Canon 60mm Macro or 24-70 L for Close-Up

Dreaming of the 100mm L Macro and the 180 L Macro but for now, trying to rock the equipment I have.

I do mostly floral photography. In the studio, overhead, and outdoors. I’m not trying to get insects 1:1. More likely to be a flower.

I’m particularly looking for the best set up choice for shooting overhead on a light pad.

Right now for this type of photography, I have:

• Canon 7D with 60mm Macro or
  
• Canon 5D MK III with 24-70 f.2.8 USM II L
  

Which would you use? I think the 2nd is more versatile, but I have to be closer to the subject to get really close in with the 24-70 which might be more of a problem with lighting? then again with the 60mm shooting overhead a scene larger than A3 I will have to jack my tripod up.

I did a quick test today photographing the closest I could go with the 24-70 at 70mm. You can get around 8 inches from the subject. The same frame view with the 60mm macro puts you at roughly 19 inches. The sharpness and details seemed pretty close.

Also, a bonus question - what would be your dream lens for this set up?

I use a 60mm macro on a 7D on a regular basis. I get good solid results with no issues. The Canon EF-S 60mm lens is among the sharpest I've ever used, and I doubt the 24-70 will approach the sharpness.

Maybe I’m getting hung up on wanting to use my 5D MK III for all my shooting. :-) It’s true that the 7D / 60mm Macro combo has served me well for many years. I keep thinking that the 5D MK III with an L lens would be better, but maybe it’s not that much of a difference or even better with the 60mm since it’s a macro and quite sharp.

Dreaming of the 100mm L Macro and the 180 L Macro but for now, trying to rock the equipment I have.

Forgive me if this sounds "Captain Obvious", because I'm sure its already crossed your mind, but if your primary goal is to emulate most aspects of working with the 5DIII and 100mm L Macro I'd suggest you stay with the 7D and 60mm macro until you can see your way to affording the 100mm (or 180mm) for the 5DIII. The crop sensor of the 7D combined with the 60mm give you similar perspective, flat field macro optical performance and working distance as the 5DIII with 100mm: if that combo is your upgrade end game, it makes sense to keep rockin the 7D + 60mm so the transition later is seamless.

The full frame body and longer L macro lens sets up a slightly different shooting paradigm that may or may not be of significance in your work. The larger sensor has somewhat more dynamic range, and the longer lenses required for it have thinner depth of field at comparable framing to your 7D. For some work, that thinner DOF helps make the subject "pop" from the melt-away background in an appealing way, OTOH it makes keeping track of precise focus that much more important, and may limit the range of practical working apertures you can choose from.

Whether the optical performance of the L macros would be significant improved over the "non-pro" 60mm EF-S is debatable: the 60mm is a very, very good lens optimized for crop, in essence an L for the 7D format. The L designation on some of the full-frame lenses indicates performance benefits more applicable to the larger 24x36 sensor: a well-designed non-L on the 7D can come pretty darned close to L results.

"Optical performance" can be a moving target for 3-dimensional subjects like flowers not being shot in the 2:1 or 1:1 range. While a macro lens has optimizations for closer distances, much of that optimization centers on flat field subjects like artwork and documents. Depending on composition and lighting, the L zoom could be perfectly satisfactory for flowers, in which case your only decision would be how comfortable you are with the closer working distance of the zoom. The 60mm on your 7D or 100mm on 5DIII would give you more distance than the zoom, the 180mm a lot more.

Other considerations would be how long you've owned the 5DIII vs the 7D, how committed you are to moving completely to full-frame gear, and whether a crop camera like the 7D retains any specific utility for your work after acquiring the larger sensor body. Some primarily 5DIII photographers like to keep a crop body like the 7D around for sports-action-wildlife, because it provides more tele reach using smaller, lighter, much less expensive glass. But if you rarely or never need that kind of "reach", and would rather fully concentrate on the 5DIII, perhaps it would be better to sell the 7D + 60mm to subsidize a 100mm or 180mm L purchase?

