Need Recommendations for Macro Lens for Insects And Other Creepy Crawlies

[Jill Morgan]

I figure it is time to do some macro photography.  My big 100-400 L lens pretty much lives on my Canon for my bird photography, but thought I would wander into the world of the little critters as well.  What would be a good recommendation of a macro lens for Canon?

 

Jill

[Martin L]

What I use, sharp, cheap, works brill.

[Steve Hyde]

Jill, depending on your budget I can highly recommend the Canon EF 100mm f2.8L Macro IS USM Lens. It’s about £500-£600 second hand, like new condition, in the UK. 
 

I used it with Canon 5D’s, mk2 and mk3, for wedding photography having bought it initially for ring and small detail shots. However, whilst it was great for that, it was also excellent for portraits and was one of the lenses I missed most when I moved over to Fuji cameras.

 

I have the Fuji equivalent lens now and use that an awful lot, again both for close up work and portraits. In fact I was using it today for some shots of a jeweller working in his workshop. It’s just such a useful lens. 

[Jill Morgan]

Hard time finding anything in the used choices of my regular stores.  Closest I can find is this: 180 mm but thinking that might be a bit long of a focal length.  I'll keep hunting.

 

Definitely will be buying used. 

 

Jill

[Jill Morgan]

44 minutes ago, Martin L said:

What I use, sharp, cheap, works brill.

 

I found this lens new for $680-$769.  I may think about it.

 

Jill

[MDM]

A 180mm might be the thing if you are specialising in insects as it gives a greater working distance. However, a lens in the 90-105mm range is probably the most useful for general close-up photography.  A tripod is essential for close-up photography so you should be factoring that in and considering one that can get down near ground level for insect and flower photography. That said, I would not suggest getting any lens that does not have stabilisation if you also want to shoot handheld, as your camera is presumably a DSLR and does not have IBIS.

 

The Sigma lens that Martin suggested has a very good reputation and looks like very good value. The Canon macro lenses are also highly regarded but a lot more expensive. The Tamron 90 is also a fantastic macro lens although no longer in production but could be a very good buy secondhand. I have one for NIkon F Mount and it is excellent with great autofocus even at 1:1. There are several versions but the more recent ones have top class stabilisation. 

Edited April 11 by MDM

[Martin L]

12 minutes ago, MDM said:

A tripod is essential for close-up photography so you should be factoring that in and considering one that can get down near ground level for insect and flower photography. 

It depends on what you are taking. I agree for flowers and fungi but I find it to be a hindrance for insects when you need to be as mobile as them

[Jill Morgan]

I already have a good tripod, so that is not a problem.  It goes fairly low, so should cover my needs.  I am a bit of an ambler photographer, so would probably be doing spiders in webs, bees on flowers, etc.

 

Time for a photographic subject change, or at least additional subject matter that I find interesting.  Still love the birds, but can have only so  many images of the same birds.

 

Can find lots of critters here on the farm.

 

Jill

[John Richmond]

Before I switched from Canon APS-C to Olympus I used a Tamron 90mm (non IS), Sigma 105mm (IS) and Sigma 180mm (non IS) as my macro lenses.  For general 'ambling around' use, the 105mm Sigma was definitely the most useful, offering excellent image quality and the benefits of good stabilisation.  A Tamron 90mm with IS would offer the same benefits and cost considerably less than the Canon 100mm L IS macro already recommended.

 

The 180mm Sigma was definitely a specialist lens.  Brilliant for working distance on a sturdy tripod (it was heavy!), I used it mostly for static plant portraits, fungi, lichens etc.  Even the IS versions are way too cumbersome as a general carry along lens for hand held shooting.  In any case you may not actually need one.  Stick a high quality close up filter - the NISI ones are supposed to be excellent - on your 100-400mm and you'll get very near macro capability and the benefit of zooming for framing the shots at a fraction of the cost of a long tele macro.

 

Having said that be warned.  Nature Macro is very seductive.  You'll find yourself 'investing' in flash gear, extension tubes, teleconverters etc.  You'll also find yourself endlessly searching to identify many of your subjects only to realise, having narrowed down the field, that the one view that would provide a definite ID is the one view you didn't take.

[Nick Hatton]

Depends a lot on what you are thinking of shooting, I specialise in butterflies so not to small, always used  the Canon 100mm, until I bought the Canon 100-400 m2 which has a close focus facility, great for butterflies and a good working distance.

