I am currently using the canon 50mm macro for close-up work. I have found, in some cases, that I am not able to get close enough to fill the frame with my subject... The 50mm will only achieve 1:1 reproduction ratios with canon's life size converter EF.
My question is am I OK buying the converter (about $250) or should I buy the 100mm macro (about $450). I think in either case I can use the macro port and extension ring I have now to accomodate the added length of the lens.
Any opinions/experience appreciated.
Thanks,
Hi Bill,
In my case, I got the Tamron 90mm Macro...the 50mm has been relegated to being a fish lens (mainly for anemone fish shots) and the 90mm as the primary macro lens...I found this to be the case when I was shooting film as well.
Stu
The 50mm with life size converter is OK but you have to get very close for 1:1 - sometimes too close for the creature's comfort. The 100mm USM macro lens is awesome and the autofocus is fast. Its also really useful as a fast portrait lens. I couldn't live without it! I eventually sold my life size converter as it was not being used.
I'm a 90mm Tamron user too, but I figure the 100mm Canon would be nicer - if you use AF for macro (with a reasonable USM, it would probably work quite well). Tamron is definitely for MF, IMHO. Optically I have no complaints. Because it's a fairly uncommon choice, port selection is a bit of an unknown (I asked aquatica this week, and they think something will fit)
I have to disagree...the Tamron AF works fine uw...yes, it doesn't have the speed of a ring USM, but it's rarely that the lens will hunt for me.
The Tamron needs a total port length of 145mm.
Stu
It works as well below water as above. In both situations, it depends on your subject whether the AF is suitable. I've been trying it mainly on moving subjects - with the 17-40L USM close up AF is realistic, with the Tamron I've found shooting in MF mode was easier.
I still like this lens (I've kept it for seven years now), but if cost had been no object at the time of purchase I would have gone with the Canon 100mm USM.
Thanks for the info on port length - it's a long lens at 1:1 and no manufacturer I've spoken to yet has had much/any experience with it.
Re: Canon users...macro lens question
Hi guys,
My question is am I OK buying the converter (about $250) or should I buy the 100mm macro (about $450). I think in either case I can use the macro port and extension ring I have now to accomodate the added length of the lens.
Thanks,
Hey DD,
I have both the Canon 50mm as well as the Sigma 50mm. The sigma is about $250, and will do 1:1 without the converter. It seems to be about a stop darker than the canon lens, but the AF seems to work about the same on my D60.
Just another option.
-jong
DD:
I have both the Canon 100 and the Sigma 50. Both have uses, the Sigma 50 does 1:1 without a converter and is a good fish lens. I use the 100 mm more than the 50 if I know I will be shooting only macro, we are diving San Clemente tomorrow and I will only take the 100. As for the Tamron, in my hands at least the AF is about half as useful as the Canon 100 both underwater and on top.
