Hi,
I have been using Canon Rebel SL1 with the standard 18-55 IS lens.
I think I have found my photograhly niche: close-up flower photography. Doing close-ups has really helped me (newbie DSLR photographer) start to understand how to use light and the background effectively and powerfully to create an appealing photograph.
I get close using the standard lens using manual focus. But I am thinking it might be nice to use a macro.
Looking at Canon's macro lens, they all seem so heavy. 😞
Can anyone recommend a macro lens (it is fine if it is not a Canon but compatible with the Canon) for the SL1, preferrably light weight with image stabilization?
I am also open to any other suggestions for growing in this area (I will continue to use the standard lens for this too).
Thank you and all the best!
Annie
PS: attached image is unmodified --
Every lens has a "minimum focus distance".
In a typical lens, it's possible to want to get closer to a subject then the lens is able to clearly focus. A true "macro" lens allows for focus at "1:1" scale... meaning the size of the image projected onto the camera's internal image sensor is just as large as the subject is in real life.
On your SL1, you've got a sensor which (using rounded values) measures roughly 15mm x 22mm. If you were to imagine photographing a US penny, the coin measures about 19mm in diameter. So to get a full "1:1" scale image of that penny means that the penny would appear so large on the image sensor that in "width" it will just barely fit on the sensor (19mm diameter penny will fit in the 23mm wide sensor -- you'd be able to leave about 2mm of clearance on each side) but in the vertical direction the penny doesn't even fit... the 19mm diameter coin is larger than the 15mm height of your sensor.
That's pretty close, that's what it means to have "1:1" scale.
Many lenses can get pretty close... just not that close. So whereas you might have an image of a "flower" (a whole flower in the frame), the macro lens at 1:1 scale might barely be able to fit hte very center of the flower. This is possibly closer than you actually want. The lens can focus all the way out to infinity just like any other lens... it just allows focusing to get particularly close.
Canon makes a specialty lens that can get even closer (5:1 scale -- the image on the sensor is actually as much as 5x larger than the object is in real life.) If we go back to that penny analogy... Abraham Lincoln's eye would probably occupy most of the image.
If you are photographing anything shy (insects that might fly away) then being able to get some distance between you and your subject is handy. Canon makes a 180mm macro lens -- but it's not cheap.
I used to own the EF-S 60mm f/2.8 Macro USM and vouch for it being a very high quality lens. I had no complaints about it. I got rid of it when I switched from a crop-frame body to a full-frame body ... full-frame bodies cannot use "EF-S" lenses. I now use the Canon EF 100mm f/2.8L IS Macro USM.
As other have pointed out... when you get REALY CLOSE to a subject, the "depth of field" starts to become very narrow -- almost "paper thin" (especially if you use a low focal ratio).
Here's an image taken with a 100mm macro lens at f/2.8, but at very close focusing distance. You can see that my "depth of field" (the range of distances at which things appear to be in acceptable focus) is just a few millimeters wide. You would probably not be happy with an image of a flower taken at this focal ratio because very little would be focused.
Here's the same subject, same camera, same lens, same position, but this time I'm using f/32. You can see that nearly everything is acceptably focused.
There is an issue of what to do if you want more to be in focus than is possible at these very very close focusing distance.
It turns out you can take several images, each focused to a different distance, and then "merge" the images together (sometimes referred to as "focus stacking"). This is done using software (Photoshop, for example, can do it as one of it's "photomerge..." capabilities but there are even dedicated programs written for this purpose.)
You can use a device called a "focusing rail" (John Hoffman posted an image of a 2-axis rail) and these allow you to set the camera focus via the lens, and then just nudge the camera forward a few millimeters at a time to get each frame (this is safer than adjusting the focus ring on the camera because when you change focus you actually change the focal length EVEN on a lens that has a fixed focal length. The problem is called "focus breathing". Taking every image at the same focal length (without touching focus) is safer -- and just nudge the camera along the rail.)
These stacking techniques assume you can get the same subject in the same position in every frame and only the camera distance changes. If you're photographing outdoor flowers and the wind is blowing... that may be a problem. If you're photographing live insects at work pollinated flowers... that also probably wont work because the insect wont wait for you to get all your shots.
" If ANY of you had it to do over, would you have bothered w/ the 60 mm lens in the begining?"
Absolutely, no. Actually I never did ! I went with the ef 100mm right from the start. I can't stress all the major disadvantages enough with the 60 vs the 100. But I guess the best way, I guess, is for you to experience it first hand.
My big mistake in delving into the world of macro was buying the ef 100mm first and not the ef 180mm. It wasn't too long before I realized my mistake. It cost me two lenses! If macro is your gig, and you buy the 60mm, it will cost you two lenses also. Just my 2 cents and worth every penny. 
