Poll: Which Macro will you choose


Status
Not open for further replies.

scastyong

New Member
Mar 24, 2008
589
0
0
31
bukit batok
#1
Hi everyone, would like to do a survey before I get my hand on one of the macro lens. The 3 choices will be Canon EF 100 mm f/2.8 USM Macro , Tokian AF 100mm f/2.8 AT-X Pro D Macro, and Tamron AF 90mm f/2.8 Di SP Macro.

It would be good that if you can provide me the reason :)

Thanks for your time and valuable feedback :)
 

diver-hloc

Moderator
Staff member
Apr 17, 2007
5,213
13
38
Somewhere North
#4
TS..... you forgot to ask the most important question - "What is Your Buget ?" :sweat:

I would go for Canon EF 100mm f2.8 Macro if I got the cash..... if not, then save until I got the cash.

The Magic word being.... - Internal Focus !! :thumbsup:
 

scastyong

New Member
Mar 24, 2008
589
0
0
31
bukit batok
#5
The thing I want to have a price/performance lens and not just because internal focus man.
 

lennyl

New Member
Mar 27, 2008
1,520
0
0
Northern California
#7
The thing I want to have a price/performance lens and not just because internal focus man.
You asked for recommendation with reason, that's what you got - Canon 100mm because of internal focus. You did not even mention price / performance until now and you still haven't said what you intend to shoot with it.

Optically they're all excellent - you can hardly go wrong with a true macro lens. It's features like internal focus and AF motor that sets it apart. If internal focus and full time manual focus is not important to you, get the cheapest out of the 3 you can find.
 

scastyong

New Member
Mar 24, 2008
589
0
0
31
bukit batok
#8
You asked for recommendation with reason, that's what you got - Canon 100mm because of internal focus. You did not even mention price / performance until now and you still haven't said what you intend to shoot with it.

Optically they're all excellent - you can hardly go wrong with a true macro lens. It's features like internal focus and AF motor that sets it apart. If internal focus and full time manual focus is not important to you, get the cheapest out of the 3 you can find.
ok my scoop will be insect world and I guess every1 would just recommend me Canon.. haha.. wonder why others don't have internal focusing :p
 

lennyl

New Member
Mar 27, 2008
1,520
0
0
Northern California
#9
ok my scoop will be insect world and I guess every1 would just recommend me Canon.. haha.. wonder why others don't have internal focusing :p
Depending on the insect you may want to go longer than 100mm - I have the Canon, and some insects, especially butterflies, are kinda skittish. You can do it, but it takes patience.

For insects, working distance (distance from front of lens to subject at maximum magnification) is important. According to this article:

Tamron SP 90mm f/2.8 Di Macro Lens 3.9" (99mm)
Canon EF 100mm f/2.8 USM Macro Lens 6.0" (150mm)
Sigma 105mm f/2.8 EX DG Macro Lens 4.8" (122mm)
Sigma 150mm f/2.8 EX DG HSM Macro Lens 7.6" (194mm)

The article's author thinks that the Canon is worth the higher price (even including price for the lens hood).

I've noticed a trend here - when people ask for opinions between a few lenses, most people would recommend the most expensive automatically without any consideration as to suitability. However, in this case, those who recommend the Canon said why they'd choose it over the others, and the price difference is not prohibitive.

BTW what are the prices you've found for the 3 lenses in Singapore?
 

diver-hloc

Moderator
Staff member
Apr 17, 2007
5,213
13
38
Somewhere North
#10
Another thing..... Since Nikon already have a macro lens with VR..... when will canon have a 100mm macro MKII with IS ??:sweat:
 

lennyl

New Member
Mar 27, 2008
1,520
0
0
Northern California
#11
Another thing..... Since Nikon already have a macro lens with VR..... when will canon have a 100mm macro MKII with IS ??:sweat:
I don't know how useful IS would be for macro, but I hope Canon will produce it so that we can find out for ourselves. A 180mm macro IS would be sweet - if it doesn't weigh a ton and cost a couple of limbs or some other body part.
 

creampuff

Senior Member
Jul 11, 2006
5,116
1
0
Dover
#12
IF does make for a shorter lens at full extension but there is a trade-off.
The lens does this by progressively shortening its focal length. It gets to be a challenge to focus the lens without changing the magnification, so framing the subject from a fixed distance can be difficult.

The best macro which I can think off is the Voigtlander Apo-Lanthar 125mm f/2.5 SL. Beats everything imo. :thumbsup:
 

Leong23

Senior Member
Oct 18, 2007
3,186
5
0
within myself
#13
ok my scoop will be insect world and I guess every1 would just recommend me Canon.. haha.. wonder why others don't have internal focusing :p
For insect, the focal length does matter. IMHO, 100mm is too short.

