macro lens advice needed for rebel T6

[stargirl23]

i don’t know much about macro lenses but i am looking to buy one for taking pictures of snails and insects including (bees in flight). i'm not sure what lens i should get.

i have a canon rebel T6 with a nifty fifty lens that i currently use. and i have a canon sx620 powershot. both make descent photos on the “macro” setting but i am wanting something better and an actual macro lens.

is the Canon EF-S 35mm f/2.8 Macro IS STM a good lens? i found it on google and it looks intriguing but i don’t know how much better it is than what i already have.

the Sigma 105mm f/2.8 EX DG OS HSM Macro Canon EF-mount and Tokina ATX-I 100mm f/2.8 FF Macro Canon EF-mount were recommended to me by a camera shop via e-mail. i haven’t actually seen the lenses in person but i’m worried that the sigma and tokina might be too heavy. though i was recommended the tonika because it is lighter. i also don’t want to have use a tripod when taking pics of snails and insects. with snails it’s not always going to be possible to use a tripod.

if you google photographer Vadim Trunov, that’s the quality of snail photos i’m wanting to take. i have a budget of around $500. which of the above three lenses would be best? and are there other, better options?

[kvbarkley]

While it probably doesn't matter for snails - since they can't get away very fast - you must pay attention to the focal length, since generally, the shorter the focal length the closer you have to be to the subject for the same magnification.

The 35 mm is OK, but it requires you to be pretty close to the subject.

I prefer the EF-S 60mm macro, while it does not have IS, it is a pretty good macro:

The EF-S 60mm is extremely small and light.

[FloridaDrafter]

I have the 35 and as mentioned, you have to be really close for the built in ring light to be effective. It is, however, a very good lens. Most of my macro work is done with the EF 100mm f'/2.8 L IS USM. It is a bit pricey, but reasonable if macro is your thing, and being an L, it is built like a tank and weather sealed. Your T6 isn't, but you still get some protection where the lens attaches.

This was taken with a T4i and the 100mm L, so your T6 should do just as well with this lens.

[Waddizzle]

I like the 100mm focal length better than 35mm.  Canon makes a non-l 100mm macro, so give that one a look, too.  I don't know if the EF-S 60mm is still available, anymore.  You're better off with the Canon EF 100mm f/2.8 Macro USM then either the Sigma or the Tamron, IMHO.  It does lack image stabilization, though.

You might get a good buy on a used lens from KEH or MPB, too.

[FloridaDrafter]

---

@stargirl23 wrote:

"if you google photographer Vadim Trunov, that’s the quality of snail photos i’m wanting to take. i have a budget of around $500. which of the above three lenses would be best? and are there other, better options?"

---

Sorry, I didn't look at the image sample reference (Vadim Trunov) you posted until today... My bad!

So, in that light and IMO, you will need more than just a macro lens (if macro at all) to do this kind of work. Most of these shots, in reference to the snails, were more than likely staged, probably in a special terrarium. It's a very popular technique amongst pro shooters of this type. This is NOT to detract from the imagery and work he does, I just want to point out how I think he does this. Not knowing him personally, I can only base what I'm seeing on years of experience and knowing others who do this kind of work. Some of the shots, well, look a little manipulated in post, so add PS to your list of needs 🙂

He may have indeed used a "macro" lens of some sort as most macro lense work well for other uses, but since the EXIF data has been removed from the samples I looked at, there is no solid way of telling. I can say that most of these shots could be taken without one, and possibly were. He, or the person captioning the shots, throw the word "macro" around quite a bit, but macro isn't what comes to my mind when I look at his work, but there were a few exceptions.

** To be clear, macro means different things to different people. In the strictest term, it simply means "close up", but to most who have been doing it for years, it means 1:1 or smaller, i.e., 2:1-5:1 at your lenses closest focus plane, not the end of the lens, but to the sensor. Look on top of your camera and you will see a circle with a line through it that marks the location of your sensor, so, if your lens will focus to 1 foot, that is where you measure from. Your 50, which will focus to 1.1x feet, and IIRC, its ratio is 1:1.2. The ratio I am refering to is also sometimes debated because, from as far back as I can remember, was coined in reference to 35mm film, but now we have smaller sensors and image editing programs to muddy the waters. In 35mm, 1:1 means the subject, at your lenses closest focal plane, is lifesize on that sensor or film.

[stargirl23]

thanks for your reply. here's another photographer, Vyacheslav Mishchenko, who uses natural settings and not staged. i ight have actually gotten him mixed up with the first one i mentioned. https://mymodernmet.com/vyacheslav-mishchenko-macro-snails/

yes, i know what macro means. and i am wanting actual macro photos.here are a couple non macro lens photos i took. the first is made using my canon powershot. the second is made with my canon rebel with a nifty fifty lens. while both are relatively descent photos, i'm wanting to improve my photos with much more detailed macro photos.

it's ok but i'm definitely wanting more detailed macro photos. my photos, like this one, will be taken in my garden and other natural settings, not in a studio and not posed.

[FloridaDrafter]

---

@stargirl23 wrote:

thanks for your reply. here's another photographer, Vyacheslav Mishchenko, who uses natural settings and not staged. i ight have actually gotten him mixed up with the first one i mentioned. https://mymodernmet.com/vyacheslav-mishchenko-macro-snails/

yes, i know what macro means. and i am wanting actual macro photos.here are a couple non macro lens photos i took. the first is made using my canon powershot. the second is made with my canon rebel with a nifty fifty lens. while both are relatively descent photos, i'm wanting to improve my photos with much more detailed macro photos.

[IMAGE SNIPPED]

[IMAGE SNIPPED]

it's ok but i'm definitely wanting more detailed macro photos. my photos, like this one, will be taken in my garden and other natural settings, not in a studio and not posed.

---

Very nice shots, if you ask me. As for my explanation of macro, you never know what people actually understand, so please forgive me for getting a bit technical. I've been hanging around this forum a while, so I tend to explain things as if there are others interested in the info as well, and I guess it sometimes comes across as condescending, but that's not my intention, only info.

One of the reasons I recommended the EF 100mm L IS USM over the non L non IS lenses is that you mentioned not wanting to use a tripod. 70% of my macro work is done hand held, and trust me, IS is a shot saver and L glass produces superior IQ. That lens is probably one of the best investments I've ever made and has served me through 4 camera upgrades. I understand budget, though, so it might be out of your range.

Do you shoot Raw?

[kvbarkley]

And the newer 100mm Macro has an IS system that compensates for back and forth motion as well as up and down and side to side, very helpful for handheld Macro shots.