Macro Choice: EF 100 2.8 vs EFS 60 2.8

Thinking about Xmas present for self. Have 40D and XTi. Let me know Pros and Cons of above (someday I'll probably

move to a full frame, so that is one pro for the 100).

 

Current lenses: EF 24-105 f4 L, EF 50 1.4, EF 70-200 f4 L, EFS 17-85 which I don't use since I got the 24-105.

The 100 mm macro is an excellent lens. I use it more for portraits than for macro (I don't shoot maco too much). Some people say it is "too sharp". I love it. I bought before buying the 5D. But my policy is avoiding EF-S lenses.

Both are very sharp lenses, the 60mm may be slightly sharper in the centre but in real life you will be limited by depth of field and diffraction anyway.

 

The 100mm would be my suggestion as IMHO the 60mm working distance is too short for general macro work, specially bugs, this is not only an issue of not scaring the bugs but of not obstructing light.

 

100mm is about as long as you can go before handholding in natural light becomes difficult for macro subjects due not only to camera shake but weight. Finally the 100mm has a number of operational advantages over the 60mm beside the focal length/working distance, it is full frame, it has a a focus range limiter switch to improve AF performance as an ordinary tele in low light (can't remember using this much however) and it can be used with a tripod ring which is convenient if working with a tripod but not essential if your camera has an L-Plate.

 

Here is a page I put together when choosing my macro system you should find lots of helpful background info here http://www.zen20934.zen.co.uk/photography/Macro_Equipment.htm

EF 100 2.8 is bigger, and heavier, has more working distance and a focus limiter. The latter two points in most cases work in its favour. The EF-S 60 is reported to be ever so slightly sharper, but the EF 100 is a very sharp lens anyway.

 

I have the EF 100 f2.8 and am very happy with it. The only thing I would change if I had majic powers would be to make it the size of the EF-S 60.

I would opt for the EF if these are your only two choices.

 

In actual fact I went a third way and got the Sigma 70mm EX DG f2.8 which I am very very happy with.

 

It picks up excellent reviews, has won a few awards is less expensive than the Canon 100 but still offers FF

compatability and full 1:1 repro (x1.6 crop on your body) on top of that it also offers a great portrait focal

length on your APS-C body (equiv to 110mm)

 

It's true that the Af speed isn't fast at close range, but then no macro is. With the limiter on its actually

pretty decent at longer distances.

Hi

Here:

http://giorgio-photos.com/wordpress/?page_id=187

and here:

http://giorgio-photos.com/wordpress/?page_id=421

 

you can find some pictures taken with the 100 macro.

I think that i would be a better choice if you are going to jump to the FF.

If you're still not decided, I think the Tamron 90mm (lots of letters) Macro should be considered. It's got the price of the EF-S 60, and the *near* focal length and sharpness of the EF 100. But it's heavy(-ish), ugly looking, slow (compared to the EF100), and the front element extends quite a bit. I just thought I'd throw the idea out for you.

I have both the Canon 100 macro and the efs 60 macro. I also have the Sigma 180 macro. In my situation if I would keep the 60 macro

instead of the 100 macro. Much smaller and lighter and sharper than the 100 macro, but not as sharp as the Sigma 180.

The 100 is longer, heavier, more expensive but it is a better length for insects and other subjects where you want a bit of distance. It is razor sharp (as almost all macro lenses are) when stopped down to f/16 or 2. and built like a tank. I like it a lot as a general, hand-held macro lens on full frame bodies and even more on a cropped sensor. You get the effect of a longer lens with less weight and cost. Since I started shooting it on a 40D I seldom use my Canon 180 macro. If you move to full frame, it is certainly a better choice. Shorter than 100mm is getting pretty short for lots of macro work.

I also own both lenses. I like them both the same, but the 60mm is much lighter. The minimum focusing distance of 100mm allows you to be farther from the subject, but even with the 60mm you're still far enough not to disturb the bugs.

 

This pic is taken with the 60mm, if you look closer you'll see the 100mm in the background :)

 

http://www.photo.net/photo/7880352&size=lg

 

Btw, this photo is untouched, it's just how it came from the camera sensor (Rebel XT).