I would recommend Sigma 150, Tamron 180 or Canon 180L.
Get the one that fit to your budget.
 

lennyl

New Member
Mar 27, 2008
1,520
0
0
Northern California
#14
The lens does this by progressively shortening its focal length. It gets to be a challenge to focus the lens without changing the magnification, so framing the subject from a fixed distance can be difficult.

The best macro which I can think off is the Voigtlander Apo-Lanthar 125mm f/2.5 SL. Beats everything imo. :thumbsup:
I don't get what you mean in the 1st sentence - can you explain?

Voigtlander - have a heart. I don't think the TS is interested in a manual focus only lens that is out of production.
 

HTCahHTC

Senior Member
May 9, 2008
896
0
16
#15
can some kind soul tell me the estimation price of Canon EF 100mm f/2.8 USM Macro Lens?
 

lennyl

New Member
Mar 27, 2008
1,520
0
0
Northern California
#16
can some kind soul tell me the estimation price of Canon EF 100mm f/2.8 USM Macro Lens?
From the price guide sticky in EOS forum :

EF 100mm f/2.8 Macro USM : (Yen82,000/US$470) RS$1,250
- CP $1,010 / MS $978 / TCW $950(Grey) / AP $1,029 / CP $790 / JO $820 / OP $780 / CP-M $810

Someone should edit it. Why are there two prices for CP - $1010 and $790? Which one is correct? I'd guess those around $800 is more accurate.
 

seefei

New Member
Mar 7, 2008
1,708
0
0
West Coast
#17
get one lens that fit your budget. trust me, taking pic of insects, the lens is the least important. you will probably be shooting at manual focus and trying very hard to keep the object in focus and sharp. technique counts too!

look at the macro gallery, there are fantastic pic from all the major camera bodies and lenses. hence, for getting one that fits my budget is more important as there is really no bad macro lenses.

if you check out the pentax equipment forum, there is a fella using a reverse cheapo lens (about 100 bucks) and still get fanstactic results! again prove that any lens will do if you got the right technique!!
 

scastyong

New Member
Mar 24, 2008
589
0
0
31
bukit batok
#18
Depending on the insect you may want to go longer than 100mm - I have the Canon, and some insects, especially butterflies, are kinda skittish. You can do it, but it takes patience.

For insects, working distance (distance from front of lens to subject at maximum magnification) is important. According to this article:

Tamron SP 90mm f/2.8 Di Macro Lens 3.9" (99mm)
Canon EF 100mm f/2.8 USM Macro Lens 6.0" (150mm)
Sigma 105mm f/2.8 EX DG Macro Lens 4.8" (122mm)
Sigma 150mm f/2.8 EX DG HSM Macro Lens 7.6" (194mm)

The article's author thinks that the Canon is worth the higher price (even including price for the lens hood).

I've noticed a trend here - when people ask for opinions between a few lenses, most people would recommend the most expensive automatically without any consideration as to suitability. However, in this case, those who recommend the Canon said why they'd choose it over the others, and the price difference is not prohibitive.

BTW what are the prices you've found for the 3 lenses in Singapore?
hm.. i always survey through HK webpage.. for canon - 680
Tamron should be around 450
and Tokina -490

Hm.. agree.. it doesn't mean higher price will give a lot better performance.. example EF 17-40 F/4L and EF 16-35 F/2.8L. the latter one is twice the price of 17-40 although the aperture is larger and quality is a bit better but the price is asking for too much.
 

scastyong

New Member
Mar 24, 2008
589
0
0
31
bukit batok
#19
I don't get what you mean in the 1st sentence - can you explain?

Voigtlander - have a heart. I don't think the TS is interested in a manual focus only lens that is out of production.
thanks man this lens is superb but 1st thing 1st it is discontinued and the price will be set by market in the forum which is now what I see as 1400 at least for that haha..
 

scastyong

New Member
Mar 24, 2008
589
0
0
31
bukit batok
#20
get one lens that fit your budget. trust me, taking pic of insects, the lens is the least important. you will probably be shooting at manual focus and trying very hard to keep the object in focus and sharp. technique counts too!

look at the macro gallery, there are fantastic pic from all the major camera bodies and lenses. hence, for getting one that fits my budget is more important as there is really no bad macro lenses.

if you check out the pentax equipment forum, there is a fella using a reverse cheapo lens (about 100 bucks) and still get fanstactic results! again prove that any lens will do if you got the right technique!!
hm.. dont get it what is reverse lens? which mean the lens can be mount the other way?
 

Status
Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom