Which Macro for 40D - DPChallenge Forums

Tamron SP AF 28-75mm f/2.8 XR Di for Canon

10/01/2007 12:44:55 AM · #1

I had the Canon 100mm macro on my 5D, but I am reading that it might be too long on a crop body.
Which macro is best on a 40D.
50, 60, or what?

SamDoe1

Canon EOS-350D Rebel XT

10/01/2007 12:51:27 AM · #2

The 50mm macro won't go to 1:1, so I'd advise against it. The Sigma version does go 1:1 if you want to go that route. The 60mm is an EF-S lens so it won't work on a 5D if you want to go there again. Tamron makes a 90mm that's supposed to be great.

wavelength

Nikon D300

Nikon AF Nikkor 50mm f/1.8D

10/01/2007 12:53:17 AM · #3

Not too long, 100mm is great for me.

Tamron AF 28-300mm f/3.5-6.3 XR Di LD Aspherical IF for Canon

10/01/2007 12:53:32 AM · #4

What about using a Canon LIfe Size Converter with it?

I am also liking the FM reviews of the 60mm.

Message edited by author 2007-10-01 00:58:21.

SDW

Canon EOS-60D

10/01/2007 12:54:05 AM · #5

Here is an example of the Canon 40D using the 100 mm F2.8 Macro, PS Standard . Looks pretty good to me.

ETA: Example from www.dpreview.com

Message edited by author 2007-10-01 00:56:26.

Retroesque

Canon EOS-5D Mark II

Canon EF 85mm f/1.8 USM

10/01/2007 12:54:44 AM · #6

I have just become the PROUD owner of the Canon 100mm 2.8 - all I can say is YUM, YUM & YUM!

wavelength

Nikon D300

Nikon AF Nikkor 50mm f/1.8D

10/01/2007 12:56:31 AM · #7

Why do you thing 160mm effective it too long for macro again? Just the DOF?

SamDoe1

Canon EOS-350D Rebel XT

Tamron SP AF 28-75mm f/2.8 XR Di for Canon

10/01/2007 12:57:23 AM · #8

Originally posted by papagei:

What about using a Canon LIfe Size Converter with it?

The life size converter isn't all that cheap at ~$250... The 50mm also isn't a USM lens and is a quite old design. If I were you, I'd spring for either the 100mm or the 60mm.

Canon EF 17-40mm f/4L USM

10/01/2007 01:00:36 AM · #9

Just something I read in my research. I have only used a macro lens on a 5D, so I don't know what differences there would be on my 40D (if it ever gets here LOL)

I am liking that 60mm...

Originally posted by wavelength:

Why do you thing 160mm effective it too long for macro again? Just the DOF?

Message edited by author 2007-10-01 01:00:50.

JeffDay

Canon EOS-5D Mark III

10/01/2007 01:01:00 AM · #10

Get the 100mm, it's a wicked lens, versatile too

Canon EF 24-70mm f/2.8L USM

10/01/2007 01:01:40 AM · #11

Thanks - I found one on eBay, but will scratch that off my list :)

Now it's between the 100 and 60.

Originally posted by SamDoe1:

Originally posted by papagei:
What about using a Canon LIfe Size Converter with it?

The life size converter isn't all that cheap at ~$250... The 50mm also isn't a USM lens and is a quite old design. If I were you, I'd spring for either the 100mm or the 60mm.

dwterry

Canon EOS-1D Mark III

10/01/2007 01:06:06 AM · #12

If the sole purpose is to achieve 1:1 macro ... then the only difference that focal length makes, is how far away you can be from the subject. So longer lenses make it easier to take pictures of bugs and other "unapproachables". Shorter lenses are easier to handle. I'd stick with the 100mm lens unless you feel it's too big.

Now, if you're looking to do portraits, that's where 100mm might feel a bit too long on a crop sensor. But then you don't need macro capability so there are other options open to you.

Canon EF 24-70mm f/2.8L USM

10/01/2007 01:18:27 AM · #13

Anyone ever use a Canon MP-E 65mm f/2.8 1-5x Macro Photo?

Pricey, but sounds smooooooth.....

dwterry

Canon EOS-1D Mark III

10/01/2007 01:21:45 AM · #14

Never tried it ... but I'd love to see what 5x looks like. It'd make for some out of this world macros... :-)

Nikon AF Nikkor 50mm f/1.8D

10/01/2007 01:28:17 AM · #15

Wouldn't it though? But one would need ring lights and such, so I suppose I'll get another 100mm :)

I am interested in an "affordable" (meaning cheap!) ring light.

wavelength

Nikon D300

10/01/2007 01:30:43 AM · #16

Originally posted by papagei:

Anyone ever use a Canon MP-E 65mm f/2.8 1-5x Macro Photo?

Pricey, but sounds smooooooth.....

You'll need a focusing rail for 5x macro. The adjustments are too fine even for manual focus.

also

"-The maximum! distance to focus is approx. 10cm (1:1) and decrease to 4 cm if you use 5:1 "

fotomann_forever

10/01/2007 01:34:10 AM · #17

My bet is on the 100mm macro. A helluva nice lens.

Ofcourse an advantage of the 60mm macro is that it would be a really great portrait lens on a cropped sensor cam.

Canon EF-S 17-55mm f/2.8 IS USM

10/01/2007 02:07:05 AM · #18

I'd have to kill the insects first then :)

It just sounds so cool, but another one off the "maybe" list.

Originally posted by wavelength:

Originally posted by papagei:
Anyone ever use a Canon MP-E 65mm f/2.8 1-5x Macro Photo?

Pricey, but sounds smooooooth.....

You'll need a focusing rail for 5x macro. The adjustments are too fine even for manual focus.

also

"-The maximum! distance to focus is approx. 10cm (1:1) and decrease to 4 cm if you use 5:1 "

splidge

Canon EOS-40D

10/01/2007 09:58:48 AM · #19

It's worth noting that the 60mm has greater depth of field at a given magnification and f/stop by virtue of its shorter focal length - and depending on what you're doing depth of field is often at a premium in macro photography, and if you stop down too much you run into diffraction effects.

On the other hand, I have the 60mm and I'm quite happy with it but wouldn't mind a bit more working range at times. They are both excellent lenses.

splidge

Canon EF-S 17-55mm f/2.8 IS USM

10/01/2007 10:56:38 AM · #20

Thanks for the comment. I guess it's the 100mm then!

Originally posted by splidge:

splidge

Canon EOS-40D

10/01/2007 11:48:14 AM · #21

Originally posted by papagei:

Thanks for the comment. I guess it's the 100mm then!

If that's your choice, but just to clarify my comment was claiming that the 60mm is the better lens DoF wise - smaller DoF is usually an advantage in general photography but with macros I often want more DoF rather than less (and I think you'd be hard pushed to want less DoF than the 60mm offers wide open at macro ranges).

Against that the greater working range of the 100mm is nice if your subject is easy to frighten, and of course the 100mm is full frame compatible.

I've never used the 100mm so I'm not sure which is the biggest factor. And hey, fewer 60mm owners means less competition for top scoring photo with the lens ;).

Either way don't worry too much about it, the 60mm is an awesome lens and I've no reason to believe the 100mm isn't just as good so you can't go wrong.

splidge

Message edited by author 2007-10-01 11:52:41.

scalvert

Canon EOS-5D Mark III

Canon EF 24-105mm f/4.0L IS

10/01/2007 11:58:04 AM · #22

Originally posted by papagei:

Anyone ever use a Canon MP-E 65mm f/2.8 1-5x Macro Photo?

Check the gallery.

Spork99

Canon EOS M6 Mk II

Canon EF-M 22mm STM Lens

10/01/2007 11:58:13 AM · #23

Originally posted by splidge:

Originally posted by papagei:
Thanks for the comment. I guess it's the 100mm then!

If that's your choice, but just to clarify my comment was claiming that the 60mm is the better lens DoF wise - smaller DoF is usually an advantage in general photography but with macros I often want more DoF rather than less (and I think you'd be hard pushed to want less DoF than the 60mm offers wide open at macro ranges).

Against that the greater working range of the 100mm is nice if your subject is easy to frighten, and of course the 100mm is full frame compatible.

I've never used the 100mm so I'm not sure which is the biggest factor. And hey, fewer 60mm owners means less competition for top scoring photo with the lens ;).

Either way don't worry too much about it, the 60mm is an awesome lens and I've no reason to believe the 100mm isn't just as good so you can't go wrong.

splidge

Actually, at any given magnification, DOF is independent of focal length.