Quality of optics: Canon 50mm/100mm Macro

[sid]

Well, I'm looking at buying a macro lens and I'm pretty sure it's gonna be either the Canon 50mm or the 100mm Macro lens. A little bit of research into this has made me realize a couple of things:
(1) The 50mm has a shorter closest focusing distancs
(2) The 100mm gives a 1:1 magnification
(3) The 100mm costs around $200 more.

So, having a hard time deciding on either lens, here's another factor that I havent been able to answer in a satisfactory manner: Are the optics on the two lenses basically the same ? Or, is one of them (100mm ?) optically superior to the other ? Which one would be a better choice ?

[roanjohn]

The 100 is vastly superior in terms of build, min. focusing distance and AF (due to its USM). However, the 50 is no slouch......it is lightweight, produces excellent colors and is very light. Also, the 50 is easier to work with as it doesn't require a tripod on most shots........the 100 OTOH, is a bit longish.......so a tripod is necessary on overcast days to get a nice and sharp image without the blur. Optically, both will give you sharp and contrasty images even wide open. If I have to do it all over again, I would probably get the 65 f2.8 macro :-p J/K.. Both are EXCELLENT lenses....if you have the extra money, go and get the 100 USM.

Ro1

[sid]

If I have to do it all over again, I would probably get the 65 f2.8 macro :-p J/K..
Ro1
Yeah, I was looking into the 65 f2.8 macro too. But, it's almost the same price as the 100mm macro... too many choices :confused:

[roanjohn]

Yeah, I was looking into the 65 f2.8 macro too. But, it's almost the same price as the 100mm macro... too many choices :confused:

:lol: :lol: Don't be confused!!! Don't get the 65............if it was between 200-300 USD then it would've been a good deal.......but for the price, you're better off with the 100 f2.8 USM. You will not be sorry.............even the Sigma and Tamron macro offerings are nice and sharp.

Ro1

[DaveG]

Well, I'm looking at buying a macro lens and I'm pretty sure it's gonna be either the Canon 50mm or the 100mm Macro lens. A little bit of research into this has made me realize a couple of things:
(1) The 50mm has a shorter closest focusing distancs
(2) The 100mm gives a 1:1 magnification
(3) The 100mm costs around $200 more.

So, having a hard time deciding on either lens, here's another factor that I havent been able to answer in a satisfactory manner: Are the optics on the two lenses basically the same ? Or, is one of them (100mm ?) optically superior to the other ? Which one would be a better choice ?

I'd say that the optics of both of these lenses are excellent. You will never say "I wish that was sharper" with either lens, so in my mind that puts that issue away.

Now what else is there? The focal length as you point out. The extra focal length is incredibly useful. I can get reflectors in front of me to push a little light into the subject and I can stay out of the light more easily too.

I think that the longer focal length has a more pleasing perspective as well. and that's not to be over looked.

As you realize the 100 will do 1:1 without an extension tube. What you may not realize is what a pain an extension tube is. You immediatly lose your infinity focus with an extension tube and that can really slow you down. Canon makes a special "extension tube" that has glass elements. With THAT "tube" you can focus the 50mm lens to infinity. But the cost of the glass extension tube along with the price of the 50 macro puts you right to where the 100 macro is!

I used to own a 55 mm Nikkor macro lens and loved it. I made do with the infinity losing extension tube and mostly used it for copying paintings and photographs. But no one in their right mind will use a macro lense for copying two dimensional objects, such as photographs and the like. A $60 flatbed scanner will do a much better job, and we all have one of those already. If the subject is too big for a scanner than you don't need a macro lens anymore.

The 50mm macro is also slow for its focal length and the 100 f2.8 is not.

By the way I voted with my money on this issue. I bought a 100 macro and have been very happy since then. I was lucky enough to find a used non USM lens and it's just fine. I have a 70-200 f2.8 L that I use when I shoot sports and the like so slow focusing means nothing to me. In fact I don't see how you can use AF when you are doing most macro work. I mean how does the poor stupid camera know if you want to focus on the petal or the leaf? If I didn't have another USM lens in this focal length than USM would be something I'd definitely want - I made my living with a 180mm f2.8ED Nikkor for years, and this would be effectively a 160mm f2.8).