Disappointed in you choice of 60mm Macro?

<p>It's that time of year to indulge in another lens for my Canon 40D. This year I am looking at Macro, EF-s60 or 100mm. I have read every post on PN and many others across the web. I am still undecided. I was leaning toward the 100mm but I really don't want to add another heavy lens to the camera bag, three lens' already in it. My question is, has anyone really been disappointed after getting the 60mm and later wished for the 100mm? The smaller size is VERY appealing to me. I don't plan to shoot insects, mostly flowers/still. Price is nice but not a deciding factor. Any thoughts would be appreciated. Thanks.....</p>

<p>Tokina 12-24<br>

Tamron-28-75<br>

Canon 70-200 IS</p>

<p>The advantage of the 100mm is in keeping your distance from the subject without disturbing it and thats not going to be an issue with flowers so I say save the weight and go with the 60mm.</p>

<p>If you have read all the posts, you have the answers, because this one has been discussed over and over. The 60mm lens is a very good lens, and it is a superb one for the price. Both lenses have their advantages and disadvantages. I thought I would sell my 60mm when I bought a 100mm L, but I found that I prefer the 60mm for many uses because of its size and shorter reach (nice for some indoor flower shots). I listed some pros and cons here:</p>

<p>http://www.photo.net/canon-eos-digital-camera-forum/00W6xj</p>

<p>That 60mm is a great lens, as sharp or sharper than the 100mm. I wish they made it in EF mount.</p>

<p>I considered both in my decision, but decided on the 100mm for the distance and also the prospects of using it for Portraits.</p>

<p>Then when I went to actually "pull the trigger" I ended up buying the 100mm L IS Macro. I've had absolutely no regrets!<br>

My decision however may differ from yours because I still shoot a little film occasionally and the EF(s) just wouldn't do with the Full Frame stuff.</p>

<p>I would expect with the introduction of the 100mm L with the new generation IS the cost of the older version 100mm Macro would come down a bit.<br>

It was not that much more than the 60mm EF(s) when I was shopping. I think the difference was about $100. Both were less than $500.</p>

<p>I have both lenses. I had the 60mm first, but since I also like to shoot insects, I wanted more working distance, so I got the 100mm f/2.8L IS. Both are great lenses. My only comment is that if you get the 60mm and later decide you need more working room because you want to do insects, you'd have to buy the 100mm. If you get the 100mm first, yes, it's heavier and bigger, but under most circumstances, you're probably not going to complain that you have to stay farther away from your subjects. I also find that the longer barrel of the 100mm easier to hold than the tiny 60mm.</p>

<p>Overall, though, I'd say there's nothing wrong with either choice.</p>

<p>I use the 60mm f/2.8 Macro almost every day in my product photography studio. It's long enough to avoid perspective distortion and sharp as a tack.<br>

I don't have the working room for the 100.</p>

<p><Chas></p>

<p>The main difference is the working distance as has been noted above. But this is an important decision in my opinion. With a 60 macro, you will be pretty close if you want 1:1. The problem comes from lighting. Sometimes I find you are so close that you get in the way of the lighting. A 100 macro lets you get back a bit more. It depends on how much magnification you want though.<br>

The perspective is also subtly different. You get more background with a 60. I prefer the 60 view personally.<br>

If I had to have only 1 then it would be the 100. Why? Well if I wanted a macro in the 60 range then I would just use a closeup filter or extension tubes on a standard 50. The quality is way good enough. I actually own a 60 right now but I sometimes wish I had a 100 for the distance. I have never thought "wow I made a great decision getting this 60 instead of the 100!".<br>

Ideally I would get both though ;)</p>

<p>I love the EF-s 60 macro for it's fabulous optical performance, versatility as a useful mid tele prime/portrait lens, and it's light weight. There were several recent threads here on the exact same topic where several people, including myself posted quite of few examples of both the 60, and the 100. They are worth a good look.</p>

<p>The 60mm is a fine lens, but I hate short macros as their wide field of view makes it difficult to isolate the subject from the background. To my taste at least, longer is always better in a macro. </p>

<p>If price is not a factor and insects are not the main subject: Zeiss Makro-Planar T* 100mm f/2<br /><a href="http://www.photozone.de/canon_eos_ff/508-zeiss100f2eosff">http://www.photozone.de/canon_eos_ff/508-zeiss100f2eosff</a><br>

.......also think about a 500D close-up filter with your super 70-200 IS</p>

<p>I love my EF-S 60mm. I use it all the time for multiple reasons—portraits, medium-low light, macro, copy/product-style photos, anything requiring high detail and flat field. The only thing that bugs me (hah!) is the low working distance for insect photography. Eventually I will get the Sigma 150mm macro for that purpose.</p>

<p>To give an off-kilter answer, I use a 60mm Contax C/Y macro lens with an adapter. I used to own the Canon 100mm macro personally, and I use the Canon 50mm macro, the 100 mm macro, and the CANON 180mm macro, and the Canon MP-E 65mm at work for scientific photography. </p>

<p>For personal use I prefer the Contax 60mm macro to the canon 100mm, as it is the most like the MP-E 65 in operation. For scientific photography, I use the 100 when I can, and the others when I have to. The 60mm macros will give you more depth of field but can get in the way of lighting for 1:1 shots. If you will mostly not be making 1:1 photos and would like more in focus, get the 60mm, if you want more distance, get the 100mm. In any case, the sharpnesses of the lenses will not be the limiting factor in your photographs.</p>