Forgive me if this sounds "Captain Obvious", because I'm sure its already crossed your mind, but if your primary goal is to emulate most aspects of working with the 5DIII and 100mm L Macro I'd suggest you stay with the 7D and 60mm macro until you can see your way to affording the 100mm (or 180mm) for the 5DIII. The crop sensor of the 7D combined with the 60mm give you similar perspective, flat field macro optical performance and working distance as the 5DIII with 100mm: if that combo is your upgrade end game, it makes sense to keep rockin the 7D + 60mm so the transition later is seamless.

 

The full frame body and longer L macro lens sets up a slightly different shooting paradigm that may or may not be of significance in your work. The larger sensor has somewhat more dynamic range, and the longer lenses required for it have thinner depth of field at comparable framing to your 7D. For some work, that thinner DOF helps make the subject "pop" from the melt-away background in an appealing way, OTOH it makes keeping track of precise focus that much more important, and may limit the range of practical working apertures you can choose from.

 

Whether the optical performance of the L macros would be significant improved over the "non-pro" 60mm EF-S is debatable: the 60mm is a very, very good lens optimized for crop, in essence an L for the 7D format. The L designation on some of the full-frame lenses indicates performance benefits more applicable to the larger 24x36 sensor: a well-designed non-L on the 7D can come pretty darned close to L results.

 

"Optical performance" can be a moving target for 3-dimensional subjects like flowers not being shot in the 2:1 or 1:1 range. While a macro lens has optimizations for closer distances, much of that optimization centers on flat field subjects like artwork and documents. Depending on composition and lighting, the L zoom could be perfectly satisfactory for flowers, in which case your only decision would be how comfortable you are with the closer working distance of the zoom. The 60mm on your 7D or 100mm on 5DIII would give you more distance than the zoom, the 180mm a lot more.

 

Other considerations would be how long you've owned the 5DIII vs the 7D, how committed you are to moving completely to full-frame gear, and whether a crop camera like the 7D retains any specific utility for your work after acquiring the larger sensor body. Some primarily 5DIII photographers like to keep a crop body like the 7D around for sports-action-wildlife, because it provides more tele reach using smaller, lighter, much less expensive glass. But if you rarely or never need that kind of "reach", and would rather fully concentrate on the 5DIII, perhaps it would be better to sell the 7D + 60mm to subsidize a 100mm or 180mm L purchase?

Orsetto, thank you so much for your thoughtful and informed response. This is exactly what I need. I have thought of some of these points, but you wrap up the spectrum of considerations quite nicely and bring points I hadn't thought of / wasn't aware of.

I've had my 5D MK III 3 years and I have 3 L lenses (24-70mm USM II, 70-200 4.0, 85mm 1.2) I've wanted to upgrade to the 100mm macro but it hasn't been in the budget. I'd actually like to get both the 100mm macro and the 180mm macro. They serve 2 different needs. The 100mm for an all-purpose macro for studio close-ups and overhead shooting. The 180 for outdoor close-ups. The 180 would allow me to photograph in public gardens without tramping into the flower beds to get close enough AND the blur for backgrounds is so much better in the 180. I just can't get what I need with my 60mm macro outdoors unless I'm super close to the subject, which is not always possible or the desired crop. I think if the 60mm on the 7D is serving my purposes in the studio, I just might go for the 180mm macro before the 100mm macro.

I do photograph my Weimaraners in the field with my 70-200 f.4.

I've thought of selling the 7D / 60mm macro to finance my next lens. I just hesitate as it's sometimes nice to have 2 bodies. Plus, I will be creating video classes with my DSLR and it might be a good idea to have another camera to film while I demonstrate shooting with the other.

Right now, my pain points are 1. close ups in the studio - which if I continue with the 7D / 60mm is no longer a pain point and 2. Getting the working distance and characteristics of the 180mm macro for outdoor captures.

