EF-S 60mm macro for close up photography

[blevine15]

Can anyone recommend a lens for close up photography of insects. I have a 20D. I had heard that Cannon has introduced a new 60mm macro, I was told that might be a good selection. Any thoughts would be appreciated, thanks.

[pcasciola]

The book is not out on the 60mm EF-S yet, but it's supposed to be what the 100/2.8 Macro is to full frame users. We'll have to wait and see.

[Todd Jacobsen]

Probably a very light lens but why would select this lens over other Canon Macro lenses?

Lenses last longer than camera bodies. An EF-S lens will supposedly limit you to 1.6x bodies. I purchased the 10-22 only due to the fact that it was BY FAR cheaper than the other Canon alternatives. You will note that I own the 16-35L but I needed something even WIDER.

[pcasciola]

Probably a very light lens but why would select this lens over other Canon Macro lenses?Everyone seems to have this vision of EF-S being junk, because of the 18-55 kit lens, but there are advantages. Moving the rear element closer to the sensor and reducing the size of the projected image results in smaller, lighter lenses, as well as reductions in CA and flaring. This is why the 18-55 is such a good performer for it's $100 price. I'm still torn between investing money in sensor specific lenses as well, but for people that don't envision moving to a 1 series anytime soon, why not?

[eosster]

Little over priced in IMO, though.

[Jon]

Remember, when you're doing macro photography, closer isn't better. The 60 mm will give you 1:1 at the sensor at a working distance (back of camera to subject) of 240 mm, or just under 10". The 100 wil give you the same 1:1, the same image size at 400 mm, which is over 6" further back, for 3" more room between the lens and subject.. That will make it easier for you to keep from spooking the subject, and it'll be easier to shift a little back and forth for precise focus. Since the 60 mm and 100 mm are virtually the same cost, why hamstring yourself? This is one lens option nobody needs and Canon shouldn't have wasted their efforts on.

[Todd Jacobsen]

Everyone seems to have this vision of EF-S being junk, because of the 18-55 kit lens, but there are advantages. Moving the rear element closer to the sensor and reducing the size of the projected image results in smaller, lighter lenses, as well as reductions in CA and flaring. This is why the 18-55 is such a good performer for it's $100 price. I'm still torn between investing money in sensor specific lenses as well, but for people that don't envision moving to a 1 series anytime soon, why not?

I thoroughly enjoy the 10-22 EF-S lens, and there is considerable debate as to why it was not given the "L" designation. But I also know that in purchasing the lens, I'm limiting potential future body upgrades. due to the lens' "S" status.

Generally, as I stated, one buys a lens for long term, body is short term. If your purpose for purchasing the 60mm lens is to DIAL IN that range (ie 60mm) then it is your only option. If your purpose for purchasing the lens is to get a good MACRO lens, I would suggest another Canon model that does not have the "S" involved so as to make it available on ANY Canon body one might be interested in purchasing.

[jylitalo]

Generally, as I stated, one buys a lens for long term, body is short term. If your purpose for purchasing the 60mm lens is to DIAL IN that range (ie 60mm) then it is your only option. If your purpose for purchasing the lens is to get a good MACRO lens, I would suggest another Canon model that does not have the "S" involved so as to make it available on ANY Canon body one might be interested in purchasing.
If you want something smaller than 100/2.8 macro and don't want to limit yourself to EF-S, there is always 50/2.5 compact macro. On its own its only 1:2, which is enough for me, but you can transform it into 1:1 macro, if you buy extender (which costs more or less same as the actual lens). Only thing that its really missing is USM to make AF faster and cut down that noise.

[blevine15]

Can someone advise me on the differences between the new 60mm macro and the 100mm macro?
What are the advantages of one vs. the other.

Thanks to all.

[eosster]

Can someone advise me on the differences between the new 60mm macro and the 100mm macro?
What are the advantages of one vs. the other.
Thanks to all.

Did you read the above POSTS?

[Coderunner]

I'm more interested in comparing the 60mm to the 50mm F2.5 macro. I've read that the 50mm 2.5 is very sharp. Has anyone compred these two lenses?

[Citizensmith]

For me I think it'll come down to price. I'd like a decent macro lens but I'm not desperately in need of one. I own a 17-40, 24, 85, and 70-200. The 50 2.5 may be the weakest macro of the three but its also the cheapest ($230) and fills a gap in my line up (no, sorry, don't want a 50 1.8). The 100 2.8 is $450 but all it'd get used for is macro as I have the 85 there so I'm less willing to spend the extra money. It'll be interesting to see where they postion the EF-S 60. At the 50 2.5 end and I'll probably get it. If its too much more I'll probably just stick with the 50 2.5.

