Cannon Rebel XTI - Macro lens

[spooda420]

I have recently bought a cannon rebel XTI I am looking for a good macro lens and a good all around shooting lens for friends, family, vacations etc. I get confused easily when looking at the massive amounts of lenses that fit my camera.

Can anybody make a a suggestion? please.

 

[Blazer88]

You are going to have to pick which you want, a macro or all-around lens as one won't do both. For a good macro lens, look at the EF 100mm F/2.8, EF-S 60mm F/2.8, or Sigma 150mm F/2.8. All will take great macro pictures but not very good for friends, family, vacations.

 

[Siffy]

Is the EF 100mm worth the extra money over the EF-S 60mm? I've compared the 2 a bit and it seems the 60mm would be better since the closest focus range is smaller than the 100mm. I'm considering purchasing a Rebel XTi myself (unless anyone else has better suggestions) and curious what I'm getting myself into final costs wise.

 

[bigfish52]

I also have the Rebel XTi and am undecided between the Canon 100mm and 60mm Macro lenses. B&H Photo has the 60 in stock for $359 (after rebate), the 100 is about $90 more, but is out of stock.
I could wait for the 100 if it's really worth it (after all, patience is what I've learned in this hobby). Does anyone have comments about taking tank photos with the 60mm macro?

 

[Mrs. PL-Reef]

I have the Canon 100mm macro, it's a great lens. I have no experience with the 60, but did recently rent the sigma 150 for my husband and he liked it.
It's really all about your budget, but always remember 'you get what you pay for'
Siffy- as for your final costs it all depends on how much you get into photography, it's not a cheap hobby by any means. Look around on some photography forums and look at prices for lenses you may be interested in the future to help you understand more of what you are getting into price wise would be my best advice.

 

[Siffy]

This is a photography forum. It's just if I get more into it right here I'd feel like I'm thread stealing. ... Ok, I'll just start a new one.

 

[Stixbaraca]

Here's an idea...go to www.rentglass.com and rent them both and see what you like! The 60mm rents for $21 for a week...and the 100mm rents for $23 for a week. Then you'll know exactly what both can do, and you won't be disappointed!

 

[PL-Reef]

i really liked the Sigma 150mm. awesome lens! i defiantly like it better than the Canon 100mm.

 

[jeffbrig]

<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=10025750#post10025750 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by Siffy
it seems the 60mm would be better since the closest focus range is smaller than the 100mm.

The closest focus being smaller is actually a negative, not a positive. Both are capable of taking a picture at 1:1 magnificantion. The 60mm, because of its shorter focal length, has to get closer to do so. The 100mm can still achieve 1:1 at greater distances. The 150mm sigma can do 1:1 even further still.

None of them are capable of focusing any closer than what would give you 1:1. At least not without extension tubes, diopters, etc.

When taking macro shots in a tank, you can always back up. You can't go forward once you've hit the glass. When photographers look at macro lenses, a common term is the "working distance", i.e. how far away can I be from something and still capture it at 1:1.

 

[Blazer88]

I would also weigh the fact that the Canon EF 100mm will take extension tubes and TC's for more magnification (the Kenko TC will work, not the Canon one). Those accessories won't work on the EF-s mount. I have the EF-s 60mm for general fish shots since it's small, light, and very easy to hand-hold when taking shots. I keep my Sigma 150mm around for more "macro" shots and I'll use extension tubes and/or TC's. While they are both macro lenses, I think they serve different purposes.

 

[bureau13]

I bought the EF-S 60mm, and while I've generally been pleased with the quality of pictures it takes, I think I wish I had gone with the 100mm. My biggest problem is that, unless something is right up next to the glass, I can't get close enough. I think at some point it might make sense (for me anyway) to get that Sigma and have it to use alongside the 60mm. Had I just purchased the 100mm the first time, I would probably be perfectly happy with that one by itself.

jds

 

[yetti]

<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=10025750#post10025750 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by Siffy
Is the EF 100mm worth the extra money over the EF-S 60mm? I've compared the 2 a bit and it seems the 60mm would be better since the closest focus range is smaller than the 100mm. I'm considering purchasing a Rebel XTi myself (unless anyone else has better suggestions) and curious what I'm getting myself into final costs wise.

Absolutely....I've got it and am still amazed at the capabilities of this lens.

 

[Blazer88]

<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=10043222#post10043222 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by bureau13
I bought the EF-S 60mm, and while I've generally been pleased with the quality of pictures it takes, I think I wish I had gone with the 100mm. My biggest problem is that, unless something is right up next to the glass, I can't get close enough. I think at some point it might make sense (for me anyway) to get that Sigma and have it to use alongside the 60mm. Had I just purchased the 100mm the first time, I would probably be perfectly happy with that one by itself.

jds

This is exactly why I bought two lenses. The 60mm is great for fish shots when I don't want to use a tripod. The Sigma 150mm gives me the reach to get 1:1 almost to the back of my tank but it's much more difficult to use for hand-held shots. The 100mm is a great lens, it just sort of fell in between focal lengths for me. The 100mm is a great compromise for those who don't want to spend almost $1K for two different lenses.

 

[Siffy]

The general recommendation to have the best available would be to purchase both an EF-s 60mm and a Sigma 150mm? That would be worth the money?

 

[Blazer88]

<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=10045161#post10045161 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by Siffy
The general recommendation to have the best available would be to purchase both an EF-s 60mm and a Sigma 150mm? That would be worth the money?

I don't know if it would be the general recommendation but I thought it was worth it and I'm glad I bought both. This was only after using the 100mm for about a year or so and I saw the purpose to upgrade. Not everyone will see the need to upgrade into two different lenses though.

 

[Siffy]

Is the Sigma 150 that much heavier and bulkier than the EF-s 60? I'm wondering why you'd want the 60 at all if that's not the case. Is the 150 just awkward to use without a tripod? I'd be the type not to stand any frustration with not having the correct lens. It would just irritate me after having bought a $1000 in camera and equipment just to not have it do exactly what I want.

 

[jeffbrig]

It's not so much the size as the ability to hold it perfectly still. By the standard rule of thumb, at 60mm, you want to be at 1/60s shutter or faster to avoid motion blur that destroys sharpness. Macro is sometimes even harder than traditional lenses in this respect. At 150mm, you'll need to be much faster, at least 1/150. But, because depth of field is even more compressed at 150mm, you'll need a narrow aperture, making it hard if not impossible to get the shutter speed you'd need for handheld.

IME, for a truly jaw-dropping sharp macro, you're going to want a tripod.