SC Reefaholic
Member
My wife is a photographer (See my avitar). She has been wanting a Macro lense to take wildlife pics (flowers/bugs/Etc) and pics of my tank. Can anyone give me a hint at a decent Macro lense to fit this camera under $300?
What Macro lense for a Cannon 50D?
- Thread starter SC Reefaholic
- Start date
You might find a used sigma 105mm or a tamron 90mm. Even that's pushing the 300 bucks.
look here.
http://www.reefcentral.com/forums/showthread.php?t=1762095
look here.
http://www.reefcentral.com/forums/showthread.php?t=1762095
SC Reefaholic
Member
OUCH! Just checked all these out. So you're saying I need to save up and bump my $300 budget to $500.
SC Reefaholic
Member
With those lenses she will be able to take clear ultra close up shots right? Like so you can count the hairs on a butterfly's leg?
SC Reefaholic
Member
Thats what she wants. Guess I better save up a little more. Thanks for the help!
+1 on the Sigma 105. Here's a quick vid with it that I shot right after i got my tank set up.
http://vimeo.com/30115483
http://vimeo.com/30115483
oceanseekers
New member
Hi There
I had a Canon 100mm and sold it for a Tamron 90mm. I found it much sharper than Canon, although the Canon is more silent, but the clever Barrel Shift from Auto to Manual is the best feature worth going for this lens
Here is a sample pic
I had a Canon 100mm and sold it for a Tamron 90mm. I found it much sharper than Canon, although the Canon is more silent, but the clever Barrel Shift from Auto to Manual is the best feature worth going for this lens
Here is a sample pic
That's just the mount on that "specific" lens. The Tamron is available for both Canon and Nikon.
I've owned the Sigma and Nikon's 105. I prefer the Nikon for everything except outer build quality. I've not had a problem with Nikon's, but the Sigma is heavier and seems to have less plastic. I also must say the Sigma was an older AF lens and the Nikon of that era was built with less plastic also.
I've owned the Sigma and Nikon's 105. I prefer the Nikon for everything except outer build quality. I've not had a problem with Nikon's, but the Sigma is heavier and seems to have less plastic. I also must say the Sigma was an older AF lens and the Nikon of that era was built with less plastic also.
Last edited:
I'm new to reef central, hope no one minds this as my first post 
One thing other responders haven't touched on is that this lens is going to pull double duty for your wife. The lenses mentioned are all good macro lenses, however there's something to keep in mind.
Virtually all 1:1 true macro lenses are very good optically, so any lens is going to be very much like the next whether its made by Nikon, Canon,Sigma,Tammy.
So what sets them apart?
Price and focal range. The more focal range you want, the higher the sticker.
The difference between a 60mm, 100mm, 150mm, 180mm 1:1 Macro?
Whats known as working distance, or more accurately the lenses minimum focus distance or MFD.
Why should you think about focal range?
Because you wife wants it to shoot bugs, flowers, nature stuff.
So while a 60mm or 100mm will do perfectly fine for shooting fish in a barrel, if your wife really wants to do nature subjects, the more working distance she has, the better.
To give you an idea. ( I have to guess at 100mm as I don't own it)
A 100mm macro lens will have a MFD of roughly 6-8inches
My 180mm has a MFD of 18 inches.
If you were a bug and very low on the food chain, how would you feel with a great big black eye hovering over you that's 4 inches away? 6 inches away? or 18inches away? Then to, when shooting Macro light is very touch and tricky. The more "working" distance you have, the less likely a shadow being cast by your lens/body will get in the way.
Why did I buy the 180mm (at more $)?
Because I'm a professional, however I shoot for various outdoor/wildlife and nature magazines. More "working" distance. Thats important when shooting insects, butterflies,etc who don't like big scary looking things hovering over them.
I am not saying you "have" to get a longer lens, but if you can save and get it in the budget, your wife will appreciate having the extra working distance.
One thing other responders haven't touched on is that this lens is going to pull double duty for your wife. The lenses mentioned are all good macro lenses, however there's something to keep in mind.
Virtually all 1:1 true macro lenses are very good optically, so any lens is going to be very much like the next whether its made by Nikon, Canon,Sigma,Tammy.
So what sets them apart?
Price and focal range. The more focal range you want, the higher the sticker.
The difference between a 60mm, 100mm, 150mm, 180mm 1:1 Macro?
Whats known as working distance, or more accurately the lenses minimum focus distance or MFD.
Why should you think about focal range?
Because you wife wants it to shoot bugs, flowers, nature stuff.
So while a 60mm or 100mm will do perfectly fine for shooting fish in a barrel, if your wife really wants to do nature subjects, the more working distance she has, the better.
To give you an idea. ( I have to guess at 100mm as I don't own it)
A 100mm macro lens will have a MFD of roughly 6-8inches
My 180mm has a MFD of 18 inches.
If you were a bug and very low on the food chain, how would you feel with a great big black eye hovering over you that's 4 inches away? 6 inches away? or 18inches away? Then to, when shooting Macro light is very touch and tricky. The more "working" distance you have, the less likely a shadow being cast by your lens/body will get in the way.
Why did I buy the 180mm (at more $)?
Because I'm a professional, however I shoot for various outdoor/wildlife and nature magazines. More "working" distance. Thats important when shooting insects, butterflies,etc who don't like big scary looking things hovering over them.
I am not saying you "have" to get a longer lens, but if you can save and get it in the budget, your wife will appreciate having the extra working distance.
SC Reefaholic
Member
Excellent point. Thanks for the input.
Thanks ReefBass.
Re pics.
Be careful what you wish for, photography is the real love of my life. I could bore you with pics with what I do for fun and what I do for editorial (publishing) but not sure this is the place
I am just returning to SW after a long hiatus. Tanks cycled, last of a diatom bloom fading and I'm keeping an eye on my NO3 (currently 3.0) and phosphate (.25) and just starting to bring it to life. Next while won't be much more than a few fish (clowns initially) and building up the CuC, so not much to point my lens at yet. I am itching to start shooting the life that's coming and playing with a a lot of different lenses, set ups, lighting etc.
J
Re pics.
Be careful what you wish for, photography is the real love of my life. I could bore you with pics with what I do for fun and what I do for editorial (publishing) but not sure this is the place
I am just returning to SW after a long hiatus. Tanks cycled, last of a diatom bloom fading and I'm keeping an eye on my NO3 (currently 3.0) and phosphate (.25) and just starting to bring it to life. Next while won't be much more than a few fish (clowns initially) and building up the CuC, so not much to point my lens at yet. I am itching to start shooting the life that's coming and playing with a a lot of different lenses, set ups, lighting etc.
J
not sure this is the place
Let us decide that. There are quite a few of us that don't shoot our tanks for one reason or another, (mine's a bowfront). Everything else pretty much is fair game. No nudes, links to other reef sites and just basic common sense, (this is a family friendly board). We have bugs, moose, sunsets and sunrises. Birds, trees, flowers and pretty much everything else.
There's some really good amatures, and a couple great pros. We do like to shoot anything.
And as RB said, Welcome to Reef Central. Post away!!!!
Similar threads
