I am on a limited income (semi retired) and I do enjoy all types photography including macro. Would like to have a macro lens and a nice flash (have neither) and am trying to decide which way to go. I currently own an XSi, 55-250 IS and the 15-55 IS kit lens. My son gave me a gift certificate to amazon and these are my options:

1. Buy a 50mm 1.8 to use with my Pro Optics extension tubes for macro and a 430ex flash.

2. Save another 100 and get a 60mm macro.

3. Save another 200 and get a 100mm macro.

Please give any input as I am fairly new and want to spend my money wisely.

Thanks

Alan

The 50/1.8 is a general purpose lens that will work both on crop and full frame cameras. It has a good focal length for portraiture on a crop camera (like your XSI) but not a dedicated macro lens. On the upside, extension tubes work well and you can throw a flash in the mix which makes the combo even more versatile.

The 60/2.8 is an EF-S lens and will work only on crop cameras. It is an awesome macro lens, especially for the price. It's wicked sharp and its optical quality equals that of Canon's expensive L line. It is also an amazing portrait lens.

The 100/2.8 is one of Canon's venerable macro lenses. You can't go wrong with this lens; the optical quality is excellent and so is the build quality. The lens will work both on full frame and crop cameras.

If you don't plan on going full frame in the overseeable future, I would go with the 60/2.8. I have one myself and am quite satisfied with it.

Check out these reviews as well:

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/reviews/Canon-EF-S-60mm-f-2.8-Macro-USM-Lens-Review.aspx
http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/Canon-EF-100mm-f-2.8-USM-Macro-Lens-Review.aspx

Odd suggestion, get the Sigma EX 50/2.8 Macro. It's small, sharp and reasonably cheap, much cheaper than the Canon Macros but offers performance similar to the Canon 60.

The 50/1.8 is a good buy any which way, I highly recommend it any Canon shooter, even one who owns other 50's. It's cheap, good and worth having at the bottom of the bag for emergencies.

Another possibility. Consider trying the Canon 50/2.5 Compact Macro. Highly rated and reasonable cost. It only goes to 1:2 but a Life Size Converter is available.

As this is the alternative forum let me make a different suggestion (an alternative suggestion). How about the Olympus Zuiko 50mm f/3.5 macro for just over a hundred dollars. It is easy to adapt with a cheap $20 adapter from ebay. You should be able to use it for macro using manual focus and live view on your Xsi--using a tripod and manual focus works great for macro. You could then pick up an inexpensive but very useful manual flash like the Nikon SB 28 or a Vivitar 285 HV for less then $100 and set it off with a hotshoe to pc converter. You can learn more about this approach to flash at www.strobist.com. Together this should only cost about $250 at most. I hope this helps.

I am with Mawz and would get the Sigma macro if you want to make close up photography a priority. The 1.8/50 is also a good and cheap lens, tubes are not very userfriendly though

Won't the 12mm Canon EF extension tube II ($75) work with the kit lens? This give close focusing, but maybe not a completely flat field.

I use a chinese 9mm extension tube that takes my MF 50mm down to about 1:2. It costs about $12. I use a XSi with ambient light and white cardboard as reflectors, more than the on-board flash.

Thanks for the input. I am rolling these over in my head. Now wondering if I even need a flash. Shoot mostly outside and figure the on board should be ok for fill light. Again thanks!

Alan

JimBuchanan wrote:
Won't the 12mm Canon EF extension tube II ($75) work with the kit lens? This give close focusing, but maybe not a completely flat field.

I use a chinese 9mm extension tube that takes my MF 50mm down to about 1:2. It costs about $12. I use a XSi with ambient light and white cardboard as reflectors, more than the on-board flash.

The 12mm tube will get you down around 1:2 at closest focus distance, the 25mm will get 1:2 at infinity and around 1.5:1 at minimum focus distance (Not sure exactly what, haven't done the math)

Gotta go with Steve Spencer on this one. +1 for the Olympus OM 50mm f3.5 macro with a 14mm or 25mm OM extension tube.

The OM 50mm f3.5 macro - in mint condition - can be had for around $60-$100. Extension tubes are $40, and a cheap OM-EF adapter is $20. You would have one of the sharpest lenses available for macro and a 1:1 macro lens setup for around $100-$150.

Silverpony, the flip up flash will not work very well if you want to get really close. The lens will shadow the flash. You need to move the flash off the camera.

The Canon 100 mm f2.8 macro is one heck of a lens. You will enjoy it.

Of your specific choices, I'd get the 60mm. I think the Canon 100mm is a nicer lens. However, you could really benefit from a nice prime for portraits, and on an XSI the 60mm makes more sense overall.

Get a used EF-S 60/2.8 macro. Mine sold very cheap on the Buy & Sell board.
The only reason I sold it is that I am shooting on full frame most of the time now.
It is a very nice lens. Beautiful color and contrast performance and very decent
bokeh.

Some full size images available here: http://www.pbase.com/tswen/60macro

I looked and did not find a 60mm for sale

The EF 50 CM is probably the best deal and will be the most immediate fun. I would rather have the EF 35/2 and EF 50 CM than any of your options as-is. The 50/1.8 is a great fun cheap lens and works very well with tubes, but as has been said, tubes aren't as user-friendly as a real macro lens.

For inexpensive flash units, the Sunpak 383 is a little cheaper and smaller and much more user-friendly than the Vivitar 285 HV, it also has swivel which the Vivitar lacks.

If I had your kit, I would probably just get the EF 35/2 and 50/1.8 and use tubes with the 50... that would give you a fast normal and portrait length lens... the two most important lenses for most people's general shooting...

mawz wrote:
Odd suggestion, get the Sigma EX 50/2.8 Macro. It's small, sharp and reasonably cheap, much cheaper than the Canon Macros but offers performance similar to the Canon 60.

I'm curious how the fact that you found a cheaper alternative makes my suggestion "odd", especially considering that it was one of the options the OP is considering.