So, I'm leaning towards continuing with the 60mm macro / 7D with the next purchase being the 180mm macro and eventually when money is right also getting the 100mm macro.

Thanks so much! I've been feeling like the 60mm macro / 7D was inferior to what I wanted, but now I feel OK about continuing for awhile.

I do mostly floral photography. In the studio, overhead, and outdoors. I’m not trying to get insects 1:1. More likely to be a flower.

I’m particularly looking for the best set up choice for shooting overhead on a light pad.

Right now for this type of photography, I have:

• Canon 7D with 60mm Macro or
  
• Canon 5D MK III with 24-70 f.2.8 USM II L
  

You didn't mention what other lenses you already own, so if this were the only choice, one lens and camera from the list:

I recommend going with the 5D MK III with 24-70 f/2.8 USM II L. It will be a lot more versitile than the 60mm Macro (Also the APS-C gets you no closer to the subject than the full frame, the crop sensor only captures the middle of the lens. It will be a slightly higher resolution across that section of lens.) .

Then for macro stuff I would pick up a set of 82mm Marco Filters for under $50 maybe under $20. and I see sets for sale for under $15 online. This will get you really close to the subject with the 24-70 and you can get those great detailed close up of flower pedals. You could also experiment with some extension tubes, they are a little more expensive, but not nearly as expensive as a 100mm Macro lens. The macro filters do a nice job and might keep you satisfied until one day you do get that 100 mm macro.

The L designation on some of the full-frame lenses indicates performance benefits more applicable to the larger 24x36 sensor: a well-designed non-L on the 7D can come pretty darned close to L results.

On a pedantic point, to gain an "L" moniker, the lens has to reach many criteria; one criterion is that the lens must be able to mount on all cameras of the particular Camera Series. (the current series being EOS DSLRs). Therefore no EF-S Lens can ever be provided that "L" designation. Thus, arguably, an EF-S Lens might indeed outperform an L Series Lens, in one or more aspects.

WW

. . . I do mostly floral photography. In the studio, overhead, and outdoors. I’m not trying to get insects 1:1. More likely to be a flower . . . I’m particularly looking for the best set up choice for shooting overhead on a light pad. Right now for this type of photography, I have:

• Canon 7D with 60mm Macro or
  
• Canon 5D MK III with 24-70 f.2.8 USM II L
  

Which would you use? . . . I did a quick test today photographing the closest I could go with the 24-70 at 70mm. You can get around 8 inches from the subject. The same frame view with the 60mm macro puts you at roughly 19 inches. The sharpness and details seemed pretty close.

The extra Working Distance makes that choice a no brainer, IMO.

***

. . . Also, a bonus question - what would be your dream lens for this set up?

I use my 5D cameras for the relatively few, but regular and important Macro and Close Up shots that I make.

I use the EF 50/2.5 Macro (and the EF Life Size Converter); MP-E 65/2.8; 100/2.8Macro; a set of three Extension Tubes (12/20/36mm); both the x2.0 and the x1.4 Tele-extenders EF MkII, for this work.

For some specific situations I have used Extension Tubes on another Prime Lens, typically a TS-E 90/2.8.

I also have the EF 24 to 105/4 which is a pretty good “close-up” Lens, and I have used that in the field on a few occasions, mainly because the close up shot happened to ‘be there’, rather than me planning the shot/shoot - and I usually carry that particular lens as my ‘all in one walk around solution’.

If I were charged with the particular task you describe in the OP, and it was regular and ongoing, then I’d really consider getting the EF 180/3.5 for that job.

***

A Dual Format Camera Kit is very powerful, not only because of the System Redundancy of having a second camera body: think long and hard about your usage, before selling your 7D.

