EF-S 60mm f/2.8 Macro vs. EF 100mm f/2.8 Macro vs. EF 50mm f/2.5 Compact Macro

[mephetic436]

Ok so I'm looking to get a macro lens, and these are the three I am really looking at:
EF-S 60mm f/2.8 Macro USM
EF 100mm f/2.8 Macro USM
EF 50mm f/2.5 Compact Macro

But theres a few things I'm wondering.
1. I don't know what working distance is, i understand that larger is better but i dont know how that benefits me or what it is.
2. Between these cameras im looking for 1 i can do both medium close up portraits and extreme close up of the typical macro subjects bugs plants and whatnot, will 1 of these be better than the others at doing both ?

[Jon]

Working distance is the distance between the front of your lens and the subject you're photographing. Bigger is better, especially with live subjects, since you're less likely to spook them by poking a lens in their nose. Longer working distance also makes precise control of focus (by moving camera back and forth) easier, and helps reduce the chance you'll throw your own shadow on your subject inadvertently.

All of the lenses will be able to do portraits as well as close-ups, although without the LifeSize Adapter, the EF 50 f/2.5 won't get closer than 1/2 life size. If you're using a Digital Rebel (either) or a 20D, you can use the EF-S 60, but it won't fit anything else. The 100 is the best bet, as it doesn't cost much more than the 60 (especially with rebates), fits any EOS camera, has the best working distance and gets to 1:1.

[mephetic436]

thanks a lot

this site amazes me at how fast you can find out anything you want to know, everyones so helpful

[liza]

I've seen photographers produce some amazing images with the 100mm lens. That's the one I'll probably buy for myself this spring.

[EOSX]

Working distance is the distance between the front of your lens and the subject you're photographing. Bigger is better, especially with live subjects, since you're less likely to spook them by poking a lens in their nose. Longer working distance also makes precise control of focus (by moving camera back and forth) easier, and helps reduce the chance you'll throw your own shadow on your subject inadvertently.

All of the lenses will be able to do portraits as well as close-ups, although without the LifeSize Adapter, the EF 50 f/2.5 won't get closer than 1/2 life size. If you're using a Digital Rebel (either) or a 20D, you can use the EF-S 60, but it won't fit anything else. The 100 is the best bet, as it doesn't cost much more than the 60 (especially with rebates), fits any EOS camera, has the best working distance and gets to 1:1. I second what Jon said. I have tried 50 and the 100. I prefer the 100 much more so I bought it. On a the 20D/300D/350D, it would become at 160mm f2.8 in a 35mm perspective. Get the 100, you won't regret.

[rdenney]

1. I don't know what working distance is, i understand that larger is better but i dont know how that benefits me or what it is.
2. Between these cameras im looking for 1 i can do both medium close up portraits and extreme close up of the typical macro subjects bugs plants and whatnot, will 1 of these be better than the others at doing both ?

1. The greater the focal length, the greater the magnification, and the larger your subject will be within the frame from a given distance to the camera. If your subject is a given size, in the frame, the longer lens will provide that image size from a greater distance between the camera and subject. In macro usage, the closer the camera is, the more likely the camera will intrude into the subject, either by casting a shadow or scaring off the subject. So, for macro wildlife such as insects, the 100 really is much more useful than the 50. Plus, 1:1 image size (so that a bug's head that measures 5mm wide consumes 5mm on the sensor) is more useful with insects. The 50 only goes to 1:2 unless you pay double and get the life-size converter. Remember though that at 1:1, the biggest thing you can photograph on a 20D or Digital Rebel is 15x23mm.

For the other main category of use, which is copy work, the 50 is much more useful than the 100. You'll have a hard time getting a full sheet of paper into the frame using the 100 on a standard copy stand, for example. That's the reason I bought the 50.

2. But I think the 100 is a little long for portraiture on the APS-sized sensor. To get more than a portion of the face, you'll have to back away from the subject far enough to require a raised voice to communicate. I greatly prefer the 50 (though the 60 would be just fine). None of the macro lenses are really fast enough to get really selective focus, though if you can tolerate the long subject distance the 100 will do better, especially if you crop tightly.

I have a 50/2.5 Compact Macro, but I wasn't too happy with it as a portrait lens. It focuses slowly and noisily, and I wanted more background blur. I ended up also getting the 50/1.4. But the 50mm macro lens glows in the dark on the copy stand. I used it to digitize a family photo album. It took three hours with a copy stand and would have take three weeks using a flatbed. And the quality was better, because the result was smoother and had more accurate color.

I avoid EF-S lenses because someday Canon will offer a full-frame sensor for a price I can afford and I don't want to have any lenses orphaned by that happy occasion.

Rick "who has learned that macro applications and portrait applications require significant compromises from one or the other" Denney

[mephetic436]

how far away from a person would i have to be with the 100 macro to get pretty much the whole face ?

[mephetic436]

alright ill just ask about all 3 at once...how far away from a person would i have to be to get a full face shot with:

EF-S 60mm f/2.8 Macro USM

EF 100mm f/2.8 Macro USM

EF 50mm f/2.5 Compact Macro without the 1;1 macro converter ?

[Jon]

50 and 60 - about a meter; 100, about 2 meters. Assuming 12" head height, portrait orientation, and the head's to fill the frame. Add about 50% for head and shoulders, so 1.5 m/3m.

[mephetic436]

and with the 100 will I need a tripod, will it be too blurry to just point and shoot out on a hike ?

[Jon]

You're going to be about as likely to need a tripod with the 100 as with the other two - at macro ranges, you lose an additional 1-2 stops due to lens extension (not reported to the camera, so apertures will all still appear in the normal range), and you're talking a pretty small subject, so you may not have the precise framing control you'd want working hand-held. A monopod might be enough to do the job; the main thing is to stop you from wiggling around and messing up your own framing.