recommendation for macro lens for canon 550d


saDdyJ86

New Member
Jul 29, 2010
143
0
0
#1
hi guys, mind if i ask what are the macro lens available for canon 550d? and also roughly what are the differences between each lens brand? thanks.
 

Csboi

Senior Member
Jul 18, 2011
1,078
0
36
Pulau Ubin
#3
hi guys, mind if i ask what are the macro lens available for canon 550d? and also roughly what are the differences between each lens brand? thanks.
Basically there are quite a number of macro lens available. From Canon brand to 3rd party lens like Sigma and Tamron, so depends on your budget.
 

saDdyJ86

New Member
Jul 29, 2010
143
0
0
#4
Basically there are quite a number of macro lens available. From Canon brand to 3rd party lens like Sigma and Tamron, so depends on your budget.
currently i have no budget in my mind right now, what i would want to know is what the lens available and their comparison between each brand actually. :)
 

Aug 23, 2010
148
0
16
#6
I have not tried other 3rd party macro lenses before but having owned the canon 100m f2.8 macro on my 550d, i would say go for it! 2nd hand only cost ~$600, and its ridiculously sharp even at 2.8, superb throughout stopped down.
 

saDdyJ86

New Member
Jul 29, 2010
143
0
0
#7
I have not tried other 3rd party macro lenses before but having owned the canon 100m f2.8 macro on my 550d, i would say go for it! 2nd hand only cost ~$600, and its ridiculously sharp even at 2.8, superb throughout stopped down.
but there're 2 different canon 100mm f2.8 lens. one have the IS and the other one have the non IS. but without the IS, wouldn't the image be blurry?
 

Csboi

Senior Member
Jul 18, 2011
1,078
0
36
Pulau Ubin
#8
but there're 2 different canon 100mm f2.8 lens. one have the IS and the other one have the non IS. but without the IS, wouldn't the image be blurry?
If you can afford the IS version, that would be the best, otherwise tripod helps! :D
 

saDdyJ86

New Member
Jul 29, 2010
143
0
0
#9
If you can afford the IS version, that would be the best, otherwise tripod helps! :D
but how servere will the image come out to be without the help of tripod? :)
 

Csboi

Senior Member
Jul 18, 2011
1,078
0
36
Pulau Ubin
#10
but how servere will the image come out to be without the help of tripod? :)
Hmm I never take macro before. Haha so I can't tell you the exact answer, but I believe it will definitely affect the image, but how much I am not too sure :p
 

spree86

Senior Member
Feb 3, 2009
4,774
0
0
Bishan
www.flickr.com
#11
Csboi said:
If you can afford the IS version, that would be the best, otherwise tripod helps! :D
Not the tripod, for macro, one would be using flash, so no issue of camera shake
 

rhino123

Moderator
Staff member
Sep 1, 2006
5,243
15
38
NA
#12
Hmm I never take macro before. Haha so I can't tell you the exact answer, but I believe it will definitely affect the image, but how much I am not too sure :p
but how servere will the image come out to be without the help of tripod? :)
Frankly... it will notaffect the picture much if you shoot at fast enough shutter speed, practice correct breathing and holding techniques, in the past, people do not have the luxury of having image stabilizing system, and still they can shoot fabulous macro shots. And many of our CSers shoot macro shots without a stabilize lens or body, and some even go with no support (handholding the lens) and they can achieve very very sharp and detailed photos, so all these craps about lens without IS would definitely affect pic quatity is alot of bull.

One thing to be clear, picture will not be affected whether you have IS or don't have IS... IS is there as image stabilizing system, and it kind of help in stabilizing your lens to prevent blur cause by shakes on the lens or camera body.

And you do not need tripod (although tripod would definitely help you alot) for macro shoot, you can use a monopod for extra stabilization too... but an external flash is almost a must for most shoot.

Also there are brands like Tamron (180mm and 90mm), Sigma (105mm and 150mm), Canon (100mm w IS, 100mm w/o IS and 180mm), also Tokina (100mm)

Other then these options, you can try other options like using extension tubes, closeup lens, reverse lens, stacking of lens, etc etc.
 

