EFS 60 or EF 100? - DPChallenge Forums

04/19/2005 12:44:37 PM · #1

I'm interested in buying a macro lens for my rebel, and have just noticed that the EFS 60mm F2.8 macro lens is available from beachcamera.com. Oddly, it's the same price as the EF 100mm F2.8 macro!

Does anyone know anything about the EFS 60?

Message edited by author 2005-04-19 12:45:10.

hopper

Canon EOS-80D

Canon EF 35mm f/2 IS USM

04/19/2005 12:47:10 PM · #2

it so new, no one has really reviewed it yet.

i agree, the price seems odd to me, it should be cheaper by at least $100.00

Man_Called_Horse

Tamron SP AF 17-50mm f/2.8 Di II LD Aspherical (IF) for Canon

04/19/2005 01:06:23 PM · #3

Google your lens. do more research. call your local camera store. go to another forum. check out the manufacture web site, compare other similar lens sets.

I would get the 100mm. same macro, same f stop, same price. No brainer.

hopper

Canon EOS-80D

Canon EF 35mm f/2 IS USM

04/19/2005 01:23:18 PM · #4

Originally posted by swinging_johnson_v1:

I would get the 100mm. same macro, same f stop, same price. No brainer.

I pretty much agree, but the 60 would possibly be the better choice if you also plan on using the lens for portraiture - and the 100 is too long for your studio.

Corwyn

04/19/2005 02:52:53 PM · #5

The 100mm 2.8 is actualy a 1.6X lifetime on the digital bodies. So if macro is what you want I would get the 100 2.8, but if you want to use it more as a potrait the 60mm is a 1X lifetime.

I use my 100mm for portraits and it's fine.

Message edited by author 2005-04-19 14:53:23.

aquiz

Canon EOS-20D

04/19/2005 03:11:07 PM · #6

The 100mm EF is NOT actually 1.6x lifetime.

Lifetime only means that the object being photographed in lifesize is the same size on the sensor surface as it is in real life.

The 1.6x crop factor does not play into this aspect of the lens at all!

Message edited by author 2005-04-19 15:11:35.

Corwyn

04/19/2005 03:28:40 PM · #7

Originally posted by aquiz:

Message edited by author 2005-04-19 15:29:29.

Man_Called_Horse

Tamron SP AF 17-50mm f/2.8 Di II LD Aspherical (IF) for Canon

04/19/2005 03:35:52 PM · #8

Originally posted by swinging_johnson_v1:

is this a prime lens, or a telephoto?

aquiz

Canon EOS-20D

04/19/2005 03:51:16 PM · #9

Originally posted by Corwyn:

Are you sure?? not saying your wrong but, I talked to a pretty knowledgable person in the photography business and he said it was a 1.6X factor. That ment that the object was 1.6 time life size on the sensor.

Does anyone for sure know??

Originally posted by aquiz:
The 100mm EF is NOT actually 1.6x lifetime.

Lifetime only means that the object being photographed in lifesize is the same size on the sensor surface as it is in real life.

The 1.6x crop factor does not play into this aspect of the lens at all!

Yes I am POSITIVE. And even if the 100mm EF were 1.6x"lifetime" (which it isn't) that would also go for the 60mm EF-S.

You see: "Life-size" is a term regarding the size of the subject on the sensor. If you shrink the sensor you're not changing the life-size ratio of the lens, the lens doesn't know anything about that.

Message edited by author 2005-04-19 15:51:57.

Tamron SP AF 17-50mm f/2.8 Di II LD Aspherical (IF) for Canon

04/19/2005 03:52:55 PM · #10

I searched for it, dpreview has an artical on it here. Looks like it might have better focus and bokeh, and it looks much smaller. I know I had trouble focusing with the 100 macro in the studio when I tried it out, it would just run right over the focus, and it took forver to cycle through the focus, it would go out to infinity and come back in when the focus was really only a couple millimeters off. The 60 uses an EMD for it's aperture, supposed to have better bokeh.

