what is the best cheap macro lens for my rebel t5

[Ojani]

what is the best cheap macro lens for my rebel t5?

[RobertTheFat]

The EF-S 60mm f/2.8.

[ScottyP]

The EF-s 60mm is a good bargain selection for about $420.00. It has the added bonus of being a good focal length for portraits (on a rebel) so you can get 2 uses from the lens, as its field of view is equivalent to 96 mm, which is perfect for portraits.

For just a little more, you can get the Canon EF 100mm f/2.8 Macro for $550.00. The 100mm lens will give you more working distance between you and the subject. It is nice not to have the end of the lens just a few inches from the subject, especially if the subject is a live bug that could get spooked by the invasion of his space.  The minimum focus distance of 7.8 inches for the 60mm and a bit over 1 foot for the 100mm are measured from the camera's sensor, not from the end of the lens, so to get absolute full max enlargement on the 60mm, the end of the lens will only be about 4 inches from the subject, while it will be 8 or 9 inches away with the 100mm.

Also, you get a nice little "cheat" in image quality whenever you put a full frame EF lens on an EF-s crop body. He bigger image circle of the full frame lens splashes over the outside of the smaller crop sensor, so that crops the edges off of the image. Since the edges are always the worst part of the image (less sharp, more dark vignetting) you are gettin the sweet center spot of every shot you take.
This 100mm lens could also do portraits well, though being equal in field of view to a 160mm lens you will need to stand back an extra few steps.

[ebiggs1]

"He bigger image circle of the full frame lens splashes over the outside of the smaller crop sensor, so that crops the edges off of the image. Since the edges are always the worst part of the image (less sharp, more dark vignetting) you are gettin the sweet center spot of every shot you take."

And of course this is false.  This debate on whether FF lenses are sharper on crop bodies has gone on as long as there have been crop bodies.  The best you can say is, maybe.  Definitely not always.  It is not a given.

You would need to compare the preceptual MP put on the sensor by each lens to determine this.  For instance the fantastic EF 24-70mm f2.8 can deliver 14 Pmp on a 5D Mk III camera.  But on a 7D, it can deliver ony 7 Pmp.  That is not very sharp at all.

So in this case and many, many others the FF was less sharp than its similar EF-S lens.  This same situation holds true comparing the alslo fantastic EF 70-200mm f2.8.

You have to remember EF-S lenses are designed to concentrate and center all the light on to the sensor.  On the other hand, full frame EF lenses are not.

[ScottyP]

I think that the "of course" is as exaggerated as it is uncivil.  There is enough to argue there to take it out of the slam-dunk obviousness category.

Vignetting.  Edges are gone = vignetting is gone.

Soft edges.  Edges are gone = soft edges are gone.

Perceived MP's in what is left of the image (the center).  Unless you are cropping much much further in post than your crop lens already does in-camera, there were always more than enough extra PMP's floating around for me to perceive a sharp image with my 70-200 on my old crop camera.  Sharp enough to cut yourself, as they say.  The edges on my FF camera, however, using the same lens, are noticably less sharp (though by no means bad!) than they were on my old crop.

Cheers.

[amfoto1]

Okay, kids... Now play nice together, you hear?

Actually, there's some truth to both.

There is no improvement of lens sharpness using a full frame (EF) lens on a crop sensor camera. But it might be that some of the softer corners are "trimmed off" and the smaller sensor camera uses the "best part" of the lens.

However, with the EF 100mm Macro lenses in particular... those are sharp corner to corner, "flat field" lneses designed to be very sharp across the whole image area even at close focusing distances. Look at the MTF charts for them.... Very little drop off in resolutions even at the extremes.

With some other lenses, it's more obvious. I like my EF 28/1.8 and EF 20/2.8 better on crop than on full frame (though they aren't bad on both, especially if stopped down a little.

Ojani,

It depends upon how "cheap" you want to get.

You could just get a set of macro extension tubes and use those with lenses you already have, to get pretty high magnification shots. Canon sells individual tubes only: 12mm ($85) and 25mm ($145). Kenko sells a set that's similar quality and includes 12mm, 20mm and 36mm ($130). There are some cheaper, but much more plasticky sets from Opteka, Zeikos and others ($40 to $65). Avoid the really cheap (under $25) sets... those don't have the electonic contacts, will work but are a pain in the arse to use.

A true macro lens is faster to work with and assures top image quality.

Both the recommended Canon lenses are quite good. I use the 100mm myself.