WW

I'd actually like to get both the 100mm macro and the 180mm macro. They serve 2 different needs. The 100mm for an all-purpose macro for studio close-ups and overhead shooting. The 180 for outdoor close-ups. The 180 would allow me to photograph in public gardens without tramping into the flower beds to get close enough AND the blur for backgrounds is so much better in the 180. I just can't get what I need with my 60mm macro outdoors unless I'm super close to the subject, which is not always possible or the desired crop. I think if the 60mm on the 7D is serving my purposes in the studio, I just might go for the 180mm macro before the 100mm macro.

They (100/2.8M and 180/3.5M) do indeed serve different purposes.

The second under-lined quote, seems to my mind an eloquent and logical progression. I didn't wander out, all in one day, and buy a truckload of those lenses I mentioned above: it was a progression as I had required uses and/or was feed up with making do with another solution and also as I or the business could afford each new addition.

Additionally, and for clarity I have the EF 100/2.8 Macro USM (i.e. not the L version). I have had this lens for a long period of time; when the L version was released I used it, in a few respects it is a better lens, and I thought long and hard about an 'upgrade'. I chose not to do that, because for me it was not a value for money choice. If I didn't have the 100/2.8 and I was in the market now I would definitely buy the L version and that is what I advise you to do, if you do choose to get one.

WW

They (100/2.8M and 180/3.5M) do indeed serve different purposes.

 

The second under-lined quote, seems to my mind an eloquent and logical progression. I didn't wander out, all in one day, and buy a truckload of those lenses I mentioned above: it was a progression as I had required uses and/or was feed up with making do with another solution and also as I or the business could afford each new addition.

 

Additionally, and for clarity I have the EF 100/2.8 Macro USM (i.e. not the L version). I have had this lens for a long period of time; when the L version was released I used it, in a few respects it is a better lens, and I thought long and hard about an 'upgrade'. I chose not to do that, because for me it was not a value for money choice. If I didn't have the 100/2.8 and I was in the market now I would definitely buy the L version and that is what I advise you to do, if you do choose to get one.

 

WW

You've put it very succinctly, William. It's come to a point for me that not having the 180mm macro has become a pain point. It was a revelation to me this month that I wasn't enjoying photographing close-ups outdoors with the equipment I have or getting what I wanted without jumping through hoops and very often not even then. I know you can always "rock the lens you have", but there's also a time to decide that it's worth the investment to get the lens that will best serve the purpose.

Thanks for the advice on the 100 L vs non-L. I want to eventually get both the 180mm and the 100mm L. I think the 180mm is going to be my next target though.

I do a lot of flower photography. It's one of my primary genres, and the bulk of what I have on exhibit is flowers. I say this only to say that I have spent a lot of time thinking about the questions you asked. I also shoot with the same two bodies you have, and I own the 60mm macro. The others who posted about the 60mm macro (which I own) are right: it is a superb lens, despite its lack of an L designation. As Bill pointed out, no EF-S lenses can get the L designation, no matter how good it is. Moreover, a lens has to meet other standards that have nothing to do with optical quality to be labeled an L lens.

You already have both, so you can use whichever gives you the best results. And that will depend on the shot.

If you want to get closer than the 24-70 will go--which much of my flower photography does--then you have no choice: use the 7D and 60mm. If you are further away than that:

To get the same angle of view on the 5DIII that you get with the 60mm on the 7D, you would need a focal length longer than your zoom goes: 96mm. Since you will be shooting with a wider angle of view on the 5DIII, you will get less background blur. This is entirely separate from depth of field. You would get a narrower depth of field with the 5DIII, by roughly one f-stop, but unless the background is very close, you would probably notice having less background blur more. Moreover, unless you are wide open on the crop, you can adjust the DOF to match. You can test the background blur for yourself easily enough by taking two comparably framed photos. (You can see an explanation of some of this here: Depth of Field, Digital Photography and Crop Sensor Cameras - Bob Atkins Photography.The best illustration of background blur I found has been taken down, and I haven't been able to reach the owner.)

