# Macro lens for canon recommendation



## Dryn (Sep 6, 2007)

I have a canon digital camera (I'm not sure what model). I am looking to get a macro lens. I've seen other sites (aquatic-photography.com) and they are all using Nikons and other cameras. Does anyone have a canon with a macro lens that can make a recommendation? The one I've seen the most is the Canon EF 100mm f/2.8 USM Macro Lens which is only $150 while all the other ones are in the $500-$1000 range. Is this one too cheap?


----------



## bigstick120 (Mar 8, 2005)

Where did you see the Canon 100mm for 150.00? It is a great lens, I have it, but not 150.00!
http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/194451-USA/Canon_4657A006_100mm_f_2_8_USM_Macro.html
They also have and IS version, its about 1000.00
Canon also has a 60mm that is rated well. Without knowing your camera it may or may not fit.
http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/371176-USA/Canon_0284B002_EF_S_60mm_f_2_8_Macro.html

Sigma and Tamron also have high rated macro lens as well if those prices fit you budget.


----------



## Dryn (Sep 6, 2007)

That sounds more like it. I did a google search for canon macro lens and the first half dozen sites listed that price. I had though they were expensive. My camera was about $1200. I could almost buy a new one for the price of a macro lens but the hours of joy it will bring...


----------



## Dryn (Sep 6, 2007)

I don't know a lot about cameras (my wife is the photographer). I suppose 60mm wouldn't take as close a picture as 100mm?


----------



## bartoli (May 8, 2006)

Although I have never used the Canon MP-E 65mm macro lens, I found it very interesting:

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/Canon-MP-E-65mm-1-5x-Macro-Lens-Review.aspx

It can do up to 5 times of life size magnification. I wish Nikon has similar lens.


----------



## bigstick120 (Mar 8, 2005)

Dryn said:


> I don't know a lot about cameras (my wife is the photographer). I suppose 60mm wouldn't take as close a picture as 100mm?


You would need to be closer with the 60 then the 100mm. 60 is good if you are shooting large fish, ect. 100mm for shrimp and smaller fish, plants.


----------



## boink (Nov 29, 2006)

Did you ever decide which macro lens to get? I was thinking about getting the 100mm 2.8 USM. The MPE looks nice, but is a little expensive for a first macro lens.


----------



## barakainus (Jun 11, 2009)

I would say, get MPE if you can. You can always sell it with just little loss.
60 and 100mm does the same. The only difference is perspective (you won't notie in tank) and working distance. It can be problem is fish are to skittish or too far from front glass.
This will be even bigger problem for MPE.


----------



## saintly (Mar 22, 2009)

These are all taken with the MP-e and my canon 5d mk2



























this shot shows how hard it is to control DOF.










it's a tough lens to use and requires a lot of light...i mean a lot!


----------



## bosmahe1 (May 14, 2005)

saintly said:


> These are all taken with the MP-e and my canon 5d mk2
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Awesome pictures! I thought light and depth of field issues were tough with most macro lenses.


----------



## dodohead (Dec 2, 2009)

i was thinking of getting a 60mm efs macro but i think i'd rather get a 100mm 2.8 for distance and the fact it can be used on all the canon bodies. last time i checked, it was in the $500 range though

i did my hw on macro lenses a while back but from what i remember, the 100mm has better magnification than the 60mm but dont quote me on that.

im using a 18-55 kit lens for my 'macro' shots.. it doesnt quite cut it but its all i have at the moment. my other lenses are telezooms


----------

