Approve the Cookies
This website uses cookies to improve your user experience. By using this site, you agree to our use of cookies and our Privacy Policy.
OK
Index  •   • New posts  •   • RTAT  •   • 'Best of'  •   • Gallery  •   • Gear  •   • Reviews
Guest
New posts  •   • RTAT  •   • 'Best of'  •   • Gallery  •   • Gear  •   • Reviews
Register to forums    Log in

 
FORUMS Canon Cameras, Lenses & Accessories Canon EF and EF-S Lenses 
Thread started 03 Jan 2014 (Friday) 11:38
Search threadPrev/next
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)

Canon 60mm Macro vs 100mm Macro

 
Tiggity-T
Member
221 posts
Joined Nov 2008
     
Jan 03, 2014 11:38 |  #1

I'm looking to get a macro lens to take pictures of bugs and such without breaking the bank. I've rented the 100 2.8 USM in the past for bee and lizard shots and I found it to be a great lens.

I've been reading up on macro photography and came to the understanding that it works in reverse of normal lens. The wider the angle, the more the magnification.

I've looked at a entry macro lens with extension tubes to increase magnification and http://www.cambridgein​colour.com …tension-tubes-closeup.htm (external link) explains that while a 60mm will have a closer focal distance, with extension tubes it will actually magnify more than the 100mm. Am I correct in my understanding of this?

So, does anyone have practical experience with the 60mm vs 100mm in terms of ease of use, focusing distance, and extension tubes? If I could afford the MP-E I would, but for now only the USM lenses are in my price range.


7D, 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6 IS, 70-300 f/4-5.6 IS USM, 580EX, 50 1.4 USM, 2̶4̶-̶1̶0̶5̶ ̶f̶/̶4̶, S̶i̶g̶m̶a̶ ̶5̶0̶ ̶f̶/̶1̶.̶4̶,̶ 4̶3̶0̶E̶X̶

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)
gjl711
According to the lazy TF, My flatulence rates
Avatar
55,264 posts
Likes: 2301
Joined Aug 2006
Location: Deep in the heart of Texas
     
Jan 03, 2014 11:50 |  #2

Sort of. The 60mm and the 100mm are both at 1:1 without tubes. The 60mm with tubes will magnify more than the 100 without tubes. The 60mm and the 100mm can magnify the same if both have tubes depending on how many are inserted.

One thing to keep in mind, when using tubes it reduces your minimum focus distance. Eventually the focal point will be inside your front element at which time you can no longer focus. However, the practical impact is that the working distance between you and the subject gets to be very small. The 60mm is much less to start with and by putting a tube in between the lens and body, it gets much less.


Not sure why, but call me JJ.
I used to hate math but then I realised decimals have a point.
.
::Flickr:: (external link)
::Gear::

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
vengence
Goldmember
2,103 posts
Likes: 106
Joined Mar 2013
     
Jan 03, 2014 12:27 |  #3

To clarify some of what gjl711 said, with a particular extension tube (say a 25mm/1"), the 60mm will have greater magnification than the 100mm. Without tubes they'll both be 1:1 (exactly the same). The biggest difference between macro lenses are when shooting at 1:1 the distance between the end of the lens and the subject. IIRC, the 60mm is ~3.5", the 100mm is ~6", and the 180mm canon is ~9.5". This isn't a big deal if you are shooting a dime or some other non-living subject. Bugs are going spook more the closer you get and in some specialized cases like aquariums you can only get so close to your subject period.

The other thing is macro lens are generally quality primes (if a touch slower than most primes, but faster than most zooms) so you should at least consider there use outside of the macro world as well as they make good portrait lenses.

You probably aren't going to want to go much past 1:1 without some thought into a flash setup.

The 100 (non-L) is ~100$ more than the EF-S 60mm, and is probably worth it for the extra distance between the end of the lens and subject IMHO.

The other thing is perspective distortion of your background will be more with the 100 than the 60. The digital picture review has a great picture showing this.

http://media.the-digital-picture.com …ength-Background-Blur.jpg (external link)




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
adam ­ 91
Member
Avatar
247 posts
Likes: 82
Joined Jan 2008
Location: Portsmouth, UK
     
Jan 03, 2014 12:28 |  #4

For insects you really would be better off with the 100mm for the extra working distance. It's a great lens too!


http://www.flickr.com/​photos/adampalmer91/ (external link)
70D, 400D, Canon 100mm f/2.8 Macro, Sigma 10-20mm, Tamron 70-300mm VC USD, Sigma 150-600mm C, Canon 18-135mm, Canon 430EX II

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
MalVeauX
"Looks rough and well used"
Avatar
13,263 posts
Gallery: 1678 photos
Best ofs: 4
Likes: 10576
Joined Feb 2013
Location: Florida
     
Jan 03, 2014 13:17 |  #5

Heya,

The more inexpensive ways to do macro (reverse lens, extension tubes, clip on lenses, etc) all have drastically reduced minimum focus distances. This effects what you're shooting. If you're shooting objects, this is not an issue. If you're shooting bugs that are alive, this is a problem for many of them. Because you'll be getting very close, and having a bulky flash too. I would get the 100mm f2.8 USM. More distance with the same magnification. That's the point of the longer focal length and macro, to get the magnification, but to do it from further away so that you're not disturbing what you're shooting as much. You can then increase magnification later with it even more if you wish (I would just get a Raynox DCR 250 clip on, it's cheap and does the same job as tubes in my book, as I have both).

