Canon EF 180mm f/3.5 Macro vs. EF-S 60mm f/2.8 Macro (Shots? Opinions?)

[Future Blues]

I'm looking to get into the world of Macro, but at the same time I'm also working on getting enough money to purchase something in the telephoto range, and I went through and compared the MTF charts for all of canon's macro lenses and decided that these 2 lenses have out-of-this-world IQ as well as being close focusing, and whatnot.

I'm interested in them both, and currently have the money for neither (although the EF-S lens I could easily get the money for, if I really wanted it - Living in Japan makes getting my money to different places (my hands, bank account, etc.) harder than it would otherwise be). Anyway, because I can only sort of drool at the MTF charts, and whatnot, I'm interested to see if anyone has any comparision pics, personal anecdotes, or tips about using these lenses or about macro phototraphy in general to relate.

From my uneducated opinion on a quick glance at the MTF charts, it seems the the 180mm f/3.5 Macro is just a tad better off throughout it's range than the 60mm is, however in real-world shots I imagine this difference is negligible. The 180's real strength is the telephoto capacity and the fact that it fits cameras like the 5D fine. The downside is the price difference ($400 vs. $1300). I don't care that the 60mm is EF-S because I own a 20D and I'm very happy with my EF-S 10-22mm f/3.5-4.5 lense. Thus fitting a full-frame is a plus, but only fitting an EF-S mount isn't a minus.

If I was to get the 180mm f/3.5 could it double as a nice telephoto lense for shooting people? In other words, could it replace the 70-200mm f/4L or the 200mm f/2.8 prime without much trouble? Might it even be sharper than those two lenses when used in this capacity? Does having Macro capability (close focus) cripple the ability to take pictures at infinity? Finally, does anyone have any shots showing off either of these lenses at it's best and/or worst? I'd love to see them.

Thanks.

[Lester Wareham]

Taking the 60mm first, the only thing about this is a more limited working distance - the 100mm f2.8 macro USM will offer a better working distance. It is also good for normal use. If you want a ~50mm lens for portrait you would be better off with the 50/1.4 IMHO.

The 180 is ment to be a very good lens, better working distance than the 100mm but heavier, takes the Canon TCs. On the negative side my understanding is the AF is not so fast, I have heard also that sharpness at more normal woring distances is not as good as close up - I don't know if I belive that. There was a very good macro lens shoot out on the web that the 180 did well in but it seems to have moved [edit found the new location http://www.nnplus.de/macro/Macro100.html in german so use a translation service]. Of course using this lens with the 2X TC you will loose AF, not so with the 200/2.8 which would have faster AF also. If you need the working distance at more modist magnifications an alternative or stopgap might be the 200/2.8 + tubes.

If this is your first serious move into macro I would recommend the 100/2.8 which is fantastic value.

[Edit: you might be interested in my macro equipment page http://www.zen20934.zen.co.uk/photog...Equipment.htm]

[Mike Bell]

I recently got into macro and now have two macro lenses - the Sigma 150mm EX DG APO and the Canon EF-S 60mm. They are both superb in IQ terms with the 60 having a slight edge I would say. Both provide 1:1 magnification and you can go higher by adding extension tubes to either lens - you gain much more extra magnification with the 60 than the 180 though.

All the common macro lenses focus to infinity so can double as portrait or telephoto lenses. On my 1.6 crop body the FOV is equivalent to a 96mm lens with the 60 or a 240mm lens with the Sigma. I use the EF-S as a portrait lens - it is super sharp and you can get a decent bokeh at f2.8. The Sigma (on a monopod) has served me well as a low light telephoto for indoor concerts.

The biggest difference between the two lenses you are looking at (apart from price) is the working distance. If you want to shoot timid flying insects go for the 180 as they will not let you get as close as you need to be with the 60. The 60 is however much smaller, lighter and easy to handhold. There is a very useful thread about choosing macro lenses based on working distance here: http://photography-on-the.net/forum/...choosing+macro

Hope this info helps. Remember that you will also need to budget for a flash unit and a macro bracket.

[Lester Wareham]

Originally Posted by Mike Bell

The biggest difference between the two lenses you are looking at (apart from price) is the working distance. If you want to shoot timid flying insects go for the 180 as they will not let you get as close as you need to be with the 60. The 60 is however much smaller, lighter and easy to handhold.

This is true and why I recommned the 100mm f2.8 - a good compromise between weight and working distance.

Something a lot don't notice is you can have too much working distance if the insects are in undergrowth but generally the more the better. Weight can be a problem handholding at life size or more, you are quite often in an odd position if shooting insects in undergrowth, add to this the weight of the equipment plus possibly a macro flash and it can get a bit physical.

Another advantage for 20D owners with the 100/2.8 is the internal flash can be used up to life size.

[Mikelangelo]

I have just bought the EF-S 60mm. It's a great lens. It's my first prime. Definitely great lens. For an extra $50 I probably should have gotten the 100mm Macro. It's not much bigger, offers more working distance.

But I'll probably get both in the long run. The 60 has given me great results. It will double as my portrait lens. It's fast and VERY quiet. Depends on what you'll photograph. portraits and flowers... I like the 60. Bugs, people, flowers, etc...the 100 or 180.

I think the 180 could definitely replace the 200 prime. I have the 70-200 f/4.0 L and I love it, I don't know if I could replace it....