What counts as cheap? I own the Tokina 35/2.8 and Canon ef-s 60/2.8. I got the 35 used for $200. I'd base your choice on what you shoot and how much working distance you want. I use them underwater, so I want to be close to the subject to minimize the amount of water between me and it. If I shot something like lizards or dragonflies, I might want something like a 100mm or 150mm.
If you don't want to spend $200-500 on a macro lens, you can always use extension tubes. My setup for a while was a 50/1.8 and extension tube--worked pretty well and didn't cost much.
I guess I was looking at something like the Canon EF 50mm f/1.8 II Camera Lens for $106.95, but I don't know enough about glass to know if it's any good...OR if it's actually what I need. From the description, it sounds like it is. It has also gotten many good reviews.
The 50/1.8 is plastic throughout, but really sharp. If you don't drop it, it holds up fine. Great lens for the money. If you really want to go cheap, you can try reversing a lens. Google this and lots will pop up.
For a crop camera, the Tamron 60mm F2 Macro is probably the best 1:1 macro going when you consider the price.. working distance, and F2 speed, and image quality. I had it for my D7000 and sold it as I plan to move to full frame.. but boy do I miss that lens more than any other. Very versatile.
Jan 25, 2012 at 11:46 PM
Lars Johnsson Offline • • • • • • • Upload & Sell: Off
Groundhog66 wrote:
Looking for a lens for close-ups, any decent inexpensive options out there?
Groundhog66 wrote:
I guess I was looking at something like the Canon EF 50mm f/1.8 II Camera Lens for $106.95, but I don't know enough about glass to know if it's any good...OR if it's actually what I need.
The last question needs to be answered first. To know if it's what you need, we need to know what you want to shoot. "Macro" and "close up" may not mean the same thing to different people.
For example, to me macro means an object will be at least the same size in a 4 X 5 print as it is in real life, and much bigger than life in a larger print. Pictures of insects, or of stamps and coins, are typical of what I think of as macro shots.
With a minimum focus distance of 1.5 feet, the Canon 50mm f/1.8 doesn't really fit into the above definition the way I look at it.
A "close-up" can be smaller than real life in the print (a portrait, for example), but should frame the subject in a way that's closer than how I normally look at it. If a person's face completely fills the frame, for example, I'd call it a closeup.
The 50 1.8 could fit that definition.
So...what is it that you want out of your "inexpensive macro glass"?
Chris Ventura wrote:
For a crop camera, the Tamron 60mm F2 Macro is probably the best 1:1 macro going when you consider the price.. working distance, and F2 speed, and image quality. I had it for my D7000 and sold it as I plan to move to full frame.. but boy do I miss that lens more than any other. Very versatile.
Great lens. I have only tried it but want to buy it. Good for portraits as well. An undocumented feature is that it works all right on 1D series without vignetting (but probably not 5D/1Ds).
If you want to go cheep, get "Kenko extension tubes", "Fotodiox macro bellows", or buy a "macro reverse ring" for a 50mm lens... and get ready for figuring out the workarounds (search the"quotes" on Google).
Otherwise accept that you are going to have to spend the extra money for the extra value.
I used a Sigma 17-70mm (1:2.7) for a while and liked it for a $350ish lensFM review here
Extension tubes will give you some macro capability with your current lenses and are very affordable. You can use a diopter (which will work better on a telephoto lens) but I'd suggest avoiding that approach.
Just about every modern 1:1 macro is very, very good if you want a dedicated macro lens. Many are available used here and other places.
One perk of the Canon 60/2.8 is that it focuses really fast, while some macro lenses are quite the opposite (my Tokina 35 is kind of slow). If you shoot static subjects, you might like the slow careful focus. However I often shoot moving subjects, and for this the 60/2.8 really shines on my 7D.
The macro will come in handy even if you usually shoot much less than 1:1. It's just really nice to have the flexibility to get closer when you need to. I have a Sigma 30/1.4 and it drives me nuts because it's MFD is so bad, plus it's AF is less consistent at near MFD. Something like the Tokina 35/2.8 actually makes a really nice walk around prime lens, since you can wonder around shooting random scenes, but then also focus on small details.
Sigma 50/2.8 works well if you can deal with close subject distances. Otherwise a original Canon 100/2.8 macro is fantastic. If you're squeezing pennies even more, a Sigma 105/2.8 macro is decent, and can be had for less than $300.
