heath_ward Posted March 21, 2003 Share Posted March 21, 2003 I'm wanting to get into macro photography and I'm not sure which lens to buy. I'm trying to decide between the EF 50mm f/2.5 macro and the EF 100mm f/2.8 USM macro lens. Besides the cost and speed of these lenses what would be the advantages or disadvantages between the two? Would the 100 mm just allow greater magnification? Thanks in advance Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NK Guy Posted March 21, 2003 Share Posted March 21, 2003 The 50mm can't reach 1:1 without an accessory lens. The 100mm gives you far more working distance, and the USM version has a silent focus motor with full-time manual override. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
beauh44 Posted March 21, 2003 Share Posted March 21, 2003 I own both lenses - and that's absolutely right; you won't get 1 to 1 with that 50mm without Canon's extender. However, that 50mm is one sharp lens!! In fact, it's one of the sharpest "normal" focal length lenses I own. Check out its MTF charts on Canon's (and other's) page. The 100mm is no slouch either and will bring you the 1:1 ratio. I just thought I'd put in a good word for the little guy - that 50mm 2.5 Macro is *very* sharp! (And if you use it on a D10, it makes a heckuva 80mm portrait lens too!) I know - it's more expensive than the "cheaper" 50mm from Canon, and no USM - but I like it! ;-) Best wishes! ...Beau Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
alex_p._schorsch Posted March 21, 2003 Share Posted March 21, 2003 Dear Heath, I've owned both a 50mm macro and a 100mm macro. When I traded up from the 50 to the 100,I was extremely pleased with the results. I take mainly Nature macros including insects, flowers, mushrooms , etc. and I found the the working distance and the magnification much better with the 100. Now I use mainly the D60 now and the 100 has "become" a 160.I like it a lot. One of the best things about useing the 100 macro with the D60 is the ability to shoot animals, pets and children continuously focusing closer as the subject moves around and arriving at some very tight close-ups with no hassle whatsoever. This is just my experience, but I strongly advise you to go with the 100, you won't regret it. Thanks, cheers, Alex Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fr_d_ric_gaudill_re Posted March 21, 2003 Share Posted March 21, 2003 Hi Heath, I own the 100mm and appreciate a lot the quite-high working distance it allows, especially when tracking 'all-around-eyed-insects'. I also use it as a portrait lens and it works well too. I love that lens. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
peter_bury1 Posted March 21, 2003 Share Posted March 21, 2003 When I first decided to buy a macro lense I to include in my decision process how it'd fit with the lenses I had/wanted. I went with the 100mm because I was after a 24/50/100 set of primes and wanted to include a damn good portratit lense as well as a low light optic. For me, the 50mm f/1.4 and the 100mm f/2.8 Macro gave me everything I was after. I'm sure the 50macro is a helluva a lens, but I didn't feel the f/2.5 aperture was that fast and, had I bought it, I would have ended up getting the 1.4 anyway. FWIW, my light/versatile travel kit just consists of the 50 1.4 and a set of extension tubes - love it. Take it easy, Pete Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pete_gregar1 Posted March 21, 2003 Share Posted March 21, 2003 I own the 90mm/2.8 Tamron Macro. Nice and sharp, goes 1:1. Faster AF then the 50mm macro. Cheaper then the 100mm/2.8 USM in the used market. Just something else to consider. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jeremy_craig Posted March 21, 2003 Share Posted March 21, 2003 The 100mm working distance is approximately 5.9" per Canon's website. The 50mm working distance is about 5". I wouldn't call that too significant. With the lifesize converter, I don't know what the 50mm working distance becomes as Canon's site doesn't indicate, it only mentions that the lifesize converter "actually increases" working distance. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
marcin harla Posted March 21, 2003 Share Posted March 21, 2003 I don't have any experience with the EF 50mm f/2.5 Macro, but I have EF 100 f/2.8 USM Macro and I absolutely love it. If you have a chance, try both. As you know EF 50mm doesn not allow 1:1 magnification, while EF 100mm does. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
johnlund Posted March 21, 2003 Share Posted March 21, 2003 Jeremy, as you noted, you're comparing working distance (WD) for two different magnifications. The WD for the 100mm macro at 1:2 is about 10". You might be right to challenge the WD religion. An extra few inches isn't much. Even so, the less WD you have, the more precious it is. Add a lens hood or extension and you'll lose some WD. At very close distances your subject might be difficult to illuminate, or it might fly away. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
markci Posted March 21, 2003 Share Posted March 21, 2003 The 100 USM has the option of a tripod collar, which makes it worth it right there if you're doing field work. Never under any circumstances would I do without one. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stuart_todd Posted March 22, 2003 Share Posted March 22, 2003 As owner of both the 50mm Macro and the 100mm Macro lens, yes the 50mm is SHARP. But the 1:1 ratio of the 100mm and it's focal length for regular photography and portraits, make it the better option. How do you turn and ant into a monster? or a microchip into a building?, easy... 100mm Macro plus, 25mm extension tube, plus 1.4x tele converter, plus a Canon close up lens attachment equals Scary Big Little Things. Stu :) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
barclayphoto Posted March 22, 2003 Share Posted March 22, 2003 Get the 100mm USM. I own the 180mm and have owned the 100mm sold it to get the 180 and wish I had kept it. I'll own the 100 again. Very sharp and a much more practical focal length than the 50. Now if you don't have a 50 or want a fixed 50 for your kit by all means make it a macro lens... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
christopher_engeler Posted March 23, 2003 Share Posted March 23, 2003 I have both focal lengths and have positive experience with both. Since you will probably be using this lens for more than a single task, here are my thoughts on versatility: The 100mm will serve you very well as a short tele, and particularly well as a portrait lens. The 50mm is compact and can be your only lens on camera if you really want to travel light. It is more versatile (and somewhat sharper) than the other standard 50mm lenses. For closeup macro work alone, however, the 100mm will provide a better working distance. Handheld, hover, the 50mm is easier to handle. Have fun with either - or both!!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now