Canon EF 100mm f2.8 Macro vs. EF-S 60mm f2.8 Macro for APS-C?

[michael_ransburg2]

Hi all,

 

I currently own a 400D (XTI) and (as some of the regular readers here know)

will dive into macro photography soon.

 

Given that I plan to stay with the APS-C sensor (maybe an upgrade to the 40D at

some time, but that's it for the forseeable future), I have to make a choice

between the lenses mentioned in the subject.

 

Both lenses get excellent reviews.

 

Advantages of the EF-S 60mm are: 1) Smaller and lighter. 2) Slightly larger DoF

at 1:1.

 

Advantages of the EF 100mm are: 1) Longer working distance (31 cm vs. 20 cm).

2) Focus limiter giving better AF capabilities than EF-S 60mm (?).

 

I definitely want to use the lens in the wild, together with a ring flash, for

shooting nature and in particular also insects.

 

So the obvious question is: Which one would / did you chose and for which

reasons? For me it's really a though choice and I'm unable to come to a

conclusion at this stage :-/

 

I'm looking forward to your inputs.

 

Many thanks and all the best,

Michael

[wedding-photography-denver]

Its all about the DOF on a macro (my opinion) and then the sharpness and then the ability keep the thing still (esp. if you handhold).

 

So, if you are very pleased with the crop body, get the 60mm EF-S. I had it for a while for details and such. I have the 100mm too, but the 60 was a no brainer on a crop body. I use the 100 on the 5d's.

 

I have not used the 100mm (60 is now sold) since getting a G7 as the DOF is sooo great and the IQ at close quaters is better IMO. So, I would get the G9 at this point or the 60mm if you are staying with the crops.

 

Best, D.<div></div>

[mars c]

The problem I see with the 60mm is that you have to get closer, about 4" from the subject, to get to 1:1, So there is a big chance that you'll block some light, making the shutter speed slower or the lighting uneven.

 

The problem I see with the 100mm is the handhodability, It requires higher shutter speed. No problem if you use a tripod, and you should.

 

As for the DOF difference between the 2, I doubt that there is much difference at 1:1, why ? cause, while the 60mm have shoter focal length, you'll need to get closer than the 100mm to get 1:1, And the closer we are to the subject , the lesser the dof will be, if all things the same.

 

Between the 2, I'd choose the 100mm for the working distance, but in reality, I'm eyeing on the sigma 150mm macro lens, cause it has more background blur than the shorter lens and the working distance is greater too.

[mark_chappell]

<I> Slightly larger DoF at 1:1.</i><P>

 

On an APS sensor camera, differences in DOF at 1:1 between 60 and 100 mm macros will

be inconsequential. If you want to shoot wary insects such

as dragonflies and butterflies, then I recommend biting the bullet and getting a 180 macro

(Sigma, Tamron, Canon). You will find them much less frustrating to use than shorter

macros, since the working distance (between subject and front of lens) is considerably

than with

shorter focal lengths. <P>

 

If you absolutely don't want to carry/can't afford a 180 lens, then

think about the Sigma 150 macro. Next step down would be the Canon 100/2.8. It's an

excellent lens but you have to get sufficiently close at high magnifications that many alert

insects will not tolerate that degree of proximity.<P>

 

The 60 mm is absolutely not recommended if your subjecs are at all alert to close

approach.

[mark_chappell]

Oops, meant to say:<P>

 

You will find them much less frustrating to use than shorter macros, since the working

distance (between subject and front of lens) is considerably <B>greater</b> than with

shorter focal lengths.

[JDMvW]

As Mark says, if you are doing 'nervous subject' macro work, you ought to consider getting the 180mm f/3.5L or a (slightly) cheaper equivalent.

 

Otherwise, even for non-nervous subjects, the 90-100mm macros give you adequate working (and lighting) room that you may find more difficult to achieve with shorter focal lengths. The advantage of the 60mm, I suppose, would be its being better for portrait work? However, unless you are shooting the 'wizened hobo' series of portraits, most people prefer softer lenses for that purpose.

[mike_earussi1]

I bought the Sigma 70mm macro as a macro/portrait compromise on a cropped body, which does work. But after using it extensively in the field I now want the Sigma 150mm macro for the ABSOLUTELY NECESSARY extra working distances in field macro work, especially with insects, though it also helps in the studio for better lighting. If you can afford it get the longest macro lens you can. You'll be very happy that you did.

