canon macros - ef-s 60 or ef-100

Canon EF 100mm f/2.8 USM Macro

07/30/2005 12:20:17 PM · #1

besides the focal length and the EF-S, is one sharper? any pros and cons? im looking to get a macro for my 20d.

can anyone recommend a sigma, tamron, etc comparable sharp macro?

Alexys

Canon EOS-300D Rebel

07/30/2005 12:28:55 PM · #2

Originally posted by reemas:

besides the focal length and the EF-S, is one sharper? any pros and cons? im looking to get a macro for my 20d.

can anyone recommend a sigma, tamron, etc comparable sharp macro?

I remember I made the same question some time ago. With the 60, you have to be nearer to the object than the 100. I donÂ´t know the 60, I never used this one, but I got a 100, and all I can say itÂ´s a fantastic lenses.

IÂ´d like to help you more, but, IÂ´m not a specialist in this theme. So, my only new is that the 100 is just fantastic. There are some shots with my 100:

agwright

Canon EF 17-40mm f/4.0L USM

07/30/2005 12:35:43 PM · #3

Got the Sigma 105mm F2.8 EX DG Macro (58mm)last week for Â£279.99 I'm very impressed with it so far - where as the canon is EF100mm f2.8 USM (58mm) Macro Â£392

Nitin

Canon EOS-300D Rebel

Canon EF-S 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6

07/30/2005 12:46:41 PM · #4

Originally posted by reemas:

besides the focal length and the EF-S, is one sharper? any pros and cons? im looking to get a macro for my 20d.

Depends on what you want to do with it. For macro-only, 100mm is probably better. EF-S 60mm is more versatile - I use it as my primary lens.

terje

Apple iPhone

07/30/2005 12:48:13 PM · #5

I recommend the 100mm. It's a great lens, very sharp and it's EF not EFs. So you can use it on all your old film cameras as well. Who knows if EFs will continue in the future :-)

07/30/2005 12:48:49 PM · #6

when you use a macro lens for general shooting, does it focus as well. im not too familiar with marco lenses, but it seems its design for close up work.

and for the image to be 1:1, do you need to be a specific distance from it?

any comments on the sharpness? thanks for all the feedback

07/30/2005 01:40:56 PM · #7

Originally posted by reemas:

Yes, both the 60mm and the 100mm work terrific as general-purpose lenses. Optically, they are equal as well. The 100 is famous for its sharpness and the 60 matches that standard.

To get precisely 1:1 you focus all the way down (there's a mark on the lens) then move the camera in and out to achieve sharp focus.

There's an argument to be made for getting the 100mm if your goal is primarily macro work, as the working distance is a little greater, but it's not as much a difference as it seems from specs. Reason: the working distance is measured from subject to image plane, and the 100mm is a couple inches longer than the 60mm, so the practical working distance (subject to front of lens) doesn't vary as much as the stated working distance. At 1:1, the front of your lens is about 2 inches closer to the subject with the 60mm.

There's another tradeoff as well; the 60mm shows significantly more DOF at a given lens stop than the 100mm.

I opted for the 60 over the 100 because it's a better "walk-around" lens (not so telephotoish, lighter, uses 52mm filters), because being lighter and with more DOF it's easier to handhold for macros on the fly, because it cost a bit less, and because it better plugged a small gap in my fcoal-length range that since has disappeared anyway...

Either's a fine lens.

Robt.

07/30/2005 02:00:44 PM · #8

bear... great response. im leaning towards the ef-s 60 now. two questions:
1.) do you use / recommend the lens hood for this lens?

2.) this is something i dont understand yet - if a marco lens has the ability to focus 1:1 does that mean it is sharper than non macro lenses in walk around situations? is the 1:1 used in walk around situations? does it allow for more detail?

i thinkim confused, because a macro seems able to soak in such fine detail, so using it as a general purpose lens, would make it seem sharper than any non macro lens.

07/30/2005 02:18:10 PM · #9

I always recommend the lens hood, and always use it. It can be problematical in some macro shots, when it may actually get in the way, depending on how much of your subjects extends in front of your point of focus. On the other hand, it can keep you from accidentally bumping the subject...

A true macro lens is optimized for close working distances. Really nice consumer macro lenses are sharp throughout their range as well. I'm not aware that close-in sharpness automatically spills over to the extended range. But optics are not my field of expertise.

Robt.

Canon EF-S 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6

07/30/2005 02:21:17 PM · #10

thanks for the tip.

can anyone explain the answer to my second question?

Nitin

Canon EOS-300D Rebel

07/30/2005 03:08:01 PM · #11

No, you cannot use 1:1 in walk around situations.

