Ok Thanks guys & Girls, I've got a bit of research to do on your suggestions. Thankyou. I'm not really sure what I'll be photographing but I've always loved getting as much of the little detail as I can so I guess I'm looking for an all rounder. I love the insect shots people post but no that's not going to happen unless they just happen to die in front of me and definately aren't going to move lol!

Walwyn whats the Raynox?

The Raynox is a supplementary lens that clips onto the front of an existing lens:
http://www.bugeyedigital.com/product...ay-dcr250.html

It costs £35 and gives you about 2.5 times magnification with a half way decent zoom. Almost all my macros use it, the one disadvantage is that you do have to work close to the subject, but I've never found that to be a problem. Check out my gallery for examples.

There's a macro lens buyers guide in this months "What Camera?" magazine (a freebie we get at work).
Tests the Canon 60mm, Sigma 70mm, Tokina 100mm and Tamron 90mm.
The Sigma comes out tops for macro, by the narrowest of margins against the Canon.
Interestingly the article hints that the performance of the Tamron is better at wider apertures than stopped down, perhaps suggesting it is a good all rounder for portraiture.

Hi Fiona,
I would look for a macro that focuses internally, ie nikon. I use a sigma 50 2.8 and often find the lens catching petels or grass as it winds out to focus, and moving the subject.Manual focusing Macros are fine, I always man/focus on 1.1 subjects

So after just a few weeks weeks of posting this and starting to write up my dream list, we got some happy baby news that has slashed my allowed budget by around 1/2 (au$500 -$600 0r uk 250 to 300) and have been contemplating the Tamron SP AF 90mm f/2.8 Di Macro 1:1. I'm just wondering if any of you have used this lens, what you thought of it and or if you have other suggestions in my price range.

Hi Fiona - seeing your price range - how about the 70mm f2.8 Sigma Macro? On a reduced frame DSLR it works out about 105mm and some reports rate it a one of the sharpest lenses that Sigma do. Price over here is about £200 and their proper 105 goes for £320 on ebay at one UK seller. Best of luck.

I don't think you would be disappointed with any of the lenses mentioned, they are all very good. The Tamron has long been near the top of any revue and although I have never used one I own the original pre EOS version which fits my old Canon FD cameras and it is superb. I think that your expertise will be the most important factor rather than which lens you buy.

the older adaptall2 tamron 90mm f/2.5 version was one of the sharpest lenses they ever made. the later AF 2.8 version not so...it's a different optical design, which didn't get the same acolade the earlier MF version did.
Without going for manufacturers lenses/prices I would agree with Andy in that the Sigma 70mm has certainly received the best vevues.
The 105mm sigma was certainly one of the best macro sellers when I worked in a local camera shop. not the best build quality (check out the Tokinas for that), but certainly one of the best bits of glass from the independant manufacturers

Personal choice but I would prefer the longer focal length of the 105 Sigma which gives around 150-160 35mm equivalent depending on the ''crop factor''. The Tamron is still a good lens even if not up to the original adaptall2 either optically or in build quality. I like my Sigma 105.

Don't waste your time with any of the others, just go for the latest Tamron 90mm Macro, you won't regret it, it leaves the others standing, it's also well within your budget! I've used one for years in it's various re-incarnations and can vouch for the superb results and build quality of the latest model.

nirofo.