[dgoller]

I have purchased a 60/2.8 refurbished from adorama and have absolutely been enjoying it since.

There is one thing to be said, you will need to either look silly with a hefty bowl around it for even flash exposure using buil-in flash when getting close to subjects, or invest in a macro flash pretty soon.

 

You might not get the shy insects, but those insects that you can get close to will look stunning.

 

How is the 100/2.8 in low light focusing? here the 60/2.8 is not that great, which i don't really notice since i typically am in MF and move in to achieve focus.

 

Some shots from today and a couple weeks ago with the 60/2.8 are now in my portfolio here if that helps anything.

 

Daniel

[zackojones]

I will eventually buy the 100mm macro lens. I have rented both (100 from lensprotogo.com and 60mm from rentglass.com). I liked the 100 over the 60. I found the extra working distance of the 100mm more to my liking. I would consider renting the lenses before making your final buying decision.

[JDMvW]

When you are working at 1:1, any automatic focus system has a hard time figuring out what to focus on, especially if you are hand holding the camera. It can be handy to have autofocus, however, if the subject matter is not confusing to the system (an insect against the sky, whatever). The Tamron 90mm, at least, has a switch that will restrict the autofocus to a narrower range to keep the lens from trying to guess near or far. I find this very handy indeed. A tripod, copy stand, or other stabilization is always recommended where possible.

[dgoller]

Just to clarify i wasn't talking about 1:1, just notice it any time i am trying something in close distance, but not 1:1, mostly when playing with high ISO on my still pretty new dslr. (aka my dark den)<br>

I Just find it worth mentioning since people might think of a f/2.8 lens being a good low light performer, so hold on to your 50/1.4 and don't trade it for this lens just yet ;) The 60/2.8 is good at other things.<br>

<br>

Daniel

[William Michael]

1. >>> Which one would / did you chose and for which reasons? <<<

 

Between the two lenses mentioned: the EF 100mm F2.8 Macro.

 

Rationale: Working distance and all it implies (as stated above, several times).

 

2. >>> I definitely want to use the lens in the wild, together with a ring flash, for shooting nature and in particular also insects. <<<

 

As also previously stated, and should be noted well: the 100mm FL`s working distance may not allow this with smart and alert critters.

 

3. It bodes well to consider one`s lens system: what other lenses do you have?

 

This point is in regard to consideration of the 180mm Macro, whilst the 180, with even more working distance, seems to be the best for the job you describe, (`in the wild . . . insects`), there might be hesitation because of the money needed to be outlaid.

 

But that might be not such an issue, if for example you do not have (and want) a really sharp 135 or 200mm, because the 180 is `really` sharp.

 

WW

[michael_ransburg2]

Hi all,

 

many thanks for your replies.

 

I currently own two zoom lenses for my camera (no primes). A Sigma 18-50 mm f2.8 and a Canon 70-300 mm f4-5.6. I understand that for insect work the EF-S 60 mm has a quite low focusing distance of 20 cm at 1:1. However the big advantage of the 60 mm is that it's very handholdable with a ring flash.

 

This "handholdability" decreases with longer lenses, i.e., I guess that with the 180 mm a tripod is absolutely necessary, even with a ring flash?

 

What about the 100 mm. Can one only use it with a tripod or is it handheldable with a ring flash at 1:1?

 

Many thanks and all the best,

Michael

[john_baker4]

Simple solution would be to get some extension tubes; you can then use them on your current 50mm, stopping down will help!

 

Also when you get your proper macro lens you can then use the tubes to get greater than 1:1. Plus you can fit them to a telephoto, you will be surprised at how many insects lurk just beyond your range, an extension tube will allow a longer lens to get at the action, I have seen great results from 100-400s, straight 400/500/600 or even these lenses fitted with teleconverters and tubes. I have just started experimenting with tubes on my 24-105 it works really well and gives me the benefit of IS as well.

 

After a lot of research I finally went for the Tamron 180 as it around half the price of the Canon. I found this review to be particularly useful www.nnplus.de/macro/Macro100E.html the bottom line is all the dedicated macro lenses are very good, it is just a matter of picking your price point and features you want.

[yakim_peled1]

If you plan to shoot macro handheld I'd consider adding extension tubes and/or good quality close-up filter to the 70-300 IS. From my experience IS has a great value in that regard.

