Before the rush

Before the rush
by evan-pak

Submit your Photo
Hall of Fame

Please participate in Meta
and help us grow.

Photography Stack Exchange is a question and answer site for professional, enthusiast and amateur photographers. Join them; it only takes a minute:

Sign up
Here's how it works:
  1. Anybody can ask a question
  2. Anybody can answer
  3. The best answers are voted up and rise to the top

Taking into consideration price, what are the best macro lenses for not-to-serious photography? Price is a big factor for me.

And I know it is a subjective question. I do not mind subjective answers.

share|improve this question

closed as not constructive by jrista Jul 3 '12 at 1:14

As it currently stands, this question is not a good fit for our Q&A format. We expect answers to be supported by facts, references, or expertise, but this question will likely solicit debate, arguments, polling, or extended discussion. If you feel that this question can be improved and possibly reopened, visit the help center for guidance.If this question can be reworded to fit the rules in the help center, please edit the question.

The most cost effective solution is to adapt a non-macro lens, see… – Matt Grum Jul 2 '12 at 8:33
up vote 0 down vote accepted

The best would be to adapt a non macro lens, There are many ways to do this, lens reversal, extension tubes, etc... if you want to buy a macro lens, for a $500 price tag you can get the older 100mm f/2.8 you can read a review here, also for about the same price you can get the Sigma 70mm f/2.8, however, I would go with the Canon.

share|improve this answer

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.