Canon 60mm Macro vs 100mm Macro

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 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.

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.

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

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

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,

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.

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 LINK: http://www.flickr.com/​photos/mwise1023/10130​607204/

IMAGE LINK: http://www.flickr.com/​photos/mwise1023/10296​231895/

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.

vengence wrote in post #16574902
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.

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.

xarqi wrote in post #16575104
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.

vengence wrote in post #16574637
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

vengence wrote in post #16575234
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.

EOS5DC wrote in post #16575294
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&

dpds68 wrote in post #16575281
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".