When I do flower photography, I generally use my 5DIII with a 100mm macro. That gives almost exactly the same angle of view as the 7D with a 60mm lens, but the 5DIII sensor is better and provides nicer prints.

Personally, I can't see much reason to have three macro lenses. The main positives of a 180mm (which I don't own) are greater background blur and greater working distance. The latter is mostly useful for chasing bugs. The main disadvantages are cost, weight, and balance (weight further forward). If you can, I would try a 100 and a 180 and decide which you prefer.

I own the 100L, and as I mentioned, the 60mm. From all I have read, the non-L version is optically virtually as good. The main advantage of the L is the hybrid image stabilization. I almost never use the 60mm; when I hunt bugs, I use the 7D with the 100mm, usually with a 38mm extension tube. The 7D is smaller and has a higher pixel density, which put more pixels on the subject at 1:1 magnification. I kept the 60mm primarily because I can get more magnification using it with my maximum extension, but in practice, I haven't used it for several years.

I do a lot of flower photography. It's one of my primary genres, and the bulk of what I have on exhibit is flowers. I say this only to say that I have spent a lot of time thinking about the questions you asked. I also shoot with the same two bodies you have, and I own the 60mm macro. The others who posted about the 60mm macro (which I own) are right: it is a superb lens, despite its lack of an L designation. As Bill pointed out, no EF-S lenses can get the L designation, no matter how good it is. Moreover, a lens has to meet other standards that have nothing to do with optical quality to be labeled an L lens.

 

You already have both, so you can use whichever gives you the best results. And that will depend on the shot.

 

If you want to get closer than the 24-70 will go--which much of my flower photography does--then you have no choice: use the 7D and 60mm. If you are further away than that:

 

To get the same angle of view on the 5DIII that you get with the 60mm on the 7D, you would need a focal length longer than your zoom goes: 96mm. Since you will be shooting with a wider angle of view on the 5DIII, you will get less background blur. This is entirely separate from depth of field. You would get a narrower depth of field with the 5DIII, by roughly one f-stop, but unless the background is very close, you would probably notice having less background blur more. Moreover, unless you are wide open on the crop, you can adjust the DOF to match. You can test the background blur for yourself easily enough by taking two comparably framed photos. (You can see an explanation of some of this here: Depth of Field, Digital Photography and Crop Sensor Cameras - Bob Atkins Photography.The best illustration of background blur I found has been taken down, and I haven't been able to reach the owner.)

 

When I do flower photography, I generally use my 5DIII with a 100mm macro. That gives almost exactly the same angle of view as the 7D with a 60mm lens, but the 5DIII sensor is better and provides nicer prints.

 

Personally, I can't see much reason to have three macro lenses. The main positives of a 180mm (which I don't own) are greater background blur and greater working distance. The latter is mostly useful for chasing bugs. The main disadvantages are cost, weight, and balance (weight further forward). If you can, I would try a 100 and a 180 and decide which you prefer.

 

I own the 100L, and as I mentioned, the 60mm. From all I have read, the non-L version is optically virtually as good. The main advantage of the L is the hybrid image stabilization. I almost never use the 60mm; when I hunt bugs, I use the 7D with the 100mm, usually with a 38mm extension tube. The 7D is smaller and has a higher pixel density, which put more pixels on the subject at 1:1 magnification. I kept the 60mm primarily because I can get more magnification using it with my maximum extension, but in practice, I haven't used it for several years.

Thanks so much for your input paddler4. I've learned so much from everyone's input on this post.

Yesterday, I got my sales report and realized I have the money that I could buy the 180mm. I was itching to jump online and buy it - but it is quite a bit of money, so I paused to think some more. I'm going to hold off for several reasons.

1. As you state, I think I should try it before I buy. I will rent it for a week and try it out to make sure it's a lens I truly love and need.

