[limpidglitch]

The Canon 100mm 2.8 (non-L) has been a longtime darling for macro photographers, for pro and butget shooters both.
But the Tamron and Canon 60mm, and Sigma 70mm seem very interesting too. There is much to choose from.

 

[Planar_head]

I wouldn't want my first lens and only lens to be a 100mm Macro.

Even my 50mm Macro is too long of a focal length sometimes.

Why don't you just get a 35mm Macro? An unpracticed photographer with a 100mm macro is just asking for disappointment, since inevitably you'll blow your budget on a tripod, some flashes, flash modifiers...

Heck, skip the macro till later and just get a 18-55 or 17-50 or whatever happens to be available for the camera mount you're looking for. Some of these lenses can focus pretty close as well.
My kit lens can focus down to 10 inches at 55mm, which is really not bad, for what it is.

The above is especially important if you haven't felt you've been severely limited by the camera you currently own.

 

[cifani090]

Quote:

I wouldn't want my first lens and only lens to be a 100mm Macro.
Even my 50mm Macro is too long of a focal length sometimes.
Why don't you just get a 35mm Macro? An unpracticed photographer with a 100mm macro is just asking for disappointment, since inevitably you'll blow your budget on a tripod, some flashes, flash modifiers...
Heck, skip the macro till later and just get a 18-55 or 17-50 or whatever happens to be available for the camera mount you're looking for. Some of these lenses can focus pretty close as well.
My kit lens can focus down to 10 inches at 55mm, which is really not bad, for what it is.
The above is especially important if you haven't felt you've been severely limited by the camera you currently own.

Phaha, tripod, (maybe a flash),etc; ill be skipping. Ive taken pretty decent photo's, and i know what to look for, with a Canon S3i, and a P&S Canon.
 
@limpidglitch; i'll look into those lenses.

 

[limpidglitch]

I've never felt the need to have a macro lens shorter than 65mm, and that was on a crop sensor.
While a shorter lens (35, 40mm) could more conveniently double as an everyday normal prime, both due to focal length and small size, and they're often rather affordable too, they do have some serious shortcomings when doing actual macro photography.
Most limitations stem from the fact that you have to get so incredibly close up to the subject to get a sufficient magnification, typically just a few centimetres. That means 1: Good luck getting a close-up of a fly or other skittish small animal, 2: When positioned so close up to the subject just the lens casts a considerable shadow. In sunshine this limits the range of angles to shoot the subject from, and in overcast situations your subject will appear darker than the background no matter how you position yourself, and 3: If the subject you want to photograph is situated on the ground, you're pretty much forced to photograph it from above looking down, or at an angle of 30° or so tops.
 
As for zoom lenses, they can rarely do much better than 30% magnification or so, my old 17-85mm could do 20%. Some might find this sufficient.
 
So while while a 100mm lens might not be ideal for a novice (I wouldn't know, I jumped off the deep end, but in daylight there is no problem using it without assistance), a zoom or less than 50mm or so wouldn't be any better if it is actual macro photography you're planning to do.
 
To sum things up with a concrete suggestion: Whatever body you decide upon, a competent 60mm or so macro lens (100mm if you dare) and a consumer kit lens for peanuts off the used market.

 

[Planar_head]

The idea of my post was that cifani090 might want to use his DSLR for something other than macro. Having only a 100mm Macro on your DSLR is not want I'd call flexible.
Sure, a cheap kit lens solves that problem. Got no problems with that...

 

[limpidglitch]

I agree, a 100mm macro lens is a specialized tool.
While if would work well for portraits and similar on a FF camera, on a crop sensor you buy it for macro work exclusively.

 

[cifani090]

Quote:

The idea of my post was that cifani090 might want to use his DSLR for something other than macro. Having only a 100mm Macro on your DSLR is not want I'd call flexible.
Sure, a cheap kit lens solves that problem. Got no problems with that...

Well i do, dont get me wrong. Maybe i have the wrong perception of things, i need (several lenses, is what im probably getting at) that can do macro, good landscape pictures, and good pictures for reviews. Such macro shots would be for nib pictures for fountain pens, and cool shots all around. Landscaping pictures would be when im biking and i want to take scenic pictures or when im working and i walk outside and there is an aurora.
 