There also is a Canon EF 50/2.5 Compact Macro for about $300. Problem with it is that it's only 1:2 (half life size), unless you also get a separately sold 1:1 adapter (another $250), or use it in combination with macro extension tubes mentioned above.

I also use the Tamron 60/2.0 Macro/Portrait (I like it's f2.0 aperture). It costs about $500, but sometimes goes on sale for a lot less.

Tamron also makes two 90mm... a cheaper one sells for about $500 and sometimes goes on sale. I haven't used the current version, but have it's great grand daddy in a vintage, manual focus version.

The Tokina 100/2.8 sells for about $350  I think. Again, I haven't used this one, but have used a vintage version in years past.

Sigma makes a 105mm and two longer macro lenses. They used to make a 50/2.8 and 70/2.8 macro, but I've heard mixed signals about those lately, that one or both might have been discontinued. I don't know much more about them.

Frankly, if this is a "general purpose, walk-around" macro lens, I'd suggest not getting longer than 105mm for use on a crop camera. Longer lenses are harder to get a steady shot. At the other extreme 50 and 60mm are compact, but put you pretty close to the subject at highest magnifications (3 or 4 inches from the front of the lens).  90, 100 or 105mm seem like a good compromise to me.

My Canon 100mm is easily my most "go to" all purpse macro lens (I also have 60mm, 65mm ultra high magnification, 90mm and 180mm macro... as well as some other lenses 45mm, 90mm and up to 300mm that I sometimes use for close-up/macro work). 

Have fun shopping!

***********

Alan Myers
San Jose, Calif., USA
"Walk softly and carry a big lens."
GEAR: 5DII, 7D(x2), 50D(x3), some other cameras, various lenses & accessories
FLICKR & EXPOSUREMANAGER 

[ebiggs1]

Scott,

"You would need to compare the preceptual MP put on the sensor by each lens to determine this."

You may want to argue with the measured numbers but again you would be wrong.  It does depend on the individual lens and is not a general accross the board statement.  Sometimes you wil be correct, sometimes not.

Remember the extra MP of a FF lens that is not put on the sensor is lost.  It means that what is left may be the same or even less than the EF-S lens has and is using.  Again it is an individual situation and not every lens works this way. 

You just can't say FF lens are sharper when used on a crop body. Becuse it isn't true.

Cheers,

EB

[ScottyP]

If you read my post, not your own words, you see I didn't say it made it sharper. I said you get the sweet center spot.

[RobertTheFat]

@ebiggs1 wrote:

Scott,

"You would need to compare the preceptual MP put on the sensor by each lens to determine this."

You may want to argue with the measured numbers but again you would be wrong.  It does depend on the individual lens and is not a general accross the board statement.  Sometimes you wil be correct, sometimes not.

Remember the extra MP of a FF lens that is not put on the sensor is lost.  It means that what is left may be the same or even less than the EF-S lens has and is using.  Again it is an individual situation and not every lens works this way. 

You just can't say FF lens are sharper when used on a crop body. Becuse it isn't true.

---

The "extra MP of a FF lens" is a pretty squishy concept. Lenses don't have MP; those are all on the camera's sensor. So to talk about any of them being "lost" when the lens is used on a camera with a smaller sensor doesn't make a lot of sense. After all, it's entirely possible for the smaller sensor to have more MP than the larger one.

A lens is an analog device whose sharpness at any given point depends on a variety of factors in its design and manufacture. But one characteristic that's nearly universal is that a lens is sharper near the center of its FOV than it is near the edge. So it's not much of a reach to conclude that on average, a lens built for a FF sensor will be sharper when used on a crop-frame camera. YMMV, of course, but we're talking about averages here.

Note that I'm not claiming that a given lens designed for a crop-frame camera can't be sharper on that camera than a given lens designed for a FF sensor would be on that camera. But that's not the issue being discussed.

[ebiggs1]

Bob from Boston and Scott,

You guys are both right.  But only because of certain circumstances you may have wittnessed.  It is not a true statement accross the board.  It isn't me saying this it is a proven measurable fact.

Lens have resolving power and sensors have MP.  And, yes, given certain situations and combos, you wll get the results you see.  But that is not necessarily true with all cameras and lenses.

Remember, guys, EF-S lenses are created for smaller sensors.  Therfore they can have more resolving power where they can use it best.

You can not say FF lens should be used on crop bodies for better results,... as a fast and hard rule.  It just ain't so.