2. I spent time last night looking at the portfolios of people I admire. One woman who's work I love (Mandy Disher) uses a Canon 5D MKIII with the 100mm L - but she used to use the 7D with the 60mm macro and guess what - those images were just as nice! So, I think until I can take (outdoor) flower macros as nice as hers with the 7D, 60mm then I'm probably not justified in getting the 180mm. (Note: I can take quite nice outdoor floral macros - but hers are works of beauty.)

3. I read the reviews on Ken Rockwell and he also states that the 60mm macro is a superb lens just as good as the L lenses. He also confirms that the 100mm non-L macro is just as good as the L version, it just doesn't have the IS, which he says isn't all that useful for moving flowers and bugs anyway.

I can pick up the 100 non L version used for around $300! Maybe I should sell the 60mm to buy the 100mm.

I just bought a new Canon EF 100mm f/2.8 Macro USM. I almost bought a used one for 300 euros, but for only 150 euros more I get a brand new lens with warranty. I'm going to sell my 60mm for around 200 euros, so my new 100mm macro will only cost me around 250 euros. I'm still interested in the 180mm, but the investment will be considerably more so I want to rent it first to be sure it would serve a purpose beyond what I can do with the 100mm.

Thank you to all who contributed to the post. It's so generous of you all to put the time into such thoughtful and knowledgeable replies. It really helped me in thinking through this decision. Happy photographing!

Glad it worked out. Enjoy the new lens.

You wrote:

I spent time last night looking at the portfolios of people I admire. One woman who's work I love (Mandy Disher) uses a Canon 5D MKIII with the 100mm L - but she used to use the 7D with the 60mm macro and guess what - those images were just as nice!

That will be true under some conditions, particularly if you are viewing images online. Online images are quite low resolution, and that obscures small and moderate differences in lens quality. Unless you print quite large or crop severely, the main difference will be the sensors. 7D images deteriorate much more quickly as you raise ISO.

If you don't crop severely and don't print very large, keep ISO fairly low, and expose to the right if you raise ISO above the base, the 7D will produce fine images.

For example, this was captured using my 7D, the 100mm macro, and a 36 mm extension tube, at ISO 200, using a highly diffused flash:

I just bought a new Canon EF 100mm f/2.8 Macro USM.

Fantastic!

That will be true under some conditions, particularly if you are viewing images online. Online images are quite low resolution, and that obscures small and moderate differences in lens quality.:

 

Good point about being able to tell quality differences from lo-resolution photos.

I was referring more to the artistic characteristics of her images. It’s a mistake for me to think that getting a “better” lens will suddenly also make my artistic compositions better. ;-) Although certain technical considerations are helpful like background blur possible with a certain lens. If she is getting beautifully composed, lit, gorgeous DOF images with the same equipment I have, then I have some work to do that has nothing to do with my equipment. :-)

So, an update to my original question. I've discovered that the answer is Both! I haven't been using this light pad for long so still learning what works.

Today, I had both a gladiolus (big - long) to photograph, so I wanted the entire A3 size light pad in the viewfinder. If I used my macro lens, I had to extend my tripod to it's highest and not only could I still not get all the light pad in the view finder, it was also not a very convenient set up and my tripod was much less stable. (I'm using an old Bogen. I need a bigger studio tripod.) It was much better to use the 24-70mm for that shot.

I also wanted to photograph a single rose - just the flower. This smaller item - it was better to use my macro. To get the same crop with the 24-70mm, I would be too close to the lightpad and blocking some of the light and also not a very convenient distance.

I've been reading a lot of food photography blogs lately as they are often shooting down. Turns out the 24-70mm is a very popular lens with food photographers - as well as the nifty fifty (may have to look into that lens as well!)

I bought the 24-105 used and very happy with it. The image quality is similar to my prime quality, performance is perfect and feel solid in my hand. I like close up so the Macro mode is very convenience if no macro lens with me. The IQ at macro mode is decent, but the working distance is shorter than real macro lens.

If you no need Macro, go for 24-105, if you need f/2.8, go for Tamron something like the 24-70. I think the majority complain is about the price!