Last edited:
Aug 23, 2010
148
0
16
#13
but there're 2 different canon 100mm f2.8 lens. one have the IS and the other one have the non IS. but without the IS, wouldn't the image be blurry?
why would it be blurry if you can attained a high enough shuttle speed or use flash or mount on tripod??

it depends on your technique, sometimes i used it as walk around, i dont get image blur at 1/60 if i have enough time to stabilize myself, while sometimes i just snapped and go, even at 1/200 the image would be abit blurry
it all boils down to your handholdability technique
 

saDdyJ86

New Member
Jul 29, 2010
143
0
0
#14
Not the tripod, for macro, one would be using flash, so no issue of camera shake
so when shooting macro, we shouldnt be using tripod, but use flash instead? if use flash, wouldn't the image be too bright? correct me if i'm wrong. :)
 

saDdyJ86

New Member
Jul 29, 2010
143
0
0
#15
Frankly... it will notaffect the picture much if you shoot at fast enough shutter speed, practice correct breathing and holding techniques, in the past, people do not have the luxury of having image stabilizing system, and still they can shoot fabulous macro shots. And many of our CSers shoot macro shots without a stabilize lens or body, and some even go with no support (handholding the lens) and they can achieve very very sharp and detailed photos, so all these craps about lens without IS would definitely affect pic quatity is alot of bull.

One thing to be clear, picture will not be affected whether you have IS or don't have IS... IS is there as image stabilizing system, and it kind of help in stabilizing your lens to prevent blur cause by shakes on the lens or camera body.

And you do not need tripod (although tripod would definitely help you alot) for macro shoot, you can use a monopod for extra stabilization too... but an external flash is almost a must for most shoot.

Also there are brands like Tamron (180mm and 90mm), Sigma (105mm and 150mm), Canon (100mm w IS, 100mm w/o IS and 180mm), also Tokina (100mm)

Other then these options, you can try other options like using extension tubes, closeup lens, reverse lens, stacking of lens, etc etc.
why would it be blurry if you can attained a high enough shuttle speed or use flash or mount on tripod??

it depends on your technique, sometimes i used it as walk around, i dont get image blur at 1/60 if i have enough time to stabilize myself, while sometimes i just snapped and go, even at 1/200 the image would be abit blurry
it all boils down to your handholdability technique
ic. so in other word, am i right to say a canon 100mm w/o IS macro lens is good enough? well, if compare with those 3 brand (tamron, sigma and canon), which are better? and which are the cheapest? and for macro lens, is it wise to go above 100mm? or just stay at 100mm is enough? i never use macro lens before, so i have no clue having bigger mm will affect what kind of difference. :)
 

Rashkae

Senior Member
Nov 28, 2005
19,105
12
0
#16
so when shooting macro, we shouldnt be using tripod, but use flash instead? if use flash, wouldn't the image be too bright? correct me if i'm wrong. :)
For macro photography, you will frequently close the aperture down as far as f/16 to f/22 just to get sufficient DOF. The only way to get adequate illumination is with a flash.

Also, the power output of a flash can be adjusted.

Are you sure you are ready for all this? Maybe you should join a macro outing, read the macro FAQ on here and all over the internet first, and try try try.

As for "waht lens?" there are SO MANY different lenses, with different focal lengths. You need to know what you will be shooting, what focal length you need, then you can go to google and search for the reviews.
 

Rashkae

Senior Member
Nov 28, 2005
19,105
12
0
#17
ic. so in other word, am i right to say a canon 100mm w/o IS macro lens is good enough? well, if compare with those 3 brand (tamron, sigma and canon), which are better? and which are the cheapest? and for macro lens, is it wise to go above 100mm? or just stay at 100mm is enough? i never use macro lens before, so i have no clue having bigger mm will affect what kind of difference. :)
1. Good enough if you have sufficient light and fast enoguh shutter speed.
2. All good. Read reviews, educate yourself.
3. Cheapest: Depends on which focal length. Look at the priceguides section for prices.
4. 30mm, 50mm, 90mm, 100mm, 180mm, 200mm, all depends on what you need to shoot. You are the photographer, you need to understand the focal length you need for what you plan to shoot.
 

spree86

Senior Member
Feb 3, 2009
4,774
0
0
Bishan
www.flickr.com
#18
saDdyJ86 said:
so when shooting macro, we shouldnt be using tripod, but use flash instead? if use flash, wouldn't the image be too bright? correct me if i'm wrong. :)
No it would not be too bright. You just need to know how to control and diffuse your flash. Tripods are not necessary, it's up to personal preference. Also, for night macro shoots, I don't think you would want the use a tripod, the places are too dark not to use a flash.
 

saDdyJ86

New Member
Jul 29, 2010
143
0
0
#19
1. Good enough if you have sufficient light and fast enoguh shutter speed.
2. All good. Read reviews, educate yourself.
3. Cheapest: Depends on which focal length. Look at the priceguides section for prices.
4. 30mm, 50mm, 90mm, 100mm, 180mm, 200mm, all depends on what you need to shoot. You are the photographer, you need to understand the focal length you need for what you plan to shoot.
well. actually i'm looking into canon 100mm IS/non IS and sigma 150mm f/2.8 ex gd hsm macro lens, but nv use sigma lens before, so don't know how is it. or perhap consider getting macro filter?
 

Top Bottom