EF-S 60mm or EF 100mm Macro

[obelix]

I'm struggling to decide between these 2 lenses. Mainly for Macro work, but

would be used for general purpose as well. Is there any difference in focusing

speed between these two.

 

I'd like to hear opinions on which would be the better buy between them.

There's a small price difference, so that's not an issue.

 

Anyone wanting to comment about the EF-S factor, I use an EOS 30D, so that's

not an issue. Even if I ever upgrade to a 5D, I'll always have the 30D (or

equivalent) for the 1.6 crop factor.

 

Thanx

[m_barbu1]

Would the extra 40mm of reach benefit you?

[pturton]

Consider the working distance: the 60 minimum focus is 0.2M/0.65ft and the 100 is 0.31M/1ft.

 

Proper lighting of a macro subject is easier with a longer working distance. My 100 macro is a great lens but someday I hope to get a 180 just for the added working distance.

 

Since I have acquired an 85 and 135 prime, my 100 macro does not see much general purpose usage, but before getting the other primes, I found it handy and capable for all purposes in that focal length.

[lester_wareham]

Advantages to the 100mm, more working distance, AF range switch, use on full frame, possible to use a TMA-B with a cheap adaptor.

 

Advantages to 60mm, smaller and lighter than 100mm.

[jcolwell]

I use the 100/2.8 Macro USM on 20D/30D, and it's great for both macro and general purpose photos. Whichever you choose, make sure to get the appropriate hood, which is not included with the 100, and probably not with the 60 either.

[kevin conville]

A search should yield lot's of threads on this topic.

 

Everyone seems to love their Canon macro lens whether it's the 50 F2.5, 60 F2.8, 100

F2.8, or 180. I went for the EF-S 60 for it's modern features and duality as a macro lens

and brilliant portrait lens on a 1.6x body. It's become one of my favorite lenses. Not just

with my current Canon outfit, but of all time.

 

I suppose similar arguments can (and have) been made for the 50 F2.5. The 60 goes to 1:1

however and has USM. It (theoretically) has better coatings for digital also. Aside from a bit

less working distance and the "dreaded" EF-S mount, it's hard to fault.

[tommyinca]

Just pick one, 60mm or 100mm or 180mm. Shooting macro with one macro lens is like trying to shoot non-macro with one super zoom. Sooner or later you will need more (macro lens).

[robin_sibson1]

Yes, Tommy, I have the 50/2.5, 60/2.8, and 100/2.8 lenses, and also use my 135/2, with either or both of the Extender 1.4x and EF25, for long-working-distance shots.

 

Heinrich, if you are clear that for the foreseeable future you are working on the 1.6-factor format, then there is no reason to prefer the 50/2.5 over the 60/2.8, and within the Canon range you are right to concentrate on the 60/2.8 and 100/2.8.

 

Ignore people who tell you there are lighting problems with the shorter macro lenses. For medium close-up work it is simply not true, and for seriously close working it is almost essential to use proper macro lighting like the MR-14EX or MT-24EX, and these are designed to work properly in such circumstances.

 

There has been a vigorous debate over the years about the relative merits of the 50/2.5 and 100/2.8 on FF, and it rather seems to have been forgotten that the 60/2.8 on 1.6-factor gives pretty much the same angle of view as the 100/2.8 on FF. On 1.6-factor the 100/2.8 is a seriously long macro lens, with an angle of view not much different from the 150mm to 180mm lenses on FF. Yes, you start to get a long working distance for skittish insects - although in my experience for butterflies and dragonflies you often need to go longer, even on 1.6-factor. But that is at the expense of clumsier and heavier kit and increased difficulties over hand-holding.

 

If you are just getting into macro work I would certainly suggest the 60/2.8 as a first step. Disadvantages: too small a lens to accept any kind of tripod mount, and no focus limiter. The 100/2.8 has a focus limiter switch, and accepts a tripod mount ring but the ring is ridiculously expensive and fits via a very clumsy and fragile spacer. The 60/2.8 takes 52mm filters and these can be used at the same time as macro flashes fitting onto the mounting ring at the front of the lens. The 100/2.8 takes 58mm filters, and if there is a filter mounted, the only way to fit a macro flash is to screw a Macrolite Adapter 58 into the front of the filter and mount the flash on that, since access to the mounting ring on the lens itself is blocked by the filter. The 100/2.8 is a much bigger and heavier lens than the 60/2.8. Although neither is quite built to L-series standards, build quality is perfectly adequate, and the IF design means that there is no external change of size so reduced vulnerability to physical damage.

 

Optically both are excellent, and in that respect you can't go wrong. Focusing speed is perfectly adequate for most purposes in both cases. The problem is more that the lack of a focus limiter on the 60/2.8 causes it occasionally to rack right through its focusing range, creating a delay in obtaining a focus lock. This can happen with any AF lens, but is more of a problem when the focusing range is so wide.

[robin_sibson1]

Oh, yes, hoods. Neither lens comes with a hood. The fitting (67mm) is common. The standard hood for the 100/2.8 is the ET-67, which is quite bulky. In most circumstances the much smaller and neater ET-67B, the standard hood for the 60/2.8, does an adequate job on the 100/2.8, and stores reversed over it adding hardly at all to the bulk.

[kevin conville]

Here's the rubber hood alternative. The 60's on the right, an 85 F1.8 is the left one. Sure

fits in the bag nice and it's always ready to go.<div></div>

[obelix]

Thanx for eveyone's response, especially Robin, I appreciate it. I think I'll go for the 100mm Macro, although I don't think I should get the tripod mount, seems to just make it more expensive, without any real need for it.

Thanx Everyone.

[yakim_peled1]

>> In most circumstances the much smaller and neater ET-67B, the standard hood for the 60/2.8, does an adequate job on the 100/2.8

 

I can't comment on the ET-67B but as the 100/2.8 USM is quite a bit flare prone. Therefore I'd suggest getting the ET-67B in addition to the ET-67 and not instead of it.

 

>> I think I'll go for the 100mm Macro

 

You will not regret it. It's a great all-around lens.

 

 

Happy shooting,

Yakim.