I have the canon 100mm 2.8 macro http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/194451-USA/Canon_4657A006_100mm_f_2_8_USM_Macro.html

but I really want the Canon 180mm http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/112541-GREY/Canon_2539A007_Telephoto_EF_180mm_f_3_5L.html and of course I think it would be better :)

Aphids are interesting little buggers, Good shot of them!

Tara is this the lens you have?
http://www.amazon.com/Canon-50mm-Compact-Macro-Lens/dp/B00006I53V

I use the nikkor af 105mm micro, 2.8 I bought from **** Neil a year or two ago, and it's wonderful. However, I have discovered I must shoot at 1/125 speed when hand held, otherwise in danger of getting camera shake. Would be nice to have one with vibration reduction!! It takes sharp pictures tho!

I'm using these lenses (diopter filters).

http://www.amazon.com/Digital-Concepts-Close-Up-Macro-Filter/dp/B001GMTI40/ref=sr_1_3?ie=UTF8&s=electronics&qid=1259621234&sr=8-3

I know they're really just magnifying glasses (+1, +2, +4, +10), but I've taken some neat shots with them. They were really inexpensive and since I'm just getting started I am starting small. What am I missing out on by not having a true macro lens?

And while I am at it, can someone explain when I would want to use a +1 versus a +2 or +4, etc? I know the magnification gets bigger, and depth of field decreases. And what's the difference from no lens to a +1 anyway? I think I will be using the +4 and +10 ones mostly. Although they are stackable, which gets even better but then my poor 6" tripod fails under the weight. (I hope I get a nicer desktop tripod for Christmas!)

Just found this amazing collection of macro shots... Enjoy:

http://www.quickenwebsites.com/web-designer-blog/tag/macro-photography/

Thanks, BenW! That helps a lot! So does anyone have a macro lens (my camera takes 55mm lenses) that I could try out? Or maybe just get a demo from someone?

Thanks, Tara! You can find me on FB - search for Allison Westbrook Abbott - and we'll work out a time.

I looked at the 180mm & the 50mm....and I thought the best macro would be the one with the lower aperture numbers....or am I wrong in thinking that? I was also told that if I got the Canon 500D close up lens (I'm not sure why its called a lens...it looks like a filter) but...that would make a lens closer to a macro without going into the cost of a good macro lens. ...or get extension's? This is why I haven't decided on what to get...because I'm not sure. I was recently told not to get the Canon 500D lens because it's only magnifying glass.

I have always heard the MPE-65 is the ultimate macro lens for Canon cameras. You can also buy a special lighting unit to accompany it.

I am always on a budget so several years ago I bought a bellows for my Canon. It is just a compatible knock off I found on ebay. You also have to buy an adapter for it and then buy a lens to go on the adapter. I am using m42 screw mount I think for my lenses. The reason for buying the lenses is that I wanted to be able to control the aperture and canon no longer makes lens where the aperture is controlled on the lens. This way I can get a bit deeper depth of field. When talking macro depth of field can be measured in millimeters.

There are a lot of problems inherent with the type of setup I have. first you can only photograph fixed items. The bellows and stuff make for a very long and unwieldy setup. I have to mount the bellows to the tripod and also I have to use long lenses on the end of the bellows because I can't focus wide angle lenses. Also because of this bellows system all focusing and aperture settings must be done manually. Then again this setup cost less then $150.

Here are some pics from this setup I took the other day. Each one gets progressively closer. Sorry about the lighting it's from the light over our kitchen table and I have done no editing whatsoever.

You can see them larger here: http://gallery.me.com/stamage#100387&bgcolor=black&view=grid

Brian

Brian you made me curious about the 65mm macro. I have seen some awesome shots taken with it. Here is an excellent article about it. http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/lenses/mp-e-65.shtml

and a link to the lens http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/183199-GREY/Canon_2540A002_Macro_Photo_MP_E_65mm.html

and a link to the twin lite it mentions
http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/239656-USA/Canon_2357A002_MT_24EX_Macro_Twin_Lite.html

and a link to the cheaper ringlite the article mentions
http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/194480-USA/Canon_2356A002_MR_14EX_TTL_Macro_Ring.html

Now if I could justify $1000 for the lens, plus $729 for the twin lite that would be an awesome set up for macros...... maybe I'll be changing my wish list.

I did notice in the review that the 65mm lens isn't good as a regular 65mm because it can only focus really close to the subject, whereas the100mm macro makes a great portrait lens, as long as you have some room to back up from your subject.

Does anybody in the club have the 180mm Canon or the 65mm ?

lol, forgot to finish my message..... does anyone have this or know about the 60 micro lens?