Hello,
Please don’t sucked into the Zeiss marketing BS. Go out and try these lenses for yourself.
Cheers
Simon
I sort of want to let the glass decide.
Does anyone have experience with Nikon's 105mm, Canon's 100mm, or Sigma's 105mm macro lenses (in any of their various iterations)? Because I take so many flower close-ups, my main concerns are: sharpness at ~f/5.6, great color, and smooth bokeh.
Thanks in advance!
There are plenty of good macro lenses for both Nikon and Canon, but you might take into consideration the sheer convenience of having an articulating screen for tripod shots and low-level or high-level shots. This is a truly back-saving invention. Also, because most of my critical manual macro focusing is done on live view in 5x or 10x mode, I think that an articulating screen is much more useful than a 90 degree optical viewfinder attachment.
I use a Canon 100 L IS macro with the 60D. Contrary to the general belief, the IS can be extremely useful when shooting handheld. For example, I shot this flower at ISO 400 handheld. It was very windy this day (this a coastal location, in the dunes), so I used IS and AI servo, as the flower was bouncing around. I wanted a high shutter speed.
I can highly recommend this lens with the 60D. Also very useful is the rotating screen for shooting low to the ground. Really, I can not imagine a macro lens more useful, high quality, and flexible than this one. The IS is also very useful for non-macro photography.
This is good to know. The perfectionist in me tends to not shoot unless the wind has settled and the tripod is set up, but it's still something to keep in mind.
Hi,
When you wait for the wind to settle, you won't get many outdoor macro shots. Flash may be required to freeze subject motion and camera shake with the extreme close-ups, but a macro lens with AF will at least allow to track moving stuff and get/keep it in focus:
Cheers,
Bart
This is good to know. The perfectionist in me tends to not shoot unless the wind has settled and the tripod is set up, but it's still something to keep in mind.
If you're looking solely for image quality, and you're using a tripod for your macro work (as most quality macro shooters do), then I would forget about the 100-105 mm range altogether and go with 180-200mm macro lenses.
For starters, you get more distance between you and the subject, which means your background bokeh will be much smoother and creamier than a 100mm can possibly deliver.
Regaring the IS (or VR) of some of the newer 100/105 mm macro lenses, these are really for hand-held fieldwork, involving moving subjects like insects and such, where lighter weight (IS and flash use) can really come in handy.
But if you're taking your time composing artistic shots of flowers, which pretty much just sit there (as do some butterflies/insects, etc.), and if you're using a tripod, then you have no need for IS at all, and the heavier weight of a 180-200mm won't matter.
Finally (regarding flash), I certainly haven't seen a flash shot that compares to the subtle pastel-like colors of the best macro shots taken in optimal natural light. But that is just my opinion. Good luck.