Best Macro Lens for Canon 5D

[Owen]

Quote: It's not about Nikon, it is about APS-C and Dx based camera's. But if you're happy with your setup, so be it. If you're happy, then I am too.

I'm sure you're aware that typing in Caps or Bold is yelling and an aggressive posture. Maybe not.

Bob

( Thankyou for the lesson in netiquette. I was under the impression that Caps was for aggression and Bold was for emphasis. )

Bob, you called me a liar on this forum. Of course I am upset. I stated in my first post that I tried my 200 Micro on a D2X and the colour reproduction was not up to snuff, for me. You then denigrate me in your last post by stating; " - I don't think you tried your 200 or 105 on a DX camera as your discussion on subject difference was apparently only based on film experience. -"

Why would I have said it if I hadn't tried it?

I apologise to the forum for my natural response to being called a liar.  
I would hope Bob, that you are gentleman enough to offer an apology for the denigration.
Sincerely,
Owen

[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=59706\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
[/quote]

[bob mccarthy]

JPlayer, I don't have the specifics you are looking for as the only Canon Macro I own is an old FD 100 which won't work on your 5D.

In general

Short FL's (50-60mm) - Compact, can often be used as a normal, subject to lens distance can get a little crowded at 1:1, some are better than others, plenty of tests about to compare quality, common in used market. Typically cheapest of Macros type lenses.

Long FL's(180-200) - bigger, biggest draw is significant subject to lens distance. shallow depth of field, subject to movement (camera or subject), usually good quality, not common in used market. Typically more expensive

Mid FL (100) - kind of a compromise between long and short, excellent portrait lens with FF camera (may have to blur (in PS) to take down detail in women). Not too short, not too long.

personally I'm biased towards 100mm with FF or 60mm for APS-C/DX dslr's.

Hope this helps,

Bob

[bob mccarthy]

Bob, you called me a liar on this forum. Of course I am upset. I stated in my first post that I tried my 200 Micro on a D2X and the colour reproduction was not up to snuff, for me. You then denigrate me in your last post by stating; " - I don't think you tried your 200 or 105 on a DX camera as your discussion on subject difference was apparently only based on film experience. -"

Why would I have said it if I hadn't tried it?

Well, I'll concede I responded to the "emphasis" in your post to BJL. Your first post didn't register.

I didn't ever call you a liar. Those are pretty strong words.

What I said is you can't put a 200 on a DX/APS-C chip camera and draw any comparison to the 200's use on a FF camera.  If you like the "perspective" of a 200 on a full frame, that is based upon subject distance. really nothing else. You can get the identical perspective with a shorter FL lense on a reduced chip camera.

Are you a FF zealot? If you are, thats OK, many are.

Out,

bob

[theophilus]

JPlayer-

You may want to consider whether or not you will ever hand-hold the lens.  The ~100mm varieties tend to be easier to hand-hold if you need too.  

Also if you want to do bugs, not just flowers, etc, then the extra working distance of the 150+mm lenses will come in handy and potentially save you from a bee sting

Good luck, I personally have a Canon 100mm coming in next week, and I'll have the money for a 5D together in a month.

[mistybreeze]

Since I used this thread for my 5D/Macro Lens research, I thought I would duplicate the following post I made on the thread I started:
http://luminous-landscape.com/forum/index....showtopic=10831

What is the best Macro, you ask? Is sure does depend on the application, doesn't it.

Once again, preliminary tests surprised me. I thought for sure I would LOVE the EF 180mm 3.5 (it's a great lens) but for the bulk of my Macro shooting needs, I have to say the 100mm 2.8 seems to fit nicely right where I need it. I sure wish it came with "L" glass, even though the area of focus seems sharp enough to please me.

First, the 180mm is not user-friendly for me. I use the Linhof Ballhead with a Quick Release Plate and the plate has to be removed from the bottom of the 5D and mounted to the tripod mount on the lens. (A spare could easily fix this issue.) Second, the lens is really heavy and removing the tripod mount is extra work to achieve awkward hand holding. Third, it takes me too far away from my subjects. And fourth, the 2.8 on the 100mm achieves the "editorial" feel that is my style.

For portraits, the 180mm took me 12 feet away from the subject and all I could get was a basic headshot. I have a great daylight studio but by NYC standards, it's a small space. 12 feet is nearing my maximum distance and I need more than just someone's head.

At 12 feet, the 100mm gave me a generous 3/4 body.  If I want a tight headshot, all I have to do is move in closer to the model.

The 180mm was an awful distance for editorial food. The camera has to be too far away to capture the outer edges of a single table setting and then there's no room to crop. The 100mm seemed perfect. I could sit at my favorite cafe in the South of France with little need to slide my chair back. With ease, I can get the whole table setting and/or come in tight on that lovely dessert. The 100mm feels VERY natural in my hands and I could see myself using it off the tripod a lot.

Other than butterflies, I have no desire to shoot insects or see insect hairs. I need a Macro that's as versatile as possible and gives me great "lifestyle" imagery. So far, the 100mm 2.8 looks like a keeper.

[JPlayer]

Misty, I have been reading your blog so thanks for your input. I particularly like the way your new experience in the search of best 5D lenses unfolds over time.
Very helpful too!