buying a macro lens

[kzickovich]

I'm thinking of buying my first macro lens for my canon slr. I'm considering buying a Canon-100mm f/2.8 lens from best buy. Is this a good lens to start with or should I get a cheaper one and work with it for awhile before spending $540.00 on this?

 

[sassafrass]

That lens is very good it will also retain most of it's value I can think of no reason to get a lesser lens first ! To me it would be like getting a crappy skimmer (just a waste of money)
Regards , Lee

 

[TitusvileSurfer]

Your choice of lens is great but your choice of vendor is not. I would highly recommend B&H over Best Buy. They don't exactly have the "best buys" in my previous experiences.

http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/194451-USA/Canon_4657A006_100mm_f_2_8_USM_Macro.html

 

[rpk]

I agree with Titusvilesurfer about B&H over best buy. I also want this lens, that is when I can afford to get it. Here is a link to a review of this lens and other Cannon lenses.

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/Canon-EF-100mm-f-2.8-USM-Macro-Lens-Review.aspx

Ross

 

[drparker]

+1 for B&H and you still have a few days left to get the Canon rebate.

 

[IPT]

Love my 100mm f2.8, and B&H, Course I am biased being originally from NY, but I have literally met people all over the country who use B&H and love it.

 

[maroun.c]

I'm on the other side of the continent and had nothing but very good eperience with B&H

 

[Mache62]

what about this lens? it's a canon 100mm but 2.0 EF

http://www.jr.com/canon/pe/CAN_100MM_SL_F2USM/

 

[jthao]

macro lens for around $500..... that's killer!!!!!
the good macro lens for a nikon is $900!!!
because of the lens choices, sometimes I wish I would've went with a canon.

 

[sassafrass]

The canon f2.0 is not a macro lens Mache62

 

[Mache62]

Thanks Sassafrass. Is it not a macro because it telescopes?

 

[drparker]

<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=12933501#post12933501 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by Mache62
Thanks Sassafrass. Is it not a macro because it telescopes?

A macro lens can focus at very short lenghts and has 1x or 1:1 zoom factor. So the subject is actual size in the photo.

 

[Johngr]

Buying a macro lens

Buying a macro lens

Hi

I can thoroughly recommend the Canon 100mm macro lens and if you want to get my views in detail I've posted two personal reviews on my site.

The only feature missing is some form of image stabalization - but this applies to the other lenses too. (And of course Canon doesn't supply a lens hood)

As far as construction and image quality are concerned it's possibly the best in the Canon line up outside the L series.

The focussing is very fast and extremely quiet with the internal HSM system and the lens does not change length as you focus nor does the front element rotate.

Worth pointing out it's not only a great macro lens but a very useful medium telephoto as well.

It's well worth the money.

By the way although I'm a Canon user (450D) I have a Sigma wide and Tamron long standard zoom and I have no connection with Canon.

You won't be sorry if you get this lens.

Hope this helps

John

 

[Mache62]

I guess I just got confused because both of the 100mm lenses came up on J&R when I searched it. One had a shorter length then the other, but the shorter lens also stated 1:7.7 image ratio.

 

[drparker]

The 1 were talking about should be listed as 100mm f/2.8 Macro Not 100mm f/2.0 telephoto.

The 100mm f/2.8 is designed to be very fast macro or good telephoto. The 100mm f/2.0 is a faster(bigger aperture) telephoto lens lacking the macro feature.

 

[Mache62]

yes, I went back and looked and saw that it did say telephoto.

I'm going to order the macro this week...I can't wait.

 

[spline9]

FYI. The macro lens can be used for shots other than macros. I use it for landscapes and portraits *very frequently*.

 

[benihana]

I have the 100mm Macro and LOVE it! You definately will not regret getting it!

 

[MBZ]

Canon's 100mm f/2.8 Macro Lens - the best $500 I ever spent!

Mark

 

[maroun.c]

macro lens for around $500..... that's killer!!!!!
the good macro lens for a nikon is $900!!!
because of the lens choices, sometimes I wish I would've went with a canon.

jthao,
The canon 100 2.8 macro is not stabilized (no VR in Nikon terms) so it costs roughly the same as a nokon 105 Non VR. the VR version can be found for around 760 usd and not 900.
Also not really sure if that correlates or not, and not saying that the Nikon is better: the Canon 105 is not their best L glass however the Nikon 105 is ED glass which is their pro quality glass...
in the end noth are great choices but for 200 usd more I believe the 105 Vr is not really expensive