 

[keanex]

I'm no pro, but the lens kit that came with my girlfriends grandfathers T3i seems meh at best. I think it would have been better for him to get a different "multi-purpose" lens. He has some $130 Canon telephoto lens that I liked a lot and noticed a much better quality in the pictures over the lens kit, and even then people have told me it wasn't an ideal lens.

 

[raptor84]

Hey guys! its been awhile  
 

 

 

 

 
 

 

[james444]

Quote:

It's a Leica X1.

Hey, thanks for answering that question
 
Quote:

I wouldn't want my first lens and only lens to be a 100mm Macro.
Even my 50mm Macro is too long of a focal length sometimes.
Why don't you just get a 35mm Macro? An unpracticed photographer with a 100mm macro is just asking for disappointment, since inevitably you'll blow your budget on a tripod, some flashes, flash modifiers...
Heck, skip the macro till later and just get a 18-55 or 17-50 or whatever happens to be available for the camera mount you're looking for. Some of these lenses can focus pretty close as well.
My kit lens can focus down to 10 inches at 55mm, which is really not bad, for what it is.
The above is especially important if you haven't felt you've been severely limited by the camera you currently own.

Btw the X1 can just focus down to 30cm / 12", so it's only good for 'pseudo-macro' from cropped pics. But thanks to the lens sharpness, results are actually not that bad:
 

 
Click for HD image (56K Warning).

 

[james444]

Quote:

This is an ~5mm long adult male of Lepeophtheirus salmonis, a parasitic copepode that is a major pain in the butt for salmon aquaculture.

 
That pic is simply awesome, sir.

 

[Exediron]

As far as macro photography is concerned, in my opinion it depends on rather your target is living (and moving) or not. If its a living target, then a longer lens is crucial to get the working distance you need; if the target is static, then you can afford to get as close as you need to with a 60mm lens.
 
Personally, I don't have a macro lens right now; I use a 70-200 f/2.8 with a 2x teleconverter to achieve similar results with some ability to zoom. It won't do 1:1, but for the sort of macro photography I do I don't need it to.
 
If you want one lens that can do macro, landscape and miscellaneous photos, then whatever 18-200 (or 28-300 if FX) lens the camera maker you're going with produces is probably the best bet. Although I own an 18-200 lens, I rarely use it anymore - my photography right now focuses pretty much exclusively at the telephoto range. Although I have thought about getting a true ultrawide zoom to try that perspective out.

 

[DarkWinter]

I cant resize all my photos so ill just leave the link to my photo stream: http://www.flickr.com/photos/iamthemansonfamily/
 

 

[limpidglitch]

Quote:

Hey guys! its been awhile  
 

Yes it has, but the pets are as adorable as ever!
I took a look at your Flickr page, and if may post one, this photo just made my day
 

 


Quote:

 
That pic is simply awesome, sir.

Thank you, sir.
 
I've got a few more from the same series.
 

 

 

 

 

 
 
 
 

 
Quote:

As far as macro photography is concerned, in my opinion it depends on rather your target is living (and moving) or not. If its a living target, then a longer lens is crucial to get the working distance you need; if the target is static, then you can afford to get as close as you need to with a 60mm lens.
 
Personally, I don't have a macro lens right now; I use a 70-200 f/2.8 with a 2x teleconverter to achieve similar results with some ability to zoom. It won't do 1:1, but for the sort of macro photography I do I don't need it to.
 
If you want one lens that can do macro, landscape and miscellaneous photos, then whatever 18-200 (or 28-300 if FX) lens the camera maker you're going with produces is probably the best bet. Although I own an 18-200 lens, I rarely use it anymore - my photography right now focuses pretty much exclusively at the telephoto range. Although I have thought about getting a true ultrawide zoom to try that perspective out.

With a little practice you can make a 60mm work with live subjets too. If you just move very carefully you can get surprisingly close, because the fact is that an arthropods compound eye is much more sensitive to movements than to detecting shapes.
 

 

[Towert7]

Quote:

Hey guys! its been awhile  
 

 
 
 

 
 

When I read this I thought to myself "who would take photos of a dead pet?"