You will need a flash. Get a good flash with a big diffuser. You can get a nice manual flash for cheap. Do this, get a diffuser and line it with a paper towel or something, and you're set. Shoot at 1/200s, F11, ISO (whatever it takes). Full flash.

Very best,


My Flickr (external link) :: My Astrobin (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Tiggity-T
THREAD ­ STARTER
Member
221 posts
Joined Nov 2008
     
Jan 03, 2014 14:06 |  #6

Thanks for the replies and information!

What I am really wondering is if I'd be better off with a longer minimum focusing distance, or greater magnification. I look through the macro forum and go "I want to do that...oh, they were are 2x". But I am a beginner in the world of macro and I want to plan my purchases carefully. I may end up going "This lens setup can see every little detail....if only I could get them to sit still." or "I am getting so many good shots, only if i could zoom in more."

I've had some success with my 580EX flash in daylight when I rented the 100mm.

IMAGE: http://farm6.staticflickr.com/5344/8767825292_624fa91a33_c.jpg

I plan to invest in a macro flash down the road, but budget dictates one step at a time. Any recommendations on budget macro flashes or quality diffusers for my 580EX would be appreciated.

7D, 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6 IS, 70-300 f/4-5.6 IS USM, 580EX, 50 1.4 USM, 2̶4̶-̶1̶0̶5̶ ̶f̶/̶4̶, S̶i̶g̶m̶a̶ ̶5̶0̶ ̶f̶/̶1̶.̶4̶,̶ 4̶3̶0̶E̶X̶

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
MalVeauX
"Looks rough and well used"
Avatar
13,263 posts
Gallery: 1678 photos
Best ofs: 4
Likes: 10576
Joined Feb 2013
Location: Florida
     
Jan 03, 2014 14:11 |  #7

Heya,

100mm F2.8 USM with Raynox DCR 250. This covers your minimum focus distance to be extended and also gives you the ability to get higher than 1x magnification, while doing it inexpensively, and without having to use tubes, reversing, etc. The DCR250 is a life saver. I use it on mine, it's wonderful.

Flash, well, your 580EX will do fine. A simple soft box diffuser or octogon diffuser for $20 will do what you need. Line it with either paper towel or other material to increase diffusion and go with full power flash. The point is to eliminate ambient light and just use the flashes light.

Here's an example of what the DCR250 ($75) on a 50mm lens, manual focus (notice the two little flies are crisp, let alone the slumbering orbweaver)(natural light):

IMAGE: http://farm3.staticflickr.com/2853/10130607204_1e51d9f124_b.jpg
IMAGE LINK: http://www.flickr.com/​photos/mwise1023/10130​607204/  (external link)
IMG_7143 (external link) by Mwise1023 (external link), on Flickr

And as for magnification, here's the DCR250 on a 50mm lens as well (used flash):

IMAGE: http://farm6.staticflickr.com/5484/10296231895_b902610bd6_b.jpg
IMAGE LINK: http://www.flickr.com/​photos/mwise1023/10296​231895/  (external link)
IMG_8240 (external link) by Mwise1023 (external link), on Flickr

Very best,

My Flickr (external link) :: My Astrobin (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
vengence
Goldmember
2,103 posts
Likes: 106
Joined Mar 2013
     
Jan 03, 2014 14:13 |  #8

Remember that a macro 1:1 is already 1.6X on your 7D vs a FF sensor. Cropping should easily get you twice that. Browse the 100 2.8 and 100 2.8L threads, I suspect you'll find you can do most of what you want with a 1:1 macro.




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
xarqi
Cream of the Crop
Avatar
10,435 posts
Likes: 1
Joined Oct 2005
Location: Aotearoa/New Zealand
     
Jan 03, 2014 15:33 |  #9

vengence wrote in post #16574902 (external link)
Remember that a macro 1:1 is already 1.6X on your 7D vs a FF sensor.

No, it isn't. The subject size on the sensor is identical for both formats: it's 1:1 maximum. If you subsequently enlarge that image by more or less, that is your call, but it isn't dictated by the format either.




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
EOS5DC
Senior Member
791 posts
Joined Dec 2013
     
Jan 03, 2014 16:00 |  #10
bannedPermanent ban

I had the 100 2.8 macro. I used it on film, 5Dc, and 60D. I sold it, and got a smaller lighter, faster-focusing (when not a macro range) 60mm f/2.8 macro. I think the 60 makes a much better general purpose prime than the 100. The 60 will certainly make you get closer to your subjects, which would be a hindrance when shooting bugs.


