any advice on a macro lens for a Canon body?

Canon?

Tamron ?

Sigma?

Tokina?

what are features I want to look at ??

www.bclaytonphoto.com

bclaytonphoto on Facebook

I have a canon EF 100mm f/2.8 USM macro use it with my XTI. I love it.  At a link you can see some "sample" what I captured with a lens. I almost bought the 60 mm but I see it now it won't be enough for me and if I would of have an other thousand dollar to spend I would of buy a 180mm. But I am very happy with 100mm I can not put nothing againts it.

http://www.pbase.com/misstkphotography/macro_photos

seeya  Tunde

Depends on what you want to take images of really.  Many people use the term "macro" when what they really intend/need is a "close-up" lens. Some zoom lenses have a macro capability, but they aren't TRUE macro

A true macro (1:1 ratio) brings you really close to flowers and most insects, and the results may not be what you actually want. A 1:3  or 1:4 ratio is pretty good for flowers, unless you just want to take a close up of pistels or stamens.....even then you will only get a small bit in focus at 1:1. Similarly butterflies are really too big, unless you just want a small part of them.

You definitely need to consider focus distance to the subject  you'll be capturing. Most insects won't sit still for 50mm. I find that  my 100mm 1:1  is still pretty short and end up spooking them alot.

Tamron has rebates on many lenses til April 30th and a great 6 year warranty!
http://www.tamron.com/lenses/rebates.asp

There's also the reverse macro method...that might be an option for you as well
  http://stephenelliot.com/2007/05/15/reverse-lens-macro-photography-tutorial/

I use a Tokina 100mm F2.8 AT-X  it's not the fastest to focus but is very good on manual. Plus it doubles up as a decent 100mm prime.

 ecurb - The Devil

Are you photographing stuff that sits still or things like insects that need a quick focus ?

Because my budget is tight and I cant afford a 100mm AF Macro for my static macro's of water drops (where I can focus once and then take pic's all night from a tripod) I use a 55mm M42 (Pentax screw fit needs a canon adaptor) lens with 1 small macro extender. Gets pretty close.

http://www.flickr.com/photos/drippy2009/sets/72157615864499805/
Most of the shots in here were taken with that or a tamron 70-300mm

Or if you want REALLY close add a full set of 3 macro extenders
http://www.flickr.com/photos/drippy2009/sets/72157616048839358/

Depends on what your shooting and your budget really

I think for once it is fair to say that any of the Macro lens on offer by all makers that do the Canon fit are all very good to superb!!   Much will come down to the speed of focus and handling or if you need greater magnification than True 1/1 or longer focal length such as above the norm of 90-100mm,  but 60 or 70 mm may also suit the 1.6 crop sensor and be even better for portraits as they do make great lens for this also..   I have owned and traded in the 105mm Sigma for the Canon 100mm as the later was quick to focus and not noisey nor did it move in and out..  Which scared off the Butterflies..  However as macro is best manual the worlds your oyster here     Whats the budget ?  is the main consideration unless you have something in mind you need the macro for.. When other options such as the  180mm maybe of greater value and also make a decent medium telephoto prime

Danny O'Byrne  http://www.digitalartzone.co.uk/

"All the technique in the world doesn't compensate for the inability to notice" Eliott Erwitt

I want to explore both floral and insect photography as well as use it for portraits

www.bclaytonphoto.com

bclaytonphoto on Facebook

I really like my Sigma F/2.8 50mm.   This is capable of 1:1  and does a credible job.  The problem with 50mm is that 1:1 is not more than an inch from the object.   But....honestly, looking at my shots, 1:1 is almost always TOO close...unless you are doing one of those spectatular shots showing the eye cell patterns of a fly or dragon fly...

I also have a longer Sigma, the 105mm macro, also an F/2.8. This lens certainly provides a bit more room from the subject for photos but even then, at 1:1 you are close enough to spook a living thing.

The problem with the 105 as a prime other than macro is distance. You are far away, if a scene of any sort even with more than one rose in it your tail is backing into the street to get the distance! The 50 is easy to take nice normal shots since 50mm is considered a "normal" view anyway, as in 1X magnification, same size as original.  Both lenses do pretty well in portrait style shots.  I used the  50mm in a wedding when I shot some photos for a bro-in-law getting married.and being in rooms for some candids the 50 did very well...but honestly a zoom going down a bit would do better and did on some shots.  But, the zoom could not do macro...

My choice, as much as I love the 105mm, my choice is the 50mm.  The difference in closeness in a MACRO shot is not great enough to be noticed by the living creatures. Either is too close unless your timing is ready to go.  And, I don't want to be more distant for such shots.

As a prime, the 50 is superior in my use but the 105 is quite credible. Both are fast enough.  I have used and do have a faster lens but at even 2.8 dof is impossibly shallow, faster is not an advantage.

My two cents worth is now posted.   ; )      Tom.

 I'd echo what Danny said - you cant go wrong with a prime macro lens (the 100mm range at least) - they all double as a "portrait" lens.  If you have a 50mm lens anyway i'd do the 100 macro (if not get the 50mm 1.8 canon - its rude not to at the price ).

I have the 105mm sigma, basically i would only go for the canon if i decided i wanted to spend that little bit extra for the USM, i'd imagine the macro David uses is comparable to the sigma in optical quality... never picked one up really... but I've personally never had much of a problem with the focusing of the Sigma... i managed this shot on auto focus with the 105mm:

"In every colour, there's the light.
In every stone sleeps a crystal.
Remember the Shaman, when he used to say:
Man is the dream of the Dolphin"

Rich Meadows Photography

Here are a couple of samples taken with my Tokina 100mm macro.  The first is a straight forward macro taken with the temp -4C  the second it was so cold I did not change lens I just used it as a 100mm prime.

**Ice Crown

**
Sally Goes Walkies **
**

 ecurb - The Devil

I use the Sigma 105 for almost all my photography - only using my Nikon 60 Micro for larger objects like paintings, etc. For flora and bugs, the 105 will give you a pleasant distance to not spook the bugs, and a little room to bring in anything from a reflector surface (reflector, foamcore, mirrors, white inkjet paper - whatever) to a flash or strobe.

(attached shot taken with the 105)

How much room do you have for portraits? Do you have a studio, or do you think it will be in confined areas - this is where the 60mm (or 50 in your case) would come in handy.

This is a one of those "you don't actually know what you'll need until you are there" decisions. I love the shallow DOF from the 105, and I find the flattened field more flattering for portraits, but this is MY opinion. Some people can't get enough of ultra-wide lenses for portraits - get it?

Whaddaya like?
-Lew

Go into a camera store and try some out - see whatcha think. Macro (true ones - not a typical zoom that has the word "macro" as part of its name) lenses will more often than not give you a 1:1 ratio, so you're covered there as far as how big can you get it in the frame - no difference.