Purchasing a macro lens

[spikeyjen]

I have a canon 400D, and am soon to travel to the US where I have the option to buy a new lens.
I would like to purchase a dedicated macro lens (rather than a general lens with a macro feature) and am a little unsure about how to go about choosing one.
For example zoom or fixed focal length? And what fixed length do I choose?
The benefits of smaller apertures?

What do people already have, and what would you recommend?

thanks
Jen

[RichardTaylor]

I think all true (not just just close focussing lenses) are primes.

The longer focal length macro lenses ~ 100mm or more give you more working room between you and your subject. This can help with lighting and also may not scare the bugs as much.

[cyber3d]

I think you would be hard pressed to find a better solution than the Canon EF 100mm f/2.8 Macro USM (or EF 100mm f/2.8L Macro USM if you have the budget).

The 100mm allows me to keep a good distance from my subject AND so I can even use my on-camera flash! Can't do that with a 65mm Macro.

I have a 60D so this lens has a focal length of 160mm (I believe). It is a little long for portrait work but thats not a problem for me.

My images from this lens are beautiful.

Got mine used from a reputable local camera store.

[3bayjunkie]

I know I sound like a broken record to those who follow my posts with such enthusiasm, but I have to suggest the
Zeiss Makro-Planar T* 100mm f/2 ZE.
Review: Zeiss 100mm f/2 Makro Ryan Brenizer — NYC Wedding Photographer. Problem solver, storyteller.
Here is a very informative review of its capabilities. I do not own this lens, however it is on my list as my next lens
purchase and I plan to buy it for my Christmas present
http://diglloyd.com/articles/ZeissZ/ZeissZ-100f2.html
Here is another reference, this time, with more technical specifications, and more eye candy*

[cyber3d]

Man, I wish I had the budget for a Zeiss lens! My Canon cost me $400 OTD.

That Zeiss Makro-Planar T* 100mm f/2 ZE must be amazing. However, I just read that it is a 1:2 lens whereas the Canon is a 1:1 lens. I think Spikyjen would be happier with the Canon. $1500 or so on the street I hear.

[spikeyjen]

Oh man, i wish i had $1500 to throw around to buy a new lens (especially when my camera is now worth about $300!!!

[3bayjunkie]

Yeah its a bit over $1800 on BHphotovideo, but If you think about it, you'd spend more than that on a new 70-200 f/2.8 and that is a pretty standard lens from what I've seen. A lot of people have them. Also just be glad you don't have to buy the micro 4/3 version of the lens because its a 100mm f/2.1 and its $4,900 Zeiss Compact Prime CP.2 100mm f /2.1 CF FT MFT Mount 1889-102

ouch for micro 4/3 users!

[Jo.T]

there are a few cheaper options for macro, the Tamron 90mm macro is a great budget lense not as fast as the canon but the optics are quiet good. The cheapest way to start with macro is with Diopters often called macro/close up filters with +1, +2, +4, +10 filters that can be stacked and screw into the front of a lense, next would be extention tubes again can be used with any lense. both can be a great way to try out macro before buying a macro lense.

Cheers Jo

[ceremus]

I just recently purchased the Canon 100mm f/2.8 USM macro (non L). I haven't had a lot of time to play with it yet but I'm very happy with it so far. While there are cheaper ways to go about macro, generally none are as convenient as having a dedicated macro lens, and the 100mm f/2.8 is a very good value for the money since it doubles as a nice portrait lens.

[cyber3d]

I want to add something. What ever Macro lens you get, try to get one that has an internal focusing system. If you are close to your subject, with this system, your lens won't disturb your setup (or leaves, flower petals, what ever is between you and your subject).