My answer to "Which macro lens?"

I come across this question a lot on the photography forums I frequent. The answer is usually the same, so I've decided to post it here to save myself a lot of redundant typing from now on. If you have anything to add, disagree with me, or have questions/answers that you don't think I've covered, please let me know so I can improve this post.

Before asking "Which macro lens?", think about the following to help you make your decision and to help others make an informed and reasonable recommendation for you:

* What is your budget? Make sure you specify what currency to avoid confusion if you're getting advice from people all over the world as is the case on many forums.
* What do you want to shoot? Insects, flowers, jewellery?
* Do you have requirements for a particular focal length? Reasons?

Around 100mm is by far the most commonly recommended focal length (FL) to start out macro with. It is an unbeatable balance in terms of working distance, usability, and cost. Working distance (WD) is important if you're aiming to shoot bugs, less chance of scaring them off.

But going too long with FL to get more WD brings in some complexities. Talking about the 150-180mm FL now. It's heavier and harder to hand-hold, you get the subject jumping around more in the frame, even little things like the flash might be further away so slightly harsher light.

Don't get caught up on brands. True macro lenses are all primes and are all some of the sharpest lenses you will ever own. Canon, Sigma, Tamron, Tokina[1] - they all make top notch macro lenses and you shouldn't have regrets no matter which one you choose.

Also, don't get caught up on comments about slow auto-focus. Unless you're using the lens to double as a portrait lens or something, AF does not matter as you'll be shooting macro in manual focus anyway. If you are using it as a portrait lens as well, although some may comment that this macro lens has faster AF than that macro lens, they are all extremly slow to AF compared to normal lenses intended to shoot portraits.

I haven't used the EF-S 60, but know it does produce fine results in the right hands. Just not enough WD for my liking. The kind of scenario I've come across where I would consider recommending it over the 100mm range was if you're using it to shoot subjects where you can't back up enough and need to be in closer - this dentist was wanting to use one to shoot people's teeth in a tight room space for example.

I do not recommend the Canon MP-E 65 for someone new to photography. Yes, it is a fine, if not the finest, dedicated macro lens available. But it cannot be used for anything else, it does not focus further than about 100mm in front of the lens, it is very specialised. If there are any MP-E owners out there that don't have a normal macro lens in their bag as well, they're certainly in the minority and they must have a very particular reason for it.

So, I recommend the Tamron 90, Sigma 105 or Canon 100 as a general rule. I have no experience with the new Canon 100L IS, but if you have the dough the IS may be beneficial. Personally I'd rather keep the dough and spend it on lighting because you'll want flash and diffusers eventually, maybe extension tubes too.

I've used or owned or still own the Canon 100, Sigma 105, Tamron 90, Sigma 150, Canon 180L, Canon MP-E65. If I had my time again, I'd get the Tamron 90 to start with and it would always be in my bag no matter what other macro lenses I got to complement it.

A final word on hoods and filters. Don't bother for macro shooting. Hoods just take up valuable real estate between your lens and the subject that might get scared away by it as you get close. But I always use a hood for non-macro shooting, so if you're using the lens for portraits etc, hood is a reasonable idea. I don't use UV filters as a general rule for lens protection any more. They just add more glass in the imaging train and I'm careful anyway.

[1] I only have experience with Canon cameras. I'm sure that Nikon have equally excellent macro lens options.