Macro lens choice EF 50 F2.5 or EF-S 60 F2.8?

[uktrailmonster]

Ok, this is a lens required for work, mainly photographing automotive components of varying sizes eg. gear teeth, suspension components etc. Lighting is usually poor so flash is needed all of the time. Space is also limited, so I usually have to be pretty close to the subject. I've been using the 18-55 kit lens on a 20D for this job with reasonable results, so I know that a focal length of around the 50mm mark is ok.

So I was considering either the EF 50 F2.5 Macro or the EF-S 60 F2.8. Forget about the difference in cost and the fact that the EF-S lens won't fit on a full frame sensor. I'm only interested to know which is likely to give the best results and what the main differences are other than 10mm focal length and cropped sensor compatibility.

[volleybrad]

IIRC - the 50mm requires an additional adapter of sorts to give full 1:1 magnification. The EF-S 60mm lens will give 1:1 magnification out of the box.

The Fred Miranda website reviews has the 60mm slightly edging out the 50mm by .2 points (9.6 to 9.4 out of 10)

[detzX]

Did you look at the 100mm, I just went through this over the 50 and 100 and went with the 100mm.

[OregonRebel]

I don't think you have to worry about components running away and need more working distance from a 100. :) Go with the EF-S 60. Image quality is at least as good as any of the others and it's a true 1:1, with a modern design & USM. You can also use a ring flash with a filter on it, if that matters.

[uktrailmonster]

Thanks, I think I'm edging toward the 60, I think 100 is a bit long on a 1.6 sensor for this application. If it was my own money I might consider the cheaper 50, but since it's the company buying it, they may as well have the best tool for the job in hand :)

[uktrailmonster]

The ring flash sounds like a good idea too, I'll look into it. Thanks again

[picard]

Do any of these lenses fit the rebel XT? would the peripheral field of vision be reduced because the spec do not indicate a 18mm?

[OregonRebel]

All EF lenses fit the XT. The EF-S lenses only work on the XT and a few other models. There are no 1:1 macros any wider than 50 mm that I know of, but the field of view is different for a 50+ mm lens than for an 18.

[Jon]

Do any of these lenses fit the rebel XT? would the peripheral field of vision be reduced because the spec do not indicate a 18mm?
Yes, they'll fit the 350D/DR XT. Any EF or EF-S lens will fit the 350D.

I'm not sure what you mean by "peripheral field of vision", but a lens' angle of view is determined by its focal length. If you're asking whether the 50mm or 60 mm macro will be able to go as wide as the "kit" 18-55 mm lens,the answer is "No". There are two basic types of lenses, primes (having only a single focal length) which these two macro lenses are, and zooms (having a range of focal lengths), which the 18-55 is. However, even zoom lenses don't necessarily cover the 18 mm focal length.

[formula4speed]

Between those two I'd go with the 60mm for the full 1:1 ability, if you want to add a third option Sigma makes a 50mm 2.8 that also does 1:1 which is highly regarded for its image quality as well.

[picard]

Yes, they'll fit the 350D/DR XT. Any EF or EF-S lens will fit the 350D.

I'm not sure what you mean by "peripheral field of vision", but a lens' angle of view is determined by its focal length. If you're asking whether the 50mm or 60 mm macro will be able to go as wide as the "kit" 18-55 mm lens,the answer is "No". There are two basic types of lenses, primes (having only a single focal length) which these two macro lenses are, and zooms (having a range of focal lengths), which the 18-55 is. However, even zoom lenses don't necessarily cover the 18 mm focal length.


would this macro lens still have the same wide field of view as the kit 18-55? so I get it the 50 F2.5 and 60 F2.8 have fix focal length. I guess the user can't zoom in on the subject, is that right? What good would macro lens do if it can't zoom in on the subject?

[ScottE]

You zoom a prime lens by moving the camera closer.

[Jon]

would this macro lens still have the same wide field of view as the kit 18-55? so I get it the 50 F2.5 and 60 F2.8 have fix focal length. I guess the user can't zoom in on the subject, is that right? What good would macro lens do if it can't zoom in on the subject?
OK - going back to first principles here.
First, there are three groupings used for lenses (not the same as "prime" vs. "zoom"). There are "normal" lenses, which have an angle of view which roughly corresponds to what you see clearly when you look straight ahead. That's an angle of about 40-55 deg. Lenses that take in a wider angle than this are called "wide angle" lenses. Lenses with a narrower angle of view are "telephoto" lenses. Zoom lenses may cover focal lengths in one or more of these ranges. For instance, your 18-55 "kit" lens is a wide angle to moderate telephoto zoom on the 350D.

When we use a zoom lens, we "zoom in on" something by going to a longer focal length. This makes the subject appear to come closer. We "zoom out" by going to a shorter focal length,taking in a wider angle of view and making everything seem to get further away. If we have a prime lens, we can only make something come closer by moving closer to it. In the case of the macro lenses we're talking about here, they're already the same as the 18-55 "zoomed in on" something, because they're at the same focal length. We'd "zoom out" with them by moving away from the subject.

Now macro lenses are designed, not so much as general purpose lenses (although they do an excellent job as general purpose primes), but as a magnifying glass for your camera. They'll let you focus on something 1-2 inches away, just like a magnifying glass will. When you're that close to something, it's as if you really zoomed in on it by using a huge, long telephoto lens, and it'll form an image on the sensor that's just about the same size as the object itself. You could do the same thing while not getting as close by using a longer lens, since every lens will produce a life-size image from a subject 4x the focal length from the sensor plane. So a 50 mm lens will be at life-size when there are 200 mm (around 8") between the subject and the back of the camera. A 60 mm will be about 10" (240 mm) separation; a 1200 mm lens will be about 16 ft (5 meters) separation. Of course, the longer focal length lenses are very expensive,and are very dim unless you pour even more money into them. There's also the problem of how far the lens has to be from the sensor at life-size. The optical center of the lens is halfway betweeen the sensor and the subject when the lens is at life-size magnification,so using a 1200 mm lens for life-size photography would mean walking around with an 8 ft. long cylinder sicking out in front of your camera. So we normally try to do our macro work with something a little shorter than that (unless we're photographing the tonsils of a spitting cobra, where we'll put up with the extra lens extension). If there's reasonable room, we'll try to use a 100 mm, or even 150 mm or 180 mm focal length macro lens, to keep us from being right on top of our subject while keeping the lens a manageable size.

Since OP is likely to be working in close quarters (engine compartments, transmissions, etc.), we're thinking he needs a shorter lens, which will put him closer to the subject (a shorter "working distance"). Now for a variety of reasons, including the nature of wide angle lens designs for SLR cameras, using a wide angle macro lens isn't very practical. Designers need to make compromises to get an 18 mm lens when the lens can't be closer than 30 mm to the film sensor. So getting a good working distance and making sure the lens behaves properly across the entire sensor plane becomes a real headache, bordering on the impossible if you want the lens to work at infinity and at life-size.

[uktrailmonster]

60mm macro with a ring flash it is then. Thanks for all the advice.