[Martin L]

1 hour ago, John Richmond said:

 

Having said that be warned.  Nature Macro is very seductive.  You'll find yourself 'investing' in flash gear, extension tubes, teleconverters etc.  You'll also find yourself endlessly searching to identify many of your subjects only to realise, having narrowed down the field, that the one view that would provide a definite ID is the one view you didn't take.

Too bl**dy true!

Although I can't say I've 'invested' in anything but have spent time knocking up stuff.

The missus has a folder of bank statements missing the plastic front cover where I knocked up a really effective diffuser with some packing material.......I don't think she's noticed yet 😁 

 

ID'ing is another fun ball game!

[Martin L]

8 hours ago, Jill Morgan said:

I already have a good tripod, so that is not a problem.  It goes fairly low, so should cover my needs.  I am a bit of an ambler photographer, so would probably be doing spiders in webs, bees on flowers, etc

I was lucky enough to pick up one of these in a charity shop for about £6.

Brill for funghi but for insects in a 'honey I shrunk the kids' kind of vibe I have the camera on the ground

For flitting insects in bushes at waist level etc, I hand hold using a heavily diffused manual flash to freeze the critters and prevent too many specular highlights 

This of course works best for me but there are plenty of other alternatives.

As John said it is very addictive!

Edited April 12 by Martin L

[Harry Harrison]

I did a quick search and see that you use a 'crop sensor' APS-C Canon 90D, so that might be important in terms of the focal lengths of lenses that people recommend.

 

I only do macro for 35mm film copying but from that I know that the Sigma 70mm f2.8 ART and the 105mm f2.8 ART are pretty much the highest performing lenses at 1:1 without going to exotic process/duplication lenses, not that you need the flat field and sharpness right into the corners of the frame for insects. Sigma certainly know how to make good lenses though.

Edited April 12 by Harry Harrison

[MDM]

14 hours ago, Martin L said:

It depends on what you are taking. I agree for flowers and fungi but I find it to be a hindrance for insects when you need to be as mobile as them

 

I only shoot insects when they happen to land on plants I'm photographing or these days just as likely videoing where a tripod is essential unless using a gimbal or the like. The big problem is focusing at very close distances as the tiniest movement towards or away from the subject can result in failure and a tripod is an excellent solution. That said, modern lenses and advanced AF systems can track movement very well.

 

However, I do enjoy travelling light and shooting handheld which is greatly faciltated by IBIS and/or a lens with goofd stabilisation. Couple that with being able to shoot at very high ISOs and process with Adobe Denoise gives results that border on  miraculous in terms of what is possible nowadays. I should say I only use natual light for my plant photography. I first got the macro bug back in the 80s when I had an OM system and I got my first macro lens - a 50mm Zuiko that did half lifesize. Then it was either tripod, flash or both. SInce then I've always had a tripod that can go right down to ground level. 

 

[MDM]

6 hours ago, John Richmond said:

Having said that be warned.  Nature Macro is very seductive.  You'll find yourself 'investing' in flash gear, extension tubes, teleconverters etc.  You'll also find yourself endlessly searching to identify many of your subjects only to realise, having narrowed down the field, that the one view that would provide a definite ID is the one view you didn't take.

 

Absolutely. I try to remember to take a shot of the leaves, stem, seed heads etc as well as the colourful bits.  Plant identification can be exhilarating when you get it right or really frustrating. I've been meaning to take a course in formal plant identification using proper botanical keys and so on but so far have not gotten around to it. I grealy admire your ability to identify plants here which you have done countless times. 

Edited April 12 by MDM

[Jill Morgan]

6 hours ago, John Richmond said:

Before I switched from Canon APS-C to Olympus I used a Tamron 90mm (non IS), Sigma 105mm (IS) and Sigma 180mm (non IS) as my macro lenses.  For general 'ambling around' use, the 105mm Sigma was definitely the most useful, offering excellent image quality and the benefits of good stabilisation.  A Tamron 90mm with IS would offer the same benefits and cost considerably less than the Canon 100mm L IS macro already recommended.

 

The 180mm Sigma was definitely a specialist lens.  Brilliant for working distance on a sturdy tripod (it was heavy!), I used it mostly for static plant portraits, fungi, lichens etc.  Even the IS versions are way too cumbersome as a general carry along lens for hand held shooting.  In any case you may not actually need one.  Stick a high quality close up filter - the NISI ones are supposed to be excellent - on your 100-400mm and you'll get very near macro capability and the benefit of zooming for framing the shots at a fraction of the cost of a long tele macro.

