What lense 100mm or 60mm?

[m and m]

So im looking to take the jump into macro but im not sure what lense i would like to get first. I have the canon 100mm 2.8 macro in mind and the canon 60mm 2.8 macro in mind. What are the pro's and con's of each and what one do you think would give the better shot of bug's/coral/water taking into consideration main focus would be image quality.

[MrContact]

Make sure you dig shooting macro. A good purchase are Kenko Extension tubes or another such brand. They are excellent quality for the price products.

More on topic, I'd say go for the 100mm if you plan to upgrade to a Full Frame body at some point.
If I recall correctly, the 100mm allows more distance between you and the subject in comparison to the 60mm, so less chance of spooking the little buggers if you're shooting insects.

If you can manage to save a few hundred more bucks, you could go for the 100mm L series.
Here are the sample pics galleries, you can get a good feel of what the lens can do:
100mm/L series (http://photography-on-the.net/forum/showthread.php?t=760368&highlight=100mm+macro)
100mm (http://photography-on-the.net/forum/showthread.php?t=158427&highlight=100mm+macro)
60mm (http://photography-on-the.net/forum/showthread.php?t=243042&highlight=60mm)

[noodle_snacks]

The working distance of the 60mm is too low for many things. 100mm is better.Sigma 150mm or a tamron 180mm is the best value for money.

[m and m]

I had tubes, but i bought the 100mml its a very nice lense. The only thing i might ever get is the mpe for a fuller subject in the frame. But thanks for the replay i fogot about this post and found it wondering in the macro form.

[Warl0rd]

60 for static objects, 100 for bugs.

[Dalantech]

Well here I go again -about to be the sand in everyone's suntan lotion...

There is no such thing as a bug lens -the difference in working distance between the 100mm and the EF-S 60mm is only 2". So no matter what lens you use you're too stinkin' close from the critter's perspective and it's your skill at stalking the critter, and the critter's willingness to let you get close, that will determine if you get a shot.

If I can shoot dragonflies and bees in the heat of the day at 3x and higher mag with an MPE-65mm lens then ANYONE can take a life size shot with the EF-S 60mm. If you plan to go above life size then the 60mm is the better lens since it takes only 37mm of extension to get to 2x (the EF-S 60mm, at life size on the focus ring, is a 37mm lens)...

[Dalantech]

More info on the EF-S 60mm (http://nocroppingzone.blogspot.com/2009/09/canon-ef-s-60mm-poor-man-mpe-65mm.html).

[Warl0rd]

There is no such thing as a bug lens -the difference in working distance between the 100mm and the EF-S 60mm is only 2". So no matter what lens you use you're too stinkin' close from the critter's perspective and it's your skill at stalking the critter, and the critter's willingness to let you get close, that will determine if you get a shot.I don't have a 60mm to test it, but believing in this numbers (http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/Canon-EF-100mm-f-2.8-USM-Macro-Lens-Review.aspx), the working distance diference between the 100mm and the 60mm is almost the double (3.5" vs 6").

I agree it depends on the bug and his tolerance, but i'm sure you'll agree you will fell more safe using the 100mm on a bee then the 60mm :)

If he can tolerate 3.5" he will tolerate 6", but not necessarily the way around.

PS: i'm not saying you can't shoot bugs with the 60mm, just that the 100mm will be more appropriate.

[Dalantech]

I don't have a 60mm to test it, but believing in this numbers (http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/Canon-EF-100mm-f-2.8-USM-Macro-Lens-Review.aspx), the working distance diference between the 100mm and the 60mm is almost the double (3.5" vs 6").

EF-S 60mm: working distance 3.9"
100mm macro (non L) working distance 5.9"

Just a 2" difference. Don't confuse minimum focusing distance (distance from the sensor to the subject) and working distance (distance from the front of the lens to the subject).


I agree it depends on the bug and his tolerance, but i'm sure you'll agree you will fell more safe using the 100mm on a bee then the 60mm :)

Really?! Just another 2" is going to make you feel safe?... ;)


If he can tolerate 3.5" he will tolerate 6", but not necessarily the way around.

I kinda agree, although from the critter's perspective you're too close no matter what macro lens you're shooting with...


PS: i'm not saying you can't shoot bugs with the 60mm, just that the 100mm will be more appropriate.

How will a 100mm lens, with it's 2" increase in working distance, really make any difference? I use to believe the conventional wisdom (also known as BS) and I ended up getting a 100mm macro after owning the 60mm and in the end it was a mistake. For a lot of reasons the 60mm was a much better lens.

Take a look at the photos that I post in the main macro section (image sharing) or my gallery (http://dalantech.deviantart.com) and then come back here and tell me that I'd be able to do more with a longer lens than the MPE-65mm or the EF-S 60mm. What if I told you that images like this one (http://dalantech.deviantart.com/art/Slurp-III-144531384) are only possible because my working distance on that shot was only 2"...

[Warl0rd]

Canon EF-S 60mm f/2.8 Macro USM Lens
Minimum focusing distance: 7.9" (200mm)
Minimum working Distance: 3.5" (90mm)

Canon EF 100mm f/2.8 USM Macro Lens
Minimum focusing distance: 12.0" (300mm)
Minimum working Distance: 6.0" (150mm)

I don't know what's the source for your numbers, but one of them is wrong.

6cm extra working distance should be a lot for a bug, even for a bee thats more then 3 times their size.

how will it make a diference? I dunno, but I do know that the closer I get, more the chances the bug will fly away.

And the 180mm gives "just" extra 3.5" WD compared to the 100mm, so does it make a diference? I guess it does...

I agree that with enough practice you can learn how to get close to the bugs at 3.5". but for an amateur it will be easier to get shots at 6". And even for a pro he can get more shots at 6" then 3.5"

the MPE-65 is a different beast, you can't compare it to normal macro lenses.