Bodies: 60D, 6D.
EFs: 15-85, 10-22
EF: 28-75, 35 f/2 IS, Σ70-200 OS, 100-400L
Flash: 580EX II, 430 EX II

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
vengence
Goldmember
2,103 posts
Likes: 106
Joined Mar 2013
     
Jan 03, 2014 16:34 |  #11

xarqi wrote in post #16575104 (external link)
No, it isn't. The subject size on the sensor is identical for both formats: it's 1:1 maximum. If you subsequently enlarge that image by more or less, that is your call, but it isn't dictated by the format either.

Go back and read what I wrote, not what you think I wrote. I compared the final image on a crop vs a FF, not the size of the image relative to the size of the sensor.




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
dpds68
Goldmember
Avatar
1,464 posts
Likes: 2
Joined May 2008
Location: Trinidad and Tobago W.I.
     
Jan 03, 2014 16:56 |  #12

vengence wrote in post #16574637 (external link)
The biggest difference between macro lenses are when shooting at 1:1 the distance between the end of the lens and the subject.


Is it not the Focal plane ( In Camera ) to subject .

Just asking .

David


Gripped Canon 7D,20D,XT / Tamron 17-50mm 2.8, Canon 85mm f1.8 , 70-200 2.8L,EF50mm1.8 II,Sigma 150-500mm OS, Sigma 105mm 2.8 Macro, Sigma 10-20mm 4-5.6
Vivitar285Hv x2,Canon430EX,Nissin Di866,CTR-301P Triggers,
http://www.flickr.com/​photos/dpds68/ (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
EOS5DC
Senior Member
791 posts
Joined Dec 2013
     
Jan 03, 2014 17:06 |  #13
bannedPermanent ban

vengence wrote in post #16575234 (external link)
Go back and read what I wrote, not what you think I wrote. I compared the final image on a crop vs a FF, not the size of the image relative to the size of the sensor.

Final size of the image is a printing issue. It has nothing to do with the capture. FF and APSc both capture macro at 1:1. What you do with it is irrelevant. Your original post on this topic makes no sense.


Bodies: 60D, 6D.
EFs: 15-85, 10-22
EF: 28-75, 35 f/2 IS, Σ70-200 OS, 100-400L
Flash: 580EX II, 430 EX II

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
vengence
Goldmember
2,103 posts
Likes: 106
Joined Mar 2013
     
Jan 03, 2014 17:37 |  #14

EOS5DC wrote in post #16575294 (external link)
Final size of the image is a printing issue. It has nothing to do with the capture. FF and APSc both capture macro at 1:1. What you do with it is irrelevant. Your original post on this topic makes no sense.

It has nothing to do with printing. Here's a 20$ bill at crop and FF 1:1 on each format. They do not capture the same image, one is 1.6X the maginifcation of the other.

https://photography-on-the.net/forum/showpost​.php?p=6415147&




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
vengence
Goldmember
2,103 posts
Likes: 106
Joined Mar 2013
     
Jan 03, 2014 17:42 |  #15

dpds68 wrote in post #16575281 (external link)
Is it not the Focal plane ( In Camera ) to subject .


Just asking .

David

In an ideal world perhaps, but when you can only get 9.5" from the tip of your lens to a subject before it flies off, a 60mm macro will only be at 0.5X (or something, I'm to lazy to do the exact math this afternoon). It's a term called "working distance".




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)

7,830 views & 0 likes for this thread
Canon 60mm Macro vs 100mm Macro
FORUMS Canon Cameras, Lenses & Accessories Canon EF and EF-S Lenses 
AAA
x 1600
y 1600

Jump to forum...   •  Rules   •  Index   •  New posts   •  RTAT   •  'Best of'   •  Gallery   •  Gear   •  Reviews   •  Member list   •  Polls   •  Image rules   •  Search   •  Password reset

Not a member yet?
Register to forums
Registered members may log in to forums and access all the features: full search, image upload, follow forums, own gear list and ratings, likes, more forums, private messaging, thread follow, notifications, own gallery, all settings, view hosted photos, own reviews, see more and do more... and all is free. Don't be a stranger - register now and start posting!


COOKIES DISCLAIMER: This website uses cookies to improve your user experience. By using this site, you agree to our use of cookies and to our privacy policy.
Privacy policy and cookie usage info.


POWERED BY AMASS forum software 2.1forum software
version 2.1 /
code and design
by Pekka Saarinen ©
for photography-on-the.net

Latest registered member is StevePB
888 guests, 223 members online
Simultaneous users record so far is 15144, that happened on Nov 22, 2018

Photography-on-the.net Digital Photography Forums is the website for photographers and all who love great photos, camera and post processing techniques, gear talk, discussion and sharing. Professionals, hobbyists, newbies and those who don't even own a camera -- all are welcome regardless of skill, favourite brand, gear, gender or age. Registering and usage is free.