 

Happy shooting,

Yakim.

[William Michael]

>>> However the big advantage of the 60 mm is that it's very handholdable with a ring flash. <<<

 

When working with a very narrow Depth of Field, the governing factor of `handholdablity`, and the resultant clarity and quality of the image, could in many shooting scenarios, be that small Depth of Field, not the weight nor size (length) of the lens, nor the ability to use a ring flash.

 

Hence the tripod being many macro workers friend.

 

WW

[michael_ransburg2]

Hi William,

 

I think that makes perfect sense. When I think about it, I agree that it's probably a bad idea to hand held the camera when the DoF is 4-5 mm.

 

Do you use the timer and/or remote control to fire your camera in these situations, or does the tripod give enough stability to just press the shutter?

 

I will also try to figure out if there is a shop in our (quite small) city (or its surroundings) which rents lenses. I definitely would like to try out that stuff before doing a big investment.

 

Many thanks and alll the best,

Michael

[mike_earussi1]

If you're shooting insects I doubt that they will wait around long enough for you to set up a tripod. As long as you're shooting with a flash a tripod is nor necessary (I never use one and have taken thousands of macro shots), but depth of field can be a problem and it just takes practice to hold the camera steady, as your body will sway a bit, and to know when to shoot.

[derek_linney]

For what its worth my 2cents worth: I have had the 100mm USM for some years (film and then digital). Used it a lot on film but then found it too long a focal length a lot of the time on the 1.6x DSLR (20D)- fine for 1:1 but I also wanted to take produst shots (e.g. of a lens or camera) and found that I was having to back too far away with an effective 160mm focal length. So I bought a 60mm EF-s and didn't look back: great little lens for macro and general work.

<p>

But then I lost my 20D (long story) but with the insurance was able to move up to a 5D and my 100mm came back into its own. I sold the 60mm as I couldn't use it on the 5D.

<p>

My conclusion: if you are shooting live insects then if you can afford it then go for the 180mm or else the 100mm. BUT if you want a compact lens that doubles as a nice prime as well as a very good macro lens (albeit without the working distance for live insets) then for an 1.6x DSLR I would go for the 60mm.

<p>

Regarding handholding technique: I always roughly focus first (maybe using AF - with CF4 = 1, maybe manual focus) and then rock very slightly backwards and forwards until I get the focus where I want it and then shoot.

<p>

Incidenatlly on the 5D I use the alternative matt focussing screen that is much, much better for judging accurate focus.

[derek_linney]

Further to my post some sample images from the 60mm when I was testing it:

<a href="http://www.gallery1.co.uk/canonimages.htm">http://www.gallery1.co.uk/canonimages.htm</a>

[mars c]

"If you plan to shoot macro handheld I'd consider adding extension tubes and/or good quality close-up filter to the 70-300 IS. From my experience IS has a great value in that regard."

 

I have the lens and a close up filter. The setup is very difficult to use, Though, you can get 1:1 with it, It can only focus on the subjct at a limited distance range, If you move back more than 2 feet, the lens wont focus at all, AF or manual focus. And the images are not very sharp, like a real macro lens.

[mark_chappell]

<I>I guess that with the 180 mm a tripod is absolutely necessary, even with a ring flash?

</i><P>

 

No, not absolutely necessary, but it helps. I've hand-held my 180 Tamron frequently when

photographing dragonflies with a ringflash: as someone said earlier, you often don't have

the time, and

the insects often don't have the tolerance, for setting up a tripod. About half the images

on <A HREF="http://faculty.ucr.edu/~chappell/INW/arthropods/bluedasher.html">this

page</a> were shot with a hand-held 180. They're quite sharp, although you can't really

tell from these little web images, but the percentage of 'keepers' is lower than if a tripod

was used.<P>

 

Another thing to keep in mind is that ringflashes generally are not very powerful, which

limits your options if you try a reasonably fast shutter speed for hand-holding (say,

1/500) while using high-speed flash synch (which cuts down on power intensity from the

flash). But, it seems to work reasonably well for me on sunny days. All bets are off if you

try hand-holding a macro lens at high magnifications on a subject in deep shade.

