60mm vs 100mm Macro

I'm thinking of getting a macro so I can get tripple rebates back(even though I should spend the money) and I had planned on the EF-S 60mm f2.8 macro but then I read reviews on the EF 100mm macro and they seems like a better lense. It is worth the extra $150 to get the 100mm lense?

Also, think the EF-S will be harder to sell if I ever need to?

Extra $150? Where are you shopping? The difference at B&H is like $70, and the 100 has a $20 rebate rather than the 60's $15. So if you're getting triple rebates, the difference is even less. I'd go with the 100 - working distance is the most valuable resource for macro work, and the longer lens will give you more working distance.

You get only two inches more working distance with the 100 mm macro -- significant, but you should also consider the lower price, lower weight, & greater handholdability of the 60 mm one (currently $370 at Beach Camera). See my Flickr page for a few sample EF-S 60 macro shots or click here: http://www.flickr.com …om.gne?id=79543​903&size=l

yes it will be worth it. to get 1:1 on my 50mm i have to get within a centimeter of the subject and im sure the 60mm wont be far off either. a 100mm will definetly give you more room

Go for the 100.

I can tell you that the 100mm macro is just about as good as macros get.

60 mm has 4" working distance at 1:1
100 mm has 6" working distance at 1:1

Using the working distance over everything else argument means everyone should get the 180 mm macro (10" working distance).

I use the 100mm for all my creative shots and its a wonderful lens that never lets you down.

Have a look at this photomontage - http://harrytan.sg …reguetTradition​/index.htm

While it does hunt in low lighting, in macro - you should be using manual focussing anyway. I have not used the other macro but judging from those who bought this lens it appears to be a winner for them as well.

Also - it works wonders as a portrait lens and have shot some beautiful photos of my wife and kids using this lens.

Its so sharp - it cuts.

I would also look to use the Macro as a portrait lens, and for me the 60mm would be a much better focal length for portrait use.

And that would be wrong, why? Bear in mind the 60 and 100 aren't that far apart in price as well.

Kind of off topic but is it possibly to get a hood that would work/fit the 100mm macro and my 50mm 1.8 or are they too different? What about a filter?

From what I've read it's a good idea to get the hood with the macro, it's $40 though!

Your 50 takes a 52 mm filter; the 100 takes a 58 mm. You could get a 52-58 mm step-up to use a 58 mm polarizer with your 50 as well. Hoods - you're dealing with both different lens diameters and different angles of view.

The 60 mm macro also takes 52 mm filters, so you could use the same ones as the 50 1.8.

The 100 is an excellent lens. I just sold mine last week, but I plan on buying one again by Spring.