Best macro for Canon 50D

[Buckskin]

Hi, I just recently purchased a Canon 50D and was told that if I was to have just one lens, it should be the 80-200mm zoom, so that's what I bought. Now I would like to start taking close-up pics of my tank and would like a little advice on the best lens for this, realizing that the telephoto is not gonna cut it. Also, what is the difference between a 100mm zoom and a 100mm macro? Thanks.

[crvz]

I can't speak technically, but I think the biggest functional difference is the minimum focus distance. Being able to be inches away from a subject and take a picture (the macro lens) is a lot different than sitting across the room (regular zoom). Can you provide a link to the two different lenses you're trying to compare? The canon 100mm macro lens is awesome, by the way.

[Hendersonracing]

I have the 30d and use the 1:1:28 Canon Macro 100mm and love it!

[Loverotties]

Ask Dick!(Fishdaddy) He's the man about Nikon!

[Buckskin]

Yeah, I've heard good things about the Canon 100mm macro.. I am a bit of a novice at photography though, so let me ask a dumb question. Will other manufacturers lenses fit the Canon or are they all proprietary?

[chiapet]

Originally Posted by Buckskin

Hi, I just recently purchased a Canon 50D and was told that if I was to have just one lens, it should be the 80-200mm zoom, so that's what I bought. Now I would like to start taking close-up pics of my tank and would like a little advice on the best lens for this, realizing that the telephoto is not gonna cut it. Also, what is the difference between a 100mm zoom and a 100mm macro? Thanks.

80-200? or was it the 70-200 IS L 2.8?

As for macro, the 100mm 2.8 Canon lens is a high quality macro lens in the EF series. I also would recommend the 24-70 2.8 L lens but it is in the L series which means you will spend about 2.5 times as much as the 100mm macro ($500 vs about $1300).

You also asked/commented about non Canon lenses... without trying to offend anyone, you get what you pay for. This is not to say that Tamron or Sigma lenses can't capture great photos. As an example, it is just the same for Nikon users as it is for Canon users, you have to use good glass whether it be Nikkor or Canon. Some people love their non-Canon lenses.

[chiapet]

Originally Posted by Loverotties

Ask Dick!(Fishdaddy) He's the man about Nikon!

Who said anything about Nikon??

[Fat Tony]

Originally Posted by chiapet

80-200? or was it the 70-200 IS L 2.8?

As for macro, the 100mm 2.8 Canon lens is a high quality macro lens in the EF series. I also would recommend the 24-70 2.8 L lens but it is in the L series which means you will spend about 2.5 times as much as the 100mm macro ($500 vs about $1300).

You also asked/commented about non Canon lenses... without trying to offend anyone, you get what you pay for. This is not to say that Tamron or Sigma lenses can't capture great photos. As an example, it is just the same for Nikon users as it is for Canon users, you have to use good glass whether it be Nikkor or Canon. Some people love their non-Canon lenses.

It seriously depends on the lens. There are several Sigma lenses that I would choose in comparison with Nikon/Cannon lenses. I use the Sigma 100mm f2.8 1:1 Marco lens. Tamron's lens is also very good. Now with that said, I chose the sigma based on build quality and feel over the Tamron. I personally would have liked to buy the Nikkor version in VR, but I cannot see spending that kin of $$$ for a single purpose lens.

[Loverotties]

Originally Posted by chiapet

Who said anything about Nikon??

I know, after I realized! Had a blonde moment! Sorry!

[Buckskin]

I bought the Canon EF 80-200mm f/4.5-5.6. After buying the camera I just couldn't come up with $1200 more for the 70-200mm. Thanks all for the input. As for the macro, I'll probably opt for the Canon 100mm. It's only a little more than the Sigma or Tamron and sound like the better lens. Thanks again.

Originally Posted by chiapet

80-200? or was it the 70-200 IS L 2.8?

As for macro, the 100mm 2.8 Canon lens is a high quality macro lens in the EF series. I also would recommend the 24-70 2.8 L lens but it is in the L series which means you will spend about 2.5 times as much as the 100mm macro ($500 vs about $1300).

You also asked/commented about non Canon lenses... without trying to offend anyone, you get what you pay for. This is not to say that Tamron or Sigma lenses can't capture great photos. As an example, it is just the same for Nikon users as it is for Canon users, you have to use good glass whether it be Nikkor or Canon. Some people love their non-Canon lenses.

[firsthesitation]

I've got a 100mm Macro on order right now for my XTi, but they're on backorder EVERYWHERE. Apparently cannon had some kinda shortage in production so they're not avaliable right now. After doing the research it was the best lens for the price. I looked into Sigma and Tamron stuff but the Canon kept getting superior reviews.

[mikearoni]

I have heard and read of nothing but good things about the Canon 100 macro. I did plenty of research when I had my dslr, and really wanted to make this my next lens. Unfortunately for me, I did not get it and I ended up selling all my equipment. I had the 70-200L IS f/2, and that was truly an awesome lens. I miss my dslr setup. Reefing and Photography have to be two of the biggest money pits.

[dcmartinpc]

I would recommend nothing but the Canon 100mm f2.8 Macro. I own that lens and use it on my Canon 40D. It is one of the best lenses Canon makes optically. It competes with their top end 'L' series lenses and it takes AMAZING pictures!

The other brand macro lenses are OK, but I still think that the Canon bests all the other 100mm macros...

I also have the 70-200mm f2.8 IS lens (The REALLY expensive one, but I got a SWEET deal on it!) and it is NOT the lens for Macro, although it is an AMAZING lens. The minimal focus distance is close to 6 feet and even at 200mm, it has nowhere near the magnification ratio of the 100mm Macro. I also have the 17-55mm f2.8 IS lens, but again, it will only focus as close as 1.5 feet I think, so it has the same problem as the 70-200mm.

One other thing you might want to consider, if you have a little distance, the 100mm Macro makes a GREAT portrait lens. The picture quality is outstanding.

Don

[Hop]

I agree with everything Don said. The only problem with it as a portrait lens is sometimes it is too detailed and you have to soften the image up to get the imperfections of the skin and such that the lens picks up out

[Buckskin]

Man, I should have never posted on this forum! All I wanted to do was take a few pictures of my tank. Next thing you know, two grand...gone! I could seriously get into this, but the last thing I need is another expensive hobby.
On another note, I recently downloaded Gimp and have been playing around with it a little. Pretty cool! With a little imagination you could make some sweet tank pics!