[alan_myers]

Hi,

 

There are many ways to do macro work and it's mostly a matter of figuring out what's most helpful to you, does what you need it to do, and is most convenient and within your budget. What works best for me might not for you, but here's what I use:

 

I currently the 100mm Macro, along with about a half dozen other macro lenses in several different systems. It's a great lens and very handholdable, especially when using flash with it. The 100mm is my most used macro lens in my Canon kit.

 

I also have th 180 Macro, it almost never sees use on my 1.6X D-SLRs. It's just way too long on those cameras, definitely not handholdable. I love using it on full frame.

 

I've opted not to get the 60mm, because it's an EF-S lens and I still use film cameras, plus plan to use FF digital in the future. Even if it were usable on FF, the length is generally too short for my tastes (and subjects). If I were only using 1.6X, and wanted as compact a macro as possible, the 60mm might be the ideal choice.

 

There are times when I need a shorter "macro" lens. Then, my favorite close-up and near macro lens with 1.6X cameras is Canon's 45mm Tilt Shift. When I'm again shooting full frame a lot, I'll probably also want the 90/2.8 TS-E (or 85mm Micro Nikkor PC lens with an adapter).

 

In the past I've used ringlights a bit, but I don't now. Instead I now have MT-24EX on a Stroboframe/Lepp bracket that gives me lighting I much prefer. Even with variable flash tubes, ringlights are way too even illumination for my purposes, which runs in the 1:2 to 2:1 magnification range most of the time. (Ringlights would be far more usable to me if shooting at much higher magnifications, such as with the 65mm Canon Macro.)

 

The Stroboframe/Lepp bracket allows positioning the MT-24's flash heads much farther away from the lens than the lens-mount bracket supplied with the twin flash. I haven't used that original mounting setup since shortly after I got the MT-24, within a few months after it was first introduced.

 

Another flash method I use a lot is a single flash. This is more doable with macro than you might think, since the flash head itself is a large, diffuse light source to a small subject. It's also easy to further diffuse a larger flash with a small softbox accessory, or just by wrapping a couple layers of white gauze over the flash tube and securing it in place with a rubber band. With my Canon kit, I use 550EX, handheld or on a bracket off camera. A reflector can be helpful, too, but often isn't necessary as the light tends to bounce around and wrap around the subject anyway.

 

Yes, I recommend getting extension tubes no matter what. I use them on all my lenses. Most recently on 300/2.8, but they were on the 100 Macro a week or so ago, and I can recall using on 20/2.8, 50/1.4, 85/1.8, 70-200/2.8 and even 500/4. I have the Kenko tube set (36mm, 20mm and 12mm if I recall correctly) and a couple Canon 12mm and 25mm tubes. They all work well. The Kenko is a bargain at about $160 for all three.

 

I've currently only got one close-up filter: 500D in 77mm size. The only lens it gets used on is my 70-200/2.8. I tend to avoid it, though. Image quality drops noticeably. (It might work a lot better on a prime, I must admit.) Extension tubes are kinder to my photos. Cheaper, generic close-up filters will really trash IQ. High quality diopters are as expensive as extension tubes, or more-so, and aren't as universally usable.

 

Some day I may get a bellows for use with Canon (I think Novoflex makes one). I've got bellows in two other camera systems. They are essentially just a continuously variable extension tube. Bellows give more flexibility and higher magnification than extension tubes. However they are larger, more expensive, and more easily damaged.

 

In another system, I happen to also have an actual, variable extension tube, called a "Helicoid". This is great to work with, but I don't know of one made for use with Canon EF mount.

 

Yes, a tripod is often helpful for macro, particularly at higher magnifications and smaller apertures when trying to find some more DOF. But, a monopod can also help, as can beanbags or even just a towel. Or, use something found on site. In one case, all I could come up with was an empty, 5 gal. plastic paint bucket. It worked. Take a couple small towels with you, they can be useful to keep your camera and lens clean and dry, and also help protect your knees.

 

Have fun!

 

 

 

 

 

 

[michael_ransburg2]

Hi all,

 

many thanks for these great responses. It really seems that the 100mm might be the ideal compromise for me: Handheldable (with flash) and a reasonable distance to not scare all the critters.

 

The working distance for the 100mm is given as 31cm. Is this the same for crop cameras or does it change due to the crop factor?

 

Many thanks,

Michael

[mark_chappell]

<I>The working distance for the 100mm is given as 31cm. Is this the same for crop cameras

or does it change due to the crop factor?</i><P>

 

The same.