Yet another request for help with lens choice

Having been reintroduced to photography earlier this year I am looking to spend more time in the dog house and buy another lens to add to the collection.

I am desperate for a macro lens, but torn between the EF-s 60 Macro and the EF 100mm Macro, having the 17-40L and 70-200 F4L I am leaning towards the 60mm as a prime and macro, but I think that maybe the 100mm would be more useful as a macro?

Help!

Darin

Both are great macro lenses. The advantage of the 100mm is that it gives you a longer working distance between the lens and the subject (sometimes better for insect photography). Both are sharp.

I have the 100mm on a 20d and it's a great lens.

If you are going to use the lens for portraiture just remember that the 100mm lens is pretty long on a crop body (160mm equiv) and the 60mm lens falls in that nice portrait range of 100mm (96mm equiv).

Good luck with your choice. Either way - they're excellent lenses.

I've got a 100mm macro and the working distance is about right both for macro and for portraits on my 20D. I can imagine the 60mm is too close, unless for special macro work.

P.

Both are excellent. I have the EFS 60 macro and love it. I only do some macro photography with it. Mostly, for me it makes an outstanding portrait and general photography lens. It's one sharp lens and feels perfect on a 350D.

As has been said before, they are both great lenses.

If it were me, I'd get the 100mm f2.8 Macro (which i do have). It's got an excellent working distance for macro, especially on the crop camera, and if you decide to upgrade bodies to either a 1D series or a FF model, you can use this lens on the new body, whereas the EF-S lens is restricted to the 1.6 crop bodies.

Mark