[DavoMrMac]

I have also been looking at the EF-S 60mm and the EF-100mm.

The advice I got from someone who has used both, is to pay the little extra for the 100mm, equally as sharp, but less of a back-breaker to use. Having that extra working distance also means you are less likely to disturb insects etc.

I have the option to try the 60mm for a day and then swap to the 100mm, so will report back with my findings.

[gastroboy]

but isn't the EF-S 60mm equivalent to a 96mm on a 35mm camera?

so the difference would be relatively small right?

Unless the 100 becomes a 160mm? but then would the 1:1 become1:1.6???

dunno..i am a noob so you can all ignore me for now. :-)

can someone test the EF-s 60mm and let us know..

[johnbs]

I have also been looking at the EF-S 60mm and the EF-100mm.

You may want to also consider the Tamron 90 or 180 macro - arguably even sharper than Canon. Sigma also makes good macros lenses at 50, 105, 150 and 180

John

[Jon]

but isn't the EF-S 60mm equivalent to a 96mm on a 35mm camera?

so the difference would be relatively small right?

Unless the 100 becomes a 160mm? but then would the 1:1 become1:1.6???

dunno..i am a noob so you can all ignore me for now. :-)

can someone test the EF-s 60mm and let us know..

No. 1:1 is 1:1 regardless of the focal length. Any lens is at 1:1 when the distance between the lens' nodal point and the sensor is equal to the distance between the nodal point and the subject. As it happens, that distance is always 2x the focal length. The difference between the 60 mm and 100 mm, as I said above, is that with a 60 mm at 1:1, you'll have a total camera-subject distance of 240 mm, while with a 100 mm at 1:1, you'll have a total working distance of 400 mm. The lens nodal point-subject distance, in each case, will be 1/2 that. Now if you were a skittish grasshopper, would you rather that pushy photographer shoved his camera within 4" of your face, or held back to about 8"? That's the difference between the two in macro use. Get the 100. As I said, the 60 mm EF-S is a solution looking for a problem.

[roanjohn]

My advice, get the 100 macro. It's one of Canon's sharpest lens, its been proven over and over again as a great macro performer, it will give you better working distance to shoot those buggers and it will work on your 1Ds MKII when they go down to around 1200 USD in the year 2008.

.........okay, the last statement might be a stretch but it can happen (fingers crossing).

Ro1

[Kennymc]

Got to agree with Jon, the further you can be away from the subject and still get 1:1 the more chance you have of not panicing anything...

[gastroboy]

No. 1:1 is 1:1 regardless of the focal length. Any lens is at 1:1 when the distance between the lens' nodal point and the sensor is equal to the distance between the nodal point and the subject. As it happens, that distance is always 2x the focal length. The difference between the 60 mm and 100 mm, as I said above, is that with a 60 mm at 1:1, you'll have a total camera-subject distance of 240 mm, while with a 100 mm at 1:1, you'll have a total working distance of 400 mm. The lens nodal point-subject distance, in each case, will be 1/2 that. Now if you were a skittish grasshopper, would you rather that pushy photographer shoved his camera within 4" of your face, or held back to about 8"? That's the difference between the two in macro use. Get the 100. As I said, the 60 mm EF-S is a solution looking for a problem.

Right...gotcha..thanks...hmmm i was sooo set on the 60mm....now have to reconsider.

Okay, can you then stick an extender on the 60mm to compensate for the distance or would that not work? The reason I ask is that an EF-S 60mm plus an extender will still be cheaper than the rather large looking 100mm.

PS. the MP-E65mm f/2.8 looks awesome but WAY out of the price range.

PPS..sorry for hijacking the post. :-)

[Jon]

No. Putting an extender on the 60 mm will get you beyond 1:1, which means that the front of the lens will get closer to the subject. The basic formula for lens-subject distance is that 1/i + 1/o = 1/f where i = distance from nodal point to image, o is distance from nodal point to subject, and f is lens focal length. From this, you can see that once you pass 1:1 (where i=o), as i gets bigger, o approaches f. On the cost, ISTR that when Canon announced the 60 mm macro, it had a MSRP quite close to the price of the 100 mm macro. Given that, getting the 100's a no-brainer.