, and I can't afford to get it wrong!
With the 2x crop factor would the 50mm Olympus be most like the 100mm canon/nikon? (which seem to be very popular macros on this forum) Can you offer any insight on 35mm vs 50mm Macros for Oylmpus for me.

Thanks

[BlueCorn]

Both lenses give you the same magnification. The 50 gives you additional working room.

[NEK-ap24]

Thanks for the fast reply,

Could the extra working room of the 50 over the 35 every bite me in the ***?

If I am understanding you correctly, this working room means that I could get the same shot from the 50 at say (made up #'s) 10" that I could with the 35 at 6". If so that doesn't seem to be a problem, if anything the extra working room would be helpful, as my stand has a 6" lip on the front. Not big enough for a tripod, but keeps me from being right next to the glass.

Hopefully I am not looking at this backward

[BlueCorn]

That's basically it. Both do 1:1 magnification. The 35mm needs to be about 6" away to get that, the 50 can be about 9.5"

I've never experience a downside to extra working distance, assuming everything else is equal; e.g. aperture.

[NEK-ap24]

Excellent, thanks again. Now to show my wife.... I am capable of being taught. On second thought, maybe she doesn't need to know. It will only raise expectations.