 

Having said that be warned.  Nature Macro is very seductive.  You'll find yourself 'investing' in flash gear, extension tubes, teleconverters etc.  You'll also find yourself endlessly searching to identify many of your subjects only to realise, having narrowed down the field, that the one view that would provide a definite ID is the one view you didn't take.

 

I did not know you could get close up filters.  I will definitely look into that.  Might be a good way to start before I invest in the lens.

 

Jill

[M.Chapman]

46 minutes ago, Jill Morgan said:

 

I did not know you could get close up filters.  I will definitely look into that.  Might be a good way to start before I invest in the lens.

 

Jill

Yes the closeup filters are worth investigating, but only the good ones. Cheap ones will add lots of chromatic aberration. I've got a Marumi Achromat +3 macro filter that I use with my zoom lens. IQ is pretty good, but nowhere near as good as a decent macro lens. The benefit of a closeup filter is cost and weight saving, so great when travelling light or walking. But I'd never use for "studio" work.

 

Mark

[wiskerke]

1 hour ago, Jill Morgan said:

 

I did not know you could get close up filters.  I will definitely look into that.  Might be a good way to start before I invest in the lens.

 

Jill

Have a look at this review.

 

wim

[Phil Robinson]

I use a (Nikon, sorry) 105mm Micro lens, sometimes with a small extension tube or 1.7x converter. 
Now I am doing a lot more video, especially where natural history is concerned. The best combination I have found is, perhaps surprisingly, one of the cheapest Nikon kit lenses - 24-200 f4-6.3 and a small extension tube. At the 200 end I can film dragonflies and butterflies at a reasonable distance and at around 50mm it can get amazingly closeups of very small insects.
I would certainly recommend extension tubes (though maybe not with a 100-400) They don't effect the image quality as filters can and used with a shortish telephoto they don't take too much light either. And they tend to be a lot cheaper than buying a new lens.

Edited April 12 by Phil Robinson

[Jill Morgan]

48 minutes ago, wiskerke said:

Have a look at this review.

 

wim

 

They don't seem to come in a 77mm.

[wiskerke]

32 minutes ago, Jill Morgan said:

 

They don't seem to come in a 77mm.

No the plastic adapter that comes with it only goes to 67mm. The review stresses the need for simple metal adapters anyway.

I get mine usually from Ebay. Prices have gone up though: $2.99 nowadays. They're called step down filter adapters or just rings.

I don't have the Raynox myself, I have tried smaller ones with my RX100's. For the larger ones I have many regular macro lenses. You could also try old manual lenses. many can be adapted to a Canon dslr.

Maybe you have some yourself?

Another possibility not yet mentioned are extension tubes.

 

wim

 

[John Richmond]

40 minutes ago, Jill Morgan said:

 

They don't seem to come in a 77mm.

The NISI ones do and they look like the best bet.  I used to use a Canon 5D close up filter on a 55-250 mm and the results were nearly as good as with my Tamron 90 mm prime. 55 mm thread only unfortunately.

[John Mitchell]

I use an inexpensive auto extension tube set that I bought on eBay. They are very light and fit in my pocket. These attachments work quite well for the occasional bug shot like this one. I think I used them on an 18-55 Sony kit lens (handheld):

 

Edited April 12 by John Mitchell

[John Mitchell]

2 hours ago, M.Chapman said:

Yes the closeup filters are worth investigating, but only the good ones. Cheap ones will add lots of chromatic aberration. I've got a Marumi Achromat +3 macro filter that I use with my zoom lens. IQ is pretty good, but nowhere near as good as a decent macro lens. The benefit of a closeup filter is cost and weight saving, so great when travelling light or walking. But I'd never use for "studio" work.

 

Mark

 

I have a set of HOYA closeup filters that I bought back in the 80's. The results are pretty good as long as you don't stack them. I too find the 3+ one to be the most useful. Haven't noticed any problems with CA.

[Jill Morgan]

The NISI lens is looking as the best bet.  This way when out wandering, I can simply remove it if I go into bird mode.  I'm pretty used to handholding the camera and lens, but do wonder about the extra weight of the NISI.  I guess the only way to know is to try it out.  I currenlty have the 1.4 extender on the lens.  That leaves me stuck at f/8.  Is this an issue with macro, or should I remove the extender if I plan on doing bugs and birds?

 

Jill