Printable View
Hello everyone.
EF100-300mm f/4.5-5.6 USM or
EF100mm f/2.8 Macro USM
for macro.
PL help me to suggest.
You can see on link for comparison ,
Product Comparison of EF100mm f/2.8 Macro USM and EF100-300mm f/4.5-5.6 USM - EF Lenses - Canon India
Thanks..
Hi Bhavya,
For Macro photography, I will definitely say Canon 100mm f2.8. I have seen the results, the sharpness, it is really a good lens. I think Abhishek will too say the same as he is already using the lens.
Cheers,
The 100mm f2.8 L Macro lens is a 1:1 magnification. The minimum focusing distance is also closer in the 100mm, as expected.
Decide what you want to photograph. Don't try to be a generalist shooting everything. First focus on one area and later you can start clicking others.
A camera will depreciate faster than a lens. So better to buy a good lens that will last for a long time.
Cheers,
Sabyasachi
Hi Bhavya,
As Mrudul has already mentioned, I most definitely recommend the Canon 100mm f2.8 Macro USM :). It is an absolutely flawless piece of equipment, worth every single rupee you pay for it.
You cannot really compare the 2 lenses you have mentioned, since the 100mm is a true macro (1:1) lens while the 100-300mm is not. Since it is macro subjects that you want to shoot, the 100mm f2.8 macro USM is definitely the lens to go with. The 100mm macro can also be used for short telephoto / large mammal photography, portraits, compressed scapes, etc.
Thanks everyone, majority are in Canon 100mm f2.8 Macro USM, but.
what you think about Sigma lens.. I agree that canon is best company in lens, but i watching more macro lens and their technical specification, sometimes is better than canon also and more cheaper.!
I was searching different lens. i saw sigma 70mm F2.8 EX DG Macro
70mm F2.8 EX DG Macro - Macro Lenses - SigmaPhoto.com
low to 100mm F:2.8 but
What you think about this lens.??
Thanks.
Bhavya,
Third party macro lenses are also sharp and produce good quality images. However, the Autofocus (speed and accuracy) is apparently an issue with 3rd party lenses. You might have read on equipment review sites that AF is not very important for macro work as most macro photographers focus manually. While this is true (even I most frequently use MF), there are some situations even in macro, where using AF is a must, and the superior AF performance (especially ServoAF) of the Canon comes in very handy here.
Also, most 3rd party lenses extend on focusing. This might be an issue since certain insects are scared off easily.
I have not personally used 3rd party lenses. Dr. Jitendra Katre (here on Indiawilds) uses a Tamron 90mm macro. You could PM him for details if necessary.
[PS- When you compare lenses or study their features, don't go by the manufacturer's official websites. Check on good unbiased review sites instead.]
Thanks abhishek,
for nice suggestion, at last I decided to for majority, canon 100mm macro better.
The Canon 100mm f/2.8 macro is an excellent piece of glass for its price. Tack Sharp and doesnt extend while focussing. Only nit if i had to pick one would be that it doesnt have a tripod ring. Unless you have a very sturdy head, the weight of the lens will make the head creep a little bit. Although you can buy a tripod ring for it but its too much for the price. So overall this is a win win lens. And as Abhishek mentioned, it is great as an intermediate focal length lens for large mammals as well. In fact I have used the same for shooting landscapes in some cases as well. You will not regret this lens once u purchase it.
Hi Bhavya
The 100 f2.8 L IS is surely a great lens. I've seen some really good images made with that lens...However, there is the sigma 150 mm f2.8 EX DG HSM OS which is ignored by photographers in India, but then it is as good as the canon. Also, Abhishek (who is already using the 100 f2.8) will also most likely agree that the 50mm extra focal length that the sigma offers will be very worthy when shooting insects/bugs that may bite if you go too close:)
Cheers
Bhargava: I suppose you are referring to the 100mm non-IS (since that was the lens being discussed in this thread)? You have typed "L IS".Quote:
Originally Posted by Bhargava Srivari
I agree that the additional focal length of the Sigma would be nice. However, I find 100mm more than enough for most (if not all) of my macro work. The Canon's 1-foot Minimum focus distance provides more than enough working distance. So far, I have not scared off or been bitten by insects, for going too close (touch-wood :D).
The Sigma's extra 50mm may come in handy if, for example, you are shooting an insect in the middle of a pond and you can't easily reach it. But personally I would go with the Canon for the reasons I have mentioned earlier. The Sigma would also be costlier I think. It is ultimately up to you. Maybe you could try out both lenses if necessary.
hi ..Bhargava No doubt Sigma gives 50mm more focal length than 100mm Canon,
If I have More Budget I definitely Buy 150mm Sigma.. And As per Abhishek Experience with canon And I survey on net the 1st comes canon than... sigma.
But there is disadvantage in low local length, that they need to be physically positioned too close to an insect to properly focus macro lens. This can scare away the insect before they get a chance to take the shot. Another, concerns the shadow that can be thrown over a subject when you need to be closer. Light is an important aspect in macro photography to enable you to keep a fast enough shutter speed to capture insects on the move.
Thus, More Focal length More Price And From sigma lens I budget go riser.
And as per Sabyasachi, canon Are best company in lens.
And Abhishek,
Pl. take precaution while shooting insect or other animals and whatever lens are you using. because this are not pets. :001_smile:
If my thinking is wrong Pl.let me know.
Thanks Both Of you.