Reptile & Amphibian Forums

I was hoping some of you Canon shooters could help me out. I am trying to decide between two macro lenses for the Canon 20D. I am looking at the Canon EF-S 60mm f/2.8 Macro USM and the Canon EF 100mm f/2.8 Macro USM lenses. The price difference between the two is not significant enough to factor into my decision. I am mainly looking for a good lens to get sharp crisp headshots on a variety of snakes in the field (including hots). I would also like to be able to get up close and take detailed pics of insects and other tiny critters. Any input from you guys would be greatly appreciated. Thanks in advance.

Joe

If quality of pictures and price are roughly equal, then go for the longer lens. Because you can be farther away from the subject and still get the same size photo. Distance can make a difference in lighting problems and the subjects' response. You may also want to get some extension tubes for the real close ups.

For hots, you also want a transparent shield between you and them.

Paul Hollander

I'm no Canon shooter, but I do a lot of insect and snake head photography. I can confidently say that the 60mm would be a poor choice for this sort of work in the field, especially for skittish bugs like butterflies / dragonflies, and venomous snakes (you would be in the strike range of a 6-inch pigmy rattler if you were close enough for an isolated head photo with the 60mm). The 100mm would be the shortest focal length you would want. A 150-200mm lens would be even better. Tamron makes a 180mm/3.5 macro, and Sigma makes a 150/2.8 and 180mm/3.5 macro that produce image quality similar to the lenses you're considering. They're also much less costly, and give you better woking distance. These lenses are worth a look too.

Best of luck.

WK

I really appreciate the input. I will definately be looking at the 100mm Macro over the 60mm. Thanks again.

Joe

Cane,

I have a sigma 105 mm macro (Nikon mount) basically at full magnification you will fill the frame (of a digital) with a 25mm X 16 mm rectangle. This allows you to do head shots on many juvenile snakes, small frogs etc. Due to the close working distance you will need to either hand hold the flash or use a bracket of some discription (I run twin sb 800 flashes on a Manfrotto twin flash bracket). As for macro photography of venomous snakes, I personally find this lens fine (mind you my main exp with Reptiles is Elapids), but this of course is dependant on how well you know the subject you are photographing.

A friend has since got the same lens for his 20d and loves it as well.

Regards,
Scott Eipper

You kinda read my mind. I was going to ask about the Sigma 105mm Macro. I've heard that is nearly as good a lens (if not as good?) as the Canon 100mm. Of course, the price is a little easier on the wallet as well. Lighting is another issue I am going to have to address. Ahhhh, the never ending investments of photography...

Thanks for the help!

Joe

The Sigma 105mm is a fine lens to be sure. I have one and love it. But I still think that for shooting bugs and reptile head profiles, you would do much better to get a longer focal length macro lens. Not only will this give you a greater working distance, but you will get also a narrower angle of view. This allows you much more control over the background than can be achieved with a shorter focal length lens. I’ll use these wolf spider photos, taken with a Sigma 180mm macro, to illustrate the point. I was on the ground taking photos of this spider today. I wanted to use the bulbous abdomen of the thing to serve as a backdrop for the head. I wasn’t happy with the first one, so I just moved the camera a few millimeters to create a completely different background. You can see the position of the head in relation to the body hardly changed. You couldn’t do this with a 105mm. Also, being able to do this while hardly moving makes it less likely you will spook a skittish subject, or trigger a strike from a nervous venomous animal.

Great shots WK! I see what you mean. Don't get me wrong, I would love to get something like a 180mm macro. But macro lenses in the 150-200mm range generally are bit more money than I was hoping to spend. For the price, and for my purposes, it looks like the Sigma 105mm should fit the bill. I really appreciate the input though.

Thanks for the comments on the photos.

The Nikon 105mm macro is roughly equivalent in price to the Sigma and Tamron 180mm macros. I've not priced the Canon lenses so I assumed the Canon 100mm was about the same. Anyway, I'm sure you'll like the Sigma 105mm. I use this one and the 180mm about equally. Both are very nice.

Cheers,
WK