Macro lens for the SL1

[amatula]

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 --

[fatcat]

KV,

oh yea, you did say that earlier, I really don't want to get the wrong one or have to go thru 2 lenses to be happy.  3" away is the current problem w/ what I am using. Clearly there is an advantage to being farther away, and that was probably the main thing that I liked about these reviews on the different lenses w/ the 100/180mm's. thanks for reminding me of that disadvantage w/ the 60mm.........

Like I said earlier, I am really going to have to do some homework to get it right.

I just was wonedrng of those that DID get the 60mm 1st if they would do it again.  One says no....how about you?

[diverhank]

I might as well chime in regarding the acquisition of lenses...I myself am a victim of buying a lens which is good enough at the time (for my budget and skill level) then buy again and again because my skill level has changed or my desire to get better got the better of me.  Each time I get a new lens, I lose a lot of moneyselling the old one.

I often wish I'd listen to the saying "buy it right, buy it once" - is that how they say it? :).  I've bought multiple versions of lens multiple times...the latest is replacing my 85mm f/1.8 with the 85mm f/1.2L II. I just don't learn well.

I don't have any experience with the 180mm but the EF100mm f/2.8L IS USM Macro lens is really really sharp with one of the best IS (hybrid) around.  That is one lens I'd recommend and I'll keep it forever.

[Waddizzle]

"I myself am a victim of buying a lens which is good enough at the time (for my budget and skill level) then buy again and again because my skill level has changed or my desire to get better got the better of me.  Each time I get a new lens, I lose a lot of moneyselling the old one." 

I myself am a victim of buying a lens which is good enough at the time (for my budget and skill level) then buy again and again because my skill level has changed or my desire to get better got the better of me.  Each time I get new stuff, I waste a lot of money, and wind up giving the old stuff to my sons.

[ebiggs1]

My wife, Miss Liz, has no idea how to use any camera.  She has no desire to.  Possible reasons is the 100's of thousands of photos I have taken.  What's left for her? 

The Canon EF 100mm f/2.8 Macro USM Lens is $599.  Yes it is higher that the 60mm.  A cool $180 bucks.  But like I pointed out it is light years better than the 60.  If you do like or love this 'hobby' you will, no doubt, buy the 100mm later if you buy the 60mm first.  Believe mew now or believe me later. H ow much cheaper is the Canon EF 100mm f/2.8 Macro USM Lens to start with?  It's a deal.

Perhaps you missed or glossed over the mention of the Tamron 90mm f/2.8 SP AF Di Macro Lens?  It is $499. The EF-S 60mm f/2.8 Macro USM Lens is $419 right now because there is a $50 rebate.  Now what do you think?

Tokina has a nice 100mm macro. The Tokina 100mm f/2.8 AT-X M100 AF Pro D Macro Autofocus Lens for Canon.  I can't personally vouch for it as I haven't tried it yet.  I don't believ it is on the market yet but will be soon.  I think it is supposed to around $375(?).  The Tokina AT-X series I have used are pretty good.

This is about all the advice I can give you.  The ball is in your court and your decision.  Remember most modern digital gear is better the the photogrpher is!  

[RobertTheFat]

---

@fatcat wrote:
Biggs, I thought your wife had the 60mm and loves it! Did I read that wrong? Obviously the 100mm is the better lens, it's also $800+, (more than the entire camera!) The 180 I haven't even looked at! You are a professional and get paid for your pics, and in your case price is justifiable. I am only in this for a hobby, do not plan on being a pro. or getting paid for my photos, still think the price point is worth it? for a hobby?

---

No, it's my wife, not Ernie's, who has the 60mm.

BTW, note that the two 100mm macro lenses, the cheaper of which is almost half again the price of the 60mm, are "EF" lenses; i.e., they're intended for full-frame cameras. The equivalent coverage on a crop-frame camera like your SL-1 is provided by a lens of (you guessed it!) just over 60 mm.