1:1 implies the size of the real object, and its projection on the sensor are identical. So, its limited to extreme macro only.

Also, as Robt pointed out, you need to be within a few inches from your subject to use that mode.

Both 60mm and 100mm are very sharp. I dont think that has to do with them being macro lenses. I've heard 24-70L and 17-40L are extremely sharp walk around lenses.

Manic

DJI Mini 3 Pro

Kamlan 28mm F1.4 MF for APS-C

07/30/2005 03:13:05 PM · #12

Just to throw a spanner in the works, the Sigma 50/2.8 1:1 Macro is a very nice lens too! You need to use MF in macro mode to get the most out of it (the AF can tend to hunt a little), but it's very sharp, and an excellent general use 50mm as well. It's also cheaper than both the others mentioned :o)

07/30/2005 03:13:48 PM · #13

so on a normal lens, like my 17-85, it's not 1:1. but what is it then?

am i correct in saying a macro lens is basically a normal lens with the only differnece being the ability to focus at closer distances than a normal lens - aside from that a 60mm non-macro and macro are similiar at shooting a building or landscape?

Message edited by author 2005-07-30 15:14:29.

07/30/2005 04:45:17 PM · #14

Originally posted by reemas:

That's basically correct, yes. There are dedicated macro lenses that ONLY work at close focusing distances, but they are very specialized tools. The "consumer macros" like the Canons are effectively regular lenses that have additional (and realtively costly) optical tweaking to optimize them for close-in work. They have more, and more complex, glass elements than conventional lenses of the same focal length.

Robt.

07/30/2005 04:58:18 PM · #15

On the Canon 17-85 your maximum magnification is .20 (one fifth life size) compared with 1.00 (life size) on the macros. Canon also makes a 65mm MP-E f/2.8 dedicated macro lens that has a focusing range of 1-5x (life size to five times life size).

Bear in mind that size information is relative to the physical size of the image on the sensor, which is quite small compared to a print. In other words, a life-size shot of a fly is one HELL of a lot bigger than life size when it is printed at 16x20 inches, LOL.

Robt.

kyebosh

Canon EF 80-200mm f/2.8L

07/30/2005 05:45:48 PM · #16

Get the 100mm/105mm. I have the older 100mm and it's super sharp. Here's a really quick sample... wide open (F2.8). I should probably do a better one, but I just did one really fast.

kyebosh

Canon EF 80-200mm f/2.8L

07/30/2005 06:47:02 PM · #17

here are 2 more quick examples. Again both at F2.8, MF used as well.

Nikon AF Nikkor 85mm f/1.4D IF

07/31/2005 01:15:22 PM · #18

thanks for the replies. i read a good review: //www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/Canon-EF-S-60mm-f-2.8-Macro-USM-Lens-Review.aspx

i think one of my concerns is the background blur on various macro lenses:

cany anyone comment? seems like it could be a problem sometimes?

pawdrix

Nikon D700

07/31/2005 01:56:12 PM · #19

Of the blurs above, which do you prefer? Keep in mind you can do additional blurring very well in PS.

I can't sing high enough praise for the Sigma 105mm especially for the price. Here are a few samples

Taken yesterday at around 15-20 feet, f5

and this ones in close from around a foot and half away at f11

nsbca7

Mattel Barbie Photo Designer Digital Camera

07/31/2005 02:07:07 PM · #20

Originally posted by reemas:

What you also have to keep in mind are the two factors that would have to be balanced if choosing between a long or a short macro lens. The image shot with the 180mm definatly looks more appealing, but that is because the DOF is shorter causing better background blur. Short DOF is not really an asset for most macro work. On the other hand, with the longer lens you have the advantage of being able to work at a greater distance from your subject and still capture a comparable image. It's a trade-off.

My favorite macro is my 600/4 with a extention tube.

Nikon AF Nikkor 85mm f/1.4D IF

07/31/2005 02:07:56 PM · #21

does that sigma include a hood, case or anything else? could you do me a huge favor and talk some photos of the LENS itself w/hood on so i can see?

on a camera body for perspective would be nice. i really like your first shot...

pawdrix

Nikon D700

07/31/2005 02:15:04 PM · #22

Sigma 105mm f2.8

Yes, it does come with a lens hood, standard round front.

joezl

Nikon D200

Nikon AF-S DX Zoom-Nikkor 17-55mm f/2.8G IF-ED

07/31/2005 02:19:24 PM · #23

I have the same Sigma lens and it comes with a hood and a nice (if bulky) padded case. It's a great lens.