I'd still go with the 100mm macro for the working distance, unless the focus and bokeh are a dramatic improvement in the 60 2.8.

Message edited by author 2005-04-19 16:00:46.

Corwyn

04/19/2005 03:53:29 PM · #11

Looks like your right Aquiz. The crop does not effect the lifetime size. The 100mm macro is only a 1x lifetime on the digital bodies

Originally posted by aquiz:

aquiz

Canon EOS-20D

04/19/2005 03:54:26 PM · #12

Originally posted by swinging_johnson_v1:

Originally posted by swinging_johnson_v1:
Google your lens. do more research. call your local camera store. go to another forum. check out the manufacture web site, compare other similar lens sets.

I would get the 100mm. same macro, same f stop, same price. No brainer.

is this a prime lens, or a telephoto?

It's actually both. A prime is a "fixed focal lenght" lens that doesn't zoom.

"Telephoto" is a much looser term describing a lens that has long focal length and 100mm is pretty long so YES, it's also a telephoto.

Canon EF 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6L IS

04/19/2005 03:56:32 PM · #13

Originally posted by aquiz:

As for this argument, "1:1" doesn't take into account sensor size. Quite simply, an object the size of the sensor will the fill the frame at closest focus. Therefore, a smaller object will fill the frame of an 1.6x camera than a FF camera.

ovenbird

Canon EOS-350D Rebel XT

04/19/2005 03:57:07 PM · #14

I just ordered my EF-s 60mm macro and should hopefully have it tomorrow. I owned the EF 100mm f/2.8 macro USM for quite a while and found it to be an excellent lens on a full-frame body but I always found it a bit long for my taste on my 1.6x crop bodies. I have been using the Sigma 50mm f/2.8 macro EX as my macro lens for the last year or so and have been thrilled with it but I do want internal focusing and USM so I am going to give the new Canon a try.

My understanding is that it will be just like the 100mm USM except designed for 1.6x cameras (smaller and lighter with a 100mm FF FOV).

I shoot mostly bugs and reptiles by the way.

Tom

Alexys

Canon EF 100mm f/2.8 USM Macro

04/19/2005 03:57:17 PM · #15

I made a similar question last week. I was looking for buy a new lense and after all the opinions, I decided to buy Canon 100mm Macro and that´s really great. One advantage of this lens, that´s the minimum distance of focussing. In 100, I think it´s bigger.

I made some proofs with my new toy and I reccomended you this one.

Alexis

04/19/2005 04:01:36 PM · #16

The longer the focal length, the further your working distance. This is the main reason I would want the 100 more than the 60.

Nitin

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

04/19/2005 04:02:01 PM · #17

I was thinking about the EFS-60 too.
To me, the main advantage over EF-100 is the size and weight.

There are two different 1.6X factors into consideration:
-> 1.6X focal length: EF-100 was made before we had 10D and 300D (100mm becomes 160mm on 10D and 300D, but is 100mm on 1D). EFS-60mm is equivalent to 96mm (roughly 100mm) on the standard scale.
-> Magnification factor. Both EF-100mm/2.8 and EFS-60mm/2.8 have 1:1 magnification. EF-50mm/2.8 has 1:1.6 magnification.

kirbic

Canon EOS R5

Canon RF 24-70 f2.8 L IS

04/19/2005 04:05:51 PM · #18

I've worked with macro lenses at 35mm, 100mm, and 135mm, and done macro with the 50/1.4 using extension tubes. IMO, it's really hard to light the subject at 50mm or below, the working distance is very short at high magnification.
The 100mm is a great focal length for macro, and the working distance is long enough to make lighting your shots a lot easier. A 150 to 180mm macro lens might be even better for insects, but is much harder to hand-hold. I love the 100 and would not part with mine.
As a portrait lens, the 100 is a little long for studio work (not for headshots tho!) but for candids at mid range it's a beautiful choice. It has a focus limiting switch to lock out the near range when your shooting at non-macro distances. For macro shooting, I rarely ever use AF, I find it counter-productive.