[diverhank]

---

@RobertTheFat wrote:

---

BTW, note that the two 100mm macro lenses, the cheaper of which is almost half again the price of the 60mm, are "EF" lenses; i.e., they're intended for full-frame cameras. The equivalent coverage on a crop-frame camera like your SL-1 is provided by a lens of (you guessed it!) just over 60 mm.

---

Bob, I'm not sure I understand what you're saying...For the SL1, the 100mm gives you the magnification of 100 x 1.6 = 160mm versus the 60mm x 1.6 = 96mm for the 60mm lens.  There is no difference in the FL numbers between EF and EF-S lenses, as far as I know.

[kvbarkley]

I think he is saying, though I don't know why, that the EF-S 60mm on the SL1 has the equivalent field of view as a 100mm lens on a FF camera.

[RobertTheFat]

---

@diverhank wrote:

---

@RobertTheFat wrote:

---

BTW, note that the two 100mm macro lenses, the cheaper of which is almost half again the price of the 60mm, are "EF" lenses; i.e., they're intended for full-frame cameras. The equivalent coverage on a crop-frame camera like your SL-1 is provided by a lens of (you guessed it!) just over 60 mm.

---

Bob, I'm not sure I understand what you're saying...For the SL1, the 100mm gives you the magnification of 100 x 1.6 = 160mm versus the 60mm x 1.6 = 96mm for the 60mm lens.  There is no difference in the FL numbers between EF and EF-S lenses, as far as I know.

---

What I'm saying is that a 100mm lens on a full-frame camera has the same angle of view as a 62.5mm lens on a Canon crop-frame camera.

What you're saying, when you multiply 60 by 1.6, is the same thing. i.e. that a 60mm lens on a crop-frame camera has the same angle of view as a 96mm lens on a full-frame camera.

What you're saying, when you multiply 100 by 1.6, is that the result is 160. That calculation has no relevance to the matter under discussion.

[diverhank]

---

@RobertTheFat wrote:

---

@diverhank wrote:

---

@RobertTheFat wrote:

---

What I'm saying is that a 100mm lens on a full-frame camera has the same angle of view as a 62.5mm lens on a Canon crop-frame camera.

What you're saying, when you multiply 60 by 1.6, is the same thing. i.e. that a 60mm lens on a crop-frame camera has the same angle of view as a 96mm lens on a full-frame camera.

What you're saying, when you multiply 100 by 1.6, is that the result is 160. That calculation has no relevance to the matter under discussion.

---

Thank you Bob. Now I understand but what you're saying, to me, has no relevance either.  You take a picture after you frame it...who cares what number...EF-S lens costs less because of what you're talking about but in general, they are not built as good in other areas also.  I have both full frame and cropped cameras so I've always bought EF lens.  I don't even own any EF-S lenses so take it with that grain of salt.

[RobertTheFat]

---

@diverhank wrote:

---

@RobertTheFat wrote:

---

@diverhank wrote:

---

@RobertTheFat wrote:

---

What I'm saying is that a 100mm lens on a full-frame camera has the same angle of view as a 62.5mm lens on a Canon crop-frame camera.

What you're saying, when you multiply 60 by 1.6, is the same thing. i.e. that a 60mm lens on a crop-frame camera has the same angle of view as a 96mm lens on a full-frame camera.

What you're saying, when you multiply 100 by 1.6, is that the result is 160. That calculation has no relevance to the matter under discussion.

---

Thank you Bob. Now I understand but what you're saying, to me, has no relevance either.  You take a picture after you frame it...who cares what number...EF-S lens costs less because of what you're talking about but in general, they are not built as good in other areas also.  I have both full frame and cropped cameras so I've always bought EF lens.  I don't even own any EF-S lenses so take it with that grain of salt.

---

My original comment was directed at the OP, who owns a crop-frame camera, has no immediate plans to upgrade to FF, wants to buy a macro lens, and is being told by some that only an expensive 100mm (or longer) FF lens will do. You may take my word for it (as you don't own one and my wife does) that the Canon EF-S 60mm f/2.8 macro lens is very solidly built.