Macro lens?

Hello Im interested in picking up a macro lens im stuck between the 100mm f2.8 or the efs 60mm f2.8. Besides the focal length what are the main differences??

Working distance. The 100mm has a much greater working distance than the 60mm. Well, much in macro terms at least.

EF-S will not fit a "full frame" body should you later decide to go that route.

gjl711 wrote in post #16568195
Working distance. The 100mm has a much greater working distance than the 60mm. Well, much in macro terms at least.

Does the 60mm focus closer than the 100mm or is it the same just further away from the subject?

Giofazio44 wrote in post #16568217
Does the 60mm focus closer than the 100mm or is it the same just further away from the subject?

the 100mm will focus further away...they will both focus to the same magnification...like a penny will look the same from both shots...except the 100mm will have you positioned a little farther away, which can be good for bugs

DreDaze wrote in post #16568219
the 100mm will focus further away...they will both focus to the same magnification...like a penny will look the same from both shots...except the 100mm will have you positioned a little farther away, which can be good for bugs

so there the same but for the 100m you have to be further away from the subject so if i want to shoot bugs and flowers i should go 100m?

I am selling my Sigma 50 macro. Works on full frame.

Buy the 100 2.8 USM or the 100L Buy once and keep forever. I sold my 60mm and bought the 100mm USM macro later sold the USM and bought the 100L.
I should have just waited and bought the 100L only. It would have cost me less that way. If cost is the issue, get the 100mm 2.8 USM I promise you will regret getting the 60mm later, save your money and think long-term benefit over up-front cost.

InfiniteDivide wrote in post #16568254
Buy the 100 2.8 USM or the 100L Buy once and keep forever. I sold my 60mm and bought the 100mm USM macro later sold the USM and bought the 100L.
I should have just waited and bought the 100L only. It would have cost me less that way. If cost is the issue, get the 100mm 2.8 USM I promise you will regret getting the 60mm later, save your money and think long-term benefit over up-front cost.

i'm sure there are some shots you liked from the 60mm macro, and or the 100mm non L though...you can't get those shots with your money sitting in the bank saving for a lens...

if you buy used, you won't be out much money at all if you have to sell it down the line

InfiniteDivide wrote in post #16568254
Buy the 100 2.8 USM or the 100L Buy once and keep forever. I sold my 60mm and bought the 100mm USM macro later sold the USM and bought the 100L.
I should have just waited and bought the 100L only. It would have cost me less that way. If cost is the issue, get the 100mm 2.8 USM I promise you will regret getting the 60mm later, save your money and think long-term benefit over up-front cost.

Cost is really the deciding factor in this thats why i was leaning towards the 60mm

Giofazio44 wrote in post #16568224
so there the same but for the 100m you have to be further away from the subject so if i want to shoot bugs and flowers i should go 100m?

There are lots of decent macro lenses out there, but if you're shooting bugs, I'd go with at least 90mm. I think the EF 100mm f/2.8L IS is ideal. I love that lens. If you need to save some money, I agree about getting the non-IS version. The optics of the two lenses should be near identical, but I'm an IS junkie.

DreDaze wrote in post #16568264
i'm sure there are some shots you liked from the 60mm macro, and or the 100mm non L though...you can't get those shots with your money sitting in the bank saving for a lens...

if you buy used, you won't be out much money at all if you have to sell it down the line

I agree, there were images I would have missed not having them, I got the 60mm used and because it was cheaper, I found the issue to be need more working distance as many others stated. Should have listened. The USM was the best value, by far. I loved that lens, but more and more of my work was hand held.
The IS offered from the 100L kept my shutter much faster, and expanded my macro opportunities working without a tripod. This, for me, justified the significantly higher costs.

Better still - go for the sigma 150mm 2.8 macro. It's an excellent lens. I've got the mark 1 version which I'm very happy with. You can probably pick one up used pretty cheap. IQ and sharpness are excellent and it's very well built.

Can be used on crop or full frame...

Check the alternatives. Tamron 90mm and Sigma 105mm also

Regardless of your choices, the best deal will be something that could be used on both crop and full frame cameras.