Which Macro lens to choose?

[justleesa]

the 70-200 is the better lens...(I am pretty naiive when it comes to the #'s and their meanings).....but it would have less zoom than my 70-300 right?

 

[bladephotog]

I love the 100 macro. Great, traditional macro lens. And you can use a 1.4 convertor with this lens for a little more length when needed. My 1.4 convertor is one of the most important piece of glass in my bag. Granted you need to have fast glass to use it. But I use it a bunch with my 70-200, 300, 400 and 600mm lenses.

If you want to shoot close but not 1:1, A Canon close-up lens and the 70-200/2.8 is a great combo. I love it for shooting nature images. If you're concerned about 1:1 with your 5D get the 100mm.

 

[bladephotog]

the 70-200 is the better lens...(I am pretty naiive when it comes to the #'s and their meanings).....but it would have less zoom than my 70-300 right?

Yes, the 70-200 will have less magnification than your 70-300. But the 70-200/2.8 is a lens I won't be caught without.

 

[justleesa]

A Canon close-up lens ...

i.e.?

Yes, the 70-200 will have less magnification than your 70-300. But the 70-200/2.8 is a lens I won't be caught without.

ah! I knew more than I thought I did

 

[Jamdiver]

i.e.?



ah! I knew more than I thought I did

So is the credit card being put to good use yet?

 

[justleesa]

over time baby

 

[txdano]

I only have exerience with the Canon 100mm macro UW, but have been very happy with it's performance.

 

[RonFrank]

the 70-200 is the better lens...(I am pretty naiive when it comes to the #'s and their meanings).....but it would have less zoom than my 70-300 right?

Canon and Nikon glass is not all GREAT. There are pro grade lenses, high quality lenses that don't have the build quality of pro glass, and then there are consumer grade lenses. Consumer grade lenses are going to be the poorest build quality with the cheapest glass. They have much lower tolerances, generally less multi coating, slower USM motors, are plastic, and will lack features like IS. This does not mean they are junk, but they are generally slow, and are going to have more distortion, fringing, and light falloff especially wide open, and full stopped down.

When you compare the weight of a high end Nikon or Canon lens with that of a low end consumer lens the weight alone is a big tell tale sign.

A constant 2.8 aperture is also nice, and high end optics perform great wide open!

So in a word, yes, there is a big difference between the 70~200 f2.8 L IS lens and a consumer grade lens. There is also Bokah, and my 80~200mm f2.8 has MUCH better bokah vs. my 18~200mm VR lens.

Is is worth the extra $$$? Hard to say. For most pros yes. Then again I know pleny of pro's that shoot cheapish glass with good results. They are just not going to get away with it in lower light situations with as good of results.

You have chose to shoot a camera that uses a FF sensor. Those sensors are MUCH more subject to showing light falloff and distortion especially if you shoot wide open.

The upside of high end glass is it lasts a LONG time. My 80~200mm f2.8 is a staple in my camera bag, and there it sits after 20 years of service. I have been using the 18~200mm VR more lately but more because VR is SOOO nice in many situations. I need to upgrade my 80~200mm with the 70~200mm, but ouch, yes it's expensive.

Canon offers some options Nikon does not. If they make an L series IS lens with a fixed aperture like a 70~200mm F4 IS, that is something to consider in that range.

 

[bladephotog]

i.e.?

Canon 500D

I love this close-up lens on my 70-200 for shooting flowers, butterflies, etc., anything close-up but not strictly macro. It's razor sharp and you don't loose any light. You can also use it with extension tubes to focus even closer. It's not only a poor man's macro set up, but also useful if you want to have close-up capabilites but can't afford to buy a macro lens or carry an extra lens.

 

[bladephotog]

Canon does make a L series 70-200 F4 IS but it's not much cheaper than the 2.8.