18-55 for macro use but what's a better choice?

[EssEll]

I will be shooting small leather cases used with iPhones, iPods, etc., and just finished trying this with my Canon Eos Rebel (8mp) and 18-55 zoom lens.  The quality was pretty good (able to see the grain of the leathers well) and will certainly look good enough on a website, but I'm concerned about the quality if the same shots are used in a printed brochure.

I liked having the zoom feature since I don't necessarily want to be moving the camera when I need to fill the frame with more of the image.  So...

   1.  Are the results from a "prime" macro lens demonstrably better than that of zoom lenses with macro capability?

   2.  Which zoom lenses would deliver the best results?

[Bob Atkins]

Well, the best macro lens for the Rebel is probably the EF-S 60/2.8 macro. Macro lenses have flatter fields plus higher resolution and contrast than normal lenses when close focused, especially at wider apertures. They also provide higher magnification.

That being said, if you're shooting stopped down in order to get adequate depth of field for 3D subjects, then a lens like the 18-55 isn't so bad and you really might not gain all that much from a dedicated prime macro lens. If you're happy with what you have, I'd stick with it for now and look for a better lens only when you become unhappy with the results from the one you have!

The EF-S 60/2.8 macro can also double as a rather useful portrait lens. It's the approximate equivalent of a 100mm lens on a full frame camera and is ideal for "head and shoulders" type portraits.