Advice for getting Macro lens

Discussion in 'Digital Photography' started by iBookG4user, Aug 30, 2007.

  1. iBookG4user macrumors 604


    Jun 27, 2006
    Seattle, WA
    I've decided that I'd like to get a Macro lens for my XTi and I want some advice regarding which one to get. I've been looking and right now I am considering this Sigma 70-300 and also this Tamron 70-300, although I am leaning towards the Tamron lens because it is cheaper. My budget is around $200, I know that's not much but I just bought this camera and I've outgrown the kit lens already. Thanks in advance for any help :)

    Suggestions are welcome if there are better lenses for this price range.
  2. furious macrumors 65816


    Aug 7, 2006
    Neither of those lenses is a real macro lens. It is mealy marketing by putting the term macro in the name of the lens. What you would be better off doing in buying a prime lens ( i.e. not a zoom) plus some kenko extension tubes and using that for now as your macro lens. This will come in around or even under your budget if you buy online. Not in US so have no idea who are the good guys. A prime lens in the 50mm bracket will be excellent for you.

    Review of the kenko set. Not they now have a set that works with EF-S lens so buy that one for your XTI.
  3. Lovesong macrumors 65816


    Sep 15, 2006
    Stuck beween a rock and a hard place
    The kenko tubes are a nice option. For your price, the only true macro lens you can get is Canon's 50mm short macro

    This lens is a good portrait lens, but it will not have the flexibiliy of a zoom. I don't know what your photography interests are, but if you're dead-set on shooting bugs, and need it now, this is one of the few option.

    For about twice that amount, you can get the much better 100mm f/2.8 macro, which will be my next purchase (if the fiance lets me).

    For about four times your budget you can get the awesome and unique MP-65, which is 5X macro, and will open up a whole new word of macro photography to you.

    From the sounds of your question, however, it seems that you feel that the kit lens is restricting you. If that is the case, and you're not looking for a true macro, I'd get the 50mm f/1.8 for about $70. Yes, it sounds cheap, but this lens will run circles around the kit lens. Just ask Grimace :p
  4. bertpalmer macrumors 6502

    Apr 12, 2007
    The lenses you mentioned are not macro lenses - they just have a macro feature. That means they can focus closely but you will still be about 4 feet away from the subject. A true macro lens will allow you to be about 4cm away from your subject.

    I have the Sigma 105mm Macro f 2.8.

    Image quality is great and it works well outside, although it can have trouble auto focusing in low light or where these is not much contrast in the subject.
    I got it because it was cheap and for the price it is great, but when I have more money I would consider upgraded to a Nikon lens of the same focal length and aperture.
  5. Father Jack macrumors 68020

    Father Jack

    Jan 1, 2007
    As bertpalmer and furious correctly say, the lenses you mention are NOT macro lenses, just lenses that let you focus a little closer than normal. A true macro lens gives 1:1 reproduction .. :)

    Tamron and Sigma macro lenses are very good although many photographers prefer to buy a macro lens from the camera manufacturer.
  6. Lord Blackadder macrumors G5

    Lord Blackadder

    May 7, 2004
    Sod off
    I too have been looking at the Tamron 70-300, mostly because I wanted a cheap telephoto lens to muck around with. The "faux macro" feature is a bonus, but I was mostly interested in the long end, even though people have complained about softness at 200-300.

    I agree with Lovesong about the 50mm f/1.8 II - I recently bought a Rebel XT with the kit lens and the 50mm f/1.8 II, and the 50mm prime takes much better photos than the kit lens at the same focal length. I've even got some decent macro shots of bugs and whatnot with it. A fantastic lens for 80 bucks.
  7. ChrisA macrumors G4

    Jan 5, 2006
    Redondo Beach, California
    Neither are what you want. Get a "real" macro lens. Also for a crop body 300mm is absolutly uslessly to long for macro work. the most usfull focal length would be 60mm or 105mm Zooms are not so usfull either go with a fixed lens. If budget is an issue look for a used lens. While a used dSLR is "old technology" not so with a macro lens. Not much has changed with these in decades. Those long consumer lvel zoom with their "macro mode" don't compare in quality. A used EFS 60mm will fit your budget and give profesional level results (in the right hands)

    You really do want the f/2.8. While you would never shoot at f/2.8 you need the light from the fast lens to focus and compose. SLR lenses are always wide open until you trip the shutter so the faster lens gives a brighter view through the viewfinder

    You really should get a tripod if yui don't have one and soe way to trip the shutter without your hand on the camera. Either a remote control or use the self timmer

    If you just want ti get a bit closer, Canon and nikon both make quality screw on filter-type
    diaoper lenses. Stick with these brands as all the others are not as good.
    (single element lense vs. cemented two element acromat) These don't cost
    much. Maybe $35?
  8. Silencio macrumors 68020


    Jul 18, 2002
    We have this lens. And yes, it's excellent. Didn't have any problems clearing the expenditure with the significant other, either: she needed it for some specific shots for her business. I just get to enjoy using it.

Share This Page