2 Lenses vs 1 Lens

I know how much you all like to nerd out about gear, so let me pose this question:

For roughly the same price, I could either buy the canon 100mm macro L ... or ... the canon 60mm macro and the canon 100mm f/2.

* - I already own the 50mm STM, so the 60mm is overlap unless I'm specifically shooting macro.
* - I've owned and used extension tubes since being into photography, they work fine, but tubes remove infinite focus ... so everything becomes "specialized" when using them.
* - In addition to macro work, I'd being using the lens (es) for portrait work and my kids orchestra recitals. So it becomes f/2 vs IS

Photo added just to agree in advance that I don't "NEED" a macro lens ... I just want one.

Thanks in advance for your thoughts

IMAGE LINK: https://flic.kr/p/LsGa​Fd

Given the two choices, I would go for the 100mm macro. It's an outstanding lens, does all that the 2 lens combo would do with the exception of f/2 and gives you IS as well which is very useful when doing macro work hand held.

I did forget to add that I believe the 60mm lens is capable of up to 3x magnification with tubes ... which the 100mm cannot do. Of course I have no interest in that type of macro work at the moment

Are you strictly shooting crop?

100mm might be kinda long, depending on what you're going for.

yes, strictly crop, but I own several other lenses (10-22, 35, 50, 18-135, 300)

Left Handed Brisket wrote in post #18653528
Are you strictly shooting crop?

100mm might be kinda long, depending on what you're going for.

kmilo wrote in post #18653504
I did forget to add that I believe the 60mm lens is capable of up to 3x magnification with tubes ... which the 100mm cannot do. Of course I have no interest in that type of macro work at the moment

I love the 100mm for macro (I have the non L), but I no longer use it for portraits since I got the 85mm F/1.8. I just like the contrast better. Where would I find this info on how much Magnification you get with lens/tube combos? Thank you

Pigpen101 wrote in post #18653730
I love the 100mm for macro (I have the non L), but I no longer use it for portraits since I got the 85mm F/1.8. I just like the contrast better. Where would I find this info on how much Magnification you get with lens/tube combos? Thank you

The math is pretty easy. You can figure out your new magnification by taking the tube length and divide by the fl of the lens, then add in the max magnification of the lens. For instance, the 85mm f/1.8 max mag is .13x. Add in the 36mm tube and you get 36/85+.13 or .55x

Pigpen101 wrote in post #18653730
Where would I find this info on how much Magnification you get with lens/tube combos? Thank you

Info stated below is taken from another forum here: https://www.dpreview.c​om/forums/thread/13148​49

With stacked tubes you can increase the magnification considerably. With all three Kenko tubes and the 25 mm tube (93 mm of total extension) I get about 3.25x magnification.

60 mm EF-S f/2.8 alone gives 1:1 at about 11 cm
with 25 mm tube it gives 1.61:1 at about 8 cm
with 25 mm + 36 mm the working distance is about 7 cm
with 93 mm of extension at 3.25:1 the working distance is about 6.5 cm

I actually go the opposite way, I own a 90mm and a 180mm macros. I prefer the 180 for the added working distance and ease of setup --- as well as more "natural light" feel. I shoot strictly with available light and 100% on tripod, this of course limits what I can shoot, but I just like it this way. It is much easier to increase magnification with shorter lenses, but then lighting becomes an issue since the actual lens begins to get in the way, even for flash(specially with light modifiers). I have used bellows in the past and I just didn't care for the higher magnifications, I find that 1x is about my taste's limit. although it's not impossible, going about 2x(and above) gets to be a bit of a pain when out in the field.

gjl711 wrote in post #18653798
The math is pretty easy. You can figure out your new magnification by taking the tube length and divide by the fl of the lens, then add in the max magnification of the lens. For instance, the 85mm f/1.8 max mag is .13x. Add in the 36mm tube and you get 36/85+.13 or .55x

Thank you.

kmilo wrote in post #18654534
Info stated below is taken from another forum here: https://www.dpreview.c​om/forums/thread/13148​49

With stacked tubes you can increase the magnification considerably. With all three Kenko tubes and the 25 mm tube (93 mm of total extension) I get about 3.25x magnification.

60 mm EF-S f/2.8 alone gives 1:1 at about 11 cm
with 25 mm tube it gives 1.61:1 at about 8 cm
with 25 mm + 36 mm the working distance is about 7 cm
with 93 mm of extension at 3.25:1 the working distance is about 6.5 cm

Thank you for the information. My 100mm needs sent to Canon for repair so I've been using the 85mm F/1.8 + extension tubes (I know this is not the ideal set up). You might consider the 85mm, it produces awesome results and is F/1.8. It with the 100mm would run you around $1,100, less if you don't get the 100mm L version. When I got mine, the L was $1,000 so it wasn't a difficult choice. Now, however, it is only $150 more than the non L which leads me to believe Canon may be coming out with a Mark II very soon. The 85mm F/1.8 is $150 less than the 100mm F/2, and I LOVE it. I can't speak for the 100mm F/2 as I have never used it or knew anyone who has it. The 100mm has 128 reviews on B&H while the 85mm has just short of 2,000.

I'm not sure how to figure out which can get you closer, the 100mm w/ MFD of 11.8 inches, or the 60mm w/ MFD of 7.9 inches. Maybe someone can tell me??

Pigpen101 wrote in post #18654776
I'm not sure how to figure out which can get you closer, the 100mm w/ MFD of 11.8 inches, or the 60mm w/ MFD of 7.9 inches. Maybe someone can tell me??

Then lenses are equal in magnification, which is 1:1, but the 60mm lens requires you to get closer to the subject in order to get to 1:1.

I've owned the 85mm f/1.8 lens twice over the years. I loved it both times, but sold it both times in order to fund some other lens I wanted. The 85 and 100 are not focal lengths that I use a lot , so the lens ends up sitting on the shelf, sadly. I like the idea of a macro lens because I don't like the inconvenience of putting on the extensions tubes and then having to take them off to photograph other things.

I could argue myself into buying almost any lens, so these conversations help to keep me focused on what I need

kmilo wrote in post #18654945
Then lenses are equal in magnification, which is 1:1, but the 60mm lens requires you to get closer to the subject in order to get to 1:1.

I've owned the 85mm f/1.8 lens twice over the years. I loved it both times, but sold it both times in order to fund some other lens I wanted. The 85 and 100 are not focal lengths that I use a lot , so the lens ends up sitting on the shelf, sadly. I like the idea of a macro lens because I don't like the inconvenience of putting on the extensions tubes and then having to take them off to photograph other things.

I could argue myself into buying almost any lens, so these conversations help to keep me focused on what I need

I concur. It's not hard for me to rationalize new gear for myself. Even with the macro, I will use extension tubes. I solved that problem by getting a second body. (See, I told you I could easily talk myself into getting more gear!)