I disagree that images like the one you posted are only possible at 2", if you could get more magnification you could shoot them further away and wouldn't probably scare bugs as many times.

I can shoot bees like this (http://www.flickr.com/photos/warl0rd/3651755766/) at 2:1 with a "safe" WD and thats it. What would be the difference for the 60mm? I would need to get closer, I might still get the shot or the bee could fly way and get just the flower or I might get sting :p

if I want more the MPE-65 is the way to go (or reversing a lens).

Learning the creature habits is a must, with all lenses, but specially when you need to get closer, and that might be tricky at first and quickly lead to disappointment if you can't get any decent shot. But of course, you can still shot at 6" with the 60mm, you just don't get the 1:1 mag you would with the 100mm.

to me one of the advantages of the 60mm is the weight.

[Dalantech]

Could have sworn the EF-S 60mm had a working distance of 3.9" -I stand corrected. But 3.9" or 3.5" makes no difference to the critter...

Edit: I'm going to measure the working distance when I get home. A quick Google search shows everything from almost 4" to 90cm (3.5").
Edit #2: Verified the working distance at 9cm or 3.5" by measuring it myself.


I disagree that images like the one you posted are only possible at 2", if you could get more magnification you could shoot them further away and wouldn't probably scare bugs as many times.

I'm holding onto the Rosemary stem with my left hand, and I'm resting the lens on that same hand to keep everything steady. It's a technique that I call the Left Hand Brace (http://dalantech.deviantart.com/art/Left-Hand-Brace-93226846) and it's almost impossible with a working distance greater than 4", and it's the only way to get that level of image quality...


I can shoot bees like this (http://www.flickr.com/photos/warl0rd/3651755766/) at 2:1 with a "safe" WD and thats it. What would be the difference for the 60mm? I would need to get closer, I might still get the shot or the bee could fly way and get just the flower or I might get sting :p

Because getting close allows you to grab onto whatever the insect is on so you can take full control of the motion in the scene and get sharper images. The only time I've been stung is when I was shooting honeybees on their comb and I had some mosquito repellent on me -the girls didn't like it and I got stung twice. Out in the field they will just move away from me if I get too close for their comfort.


...Learning the creature habits is a must, with all lenses...

...and that's the real reason why working distance is irrelevant...


to me one of the advantages of the 60mm is the weight.

Agreed -easy to keep in the bag and take it everywhere...

[Warl0rd]

I'm holding onto the Rosemary stem with my left hand, and I'm resting the lens on that same hand to keep everything steady. It's a technique that I call the Left Hand Brace (http://dalantech.deviantart.com/art/Left-Hand-Brace-93226846) and it's almost impossible with a working distance greater than 4", and it's the only way to get that level of image quality...

Because getting close allows you to grab onto whatever the insect is on so you can take full control of the motion in the scene and get sharper images.you have a point there :) I've already tried that and at 1:1 or bellow its indeed impossible. I can do it with the 100mm when using the tubes, I rest the lens on my wrist while grabbing the stem with index and middle finger.

[Dalantech]

you have a point there :) I've already tried that and at 1:1 or bellow its indeed impossible. I can do it with the 100mm when using the tubes, I rest the lens on my wrist while grabbing the stem with index and middle finger.

More stable than using a tripod...

Had I been patient with myself, and stuck with the EF-S 60mm not only would I still be using it I probably would not have picked up the MPE-65mm since the 60mm becomes a 37mm lens at 1:1 and a full set of tubes takes the lens out to almost 3:1...

[gmazza]

More stable than using a tripod...

Had I been patient with myself, and stuck with the EF-S 60mm not only would I still be using it I probably would not have picked up the MPE-65mm since the 60mm becomes a 37mm lens at 1:1 and a full set of tubes takes the lens out to almost 3:1...

I have ben thinking about it, I could not discuss with the excellent images posted here of the MP-E, but i could compare the MP-E weight against the 60mm macro, this make a great difference on field, not so much photos beyond the 3:1 and even for these is possible to use a Raynox adapter in front of the lens (which is light too anyway).

I will keep my 100mm need it even for some film works, and works well actually with adapters, but I am careful comparing the 60mm + extension vs MP-E as the weight is very important.

[Warl0rd]

more shots then using a tripod, that I'm sure :)

Last time I used the tripod for macro work on the field was either to to block some branches and preventing them from getting into my way (allowing me to get closer to the flowers) or to make some pressure on them so the wind don't move them as much while isolating some flowers and hoping the bees land there.

I still don't feel comfortable enough to grab the stem when the creature has a sting. but I'm getting better, I no longer care if they are flying around me, just hate when they get too close to my face.

I would prefer the MPE for the convenience (quick 1x to 5x), the 100mm is usually considered better for portrait shooting due to the higher focal distance, but yeah, we're talking macro here.

[Dalantech]

... I am careful comparing the 60mm + extension vs MP-E as the weight is very important.

If weight is a factor then the EF-S 60mm, even with a full set of tubes, is nothing compared to the weight of the MPE-65mm. The EF-S is so light that even with tubes the balance feels good. Here is a sample shot (http://dalantech.deviantart.com/art/Spring-in-October-II-141843674) taken at 2x with an EF-S 60mm and 37mm of extension. Can't complain about the out of camera color, contrast, and sharpness even though I was shooting at F13...

[Dalantech]

...I would prefer the MPE for the convenience (quick 1x to 5x)...

The #1 reason why it's still on my camera 99% of the time ;)

[darosk]

2" is a lot - in more than one way ;)

[Dalantech]

2" is a lot - in more than one way ;)

:lol: -that's what she said!