Macros: EF 100mm f2.8 v. EF-S 60mm f2.8

I want to get a macro lens but am torn between these two. Other than the fact that one is an EF-S and one is an EF any favorites between these? The advantage to the 100mm is shooting from farther away (which may not be a big issue for me) but the 60mm would be the lighter, easier to carry around lens. Guide me, all knowable ones!

Well, the 60 is good for product photography and flowers, and the 100 is more for insects etc (atleast on a crop sensor camera). In the end it comes down to personal preference.

snackyx wrote in post #3908662
I want to get a macro lens but am torn between these two. Other than the fact that one is an EF-S and one is an EF any favorites between these? The advantage to the 100mm is shooting from farther away (which may not be a big issue for me) but the 60mm would be the lighter, easier to carry around lens. Guide me, all knowable ones!

Well, I certainly don't know all, but maybe I can help you. Made a little decision table for my own purposes. You could do something similar if you'd like, to help you with the decision.

Here is mine:

MIME changed to 'text/html' | Content warning: script

snackyx wrote in post #3908662
I want to get a macro lens but am torn between these two. Other than the fact that one is an EF-S and one is an EF any favorites between these? The advantage to the 100mm is shooting from farther away (which may not be a big issue for me) but the 60mm would be the lighter, easier to carry around lens. Guide me, all knowable ones!

Not sure if you have explored this route, but have a look anyway at the Sigma 70mm F/2.8 EX Macro, if you look on slrgear.com you will see it is insanely sharp even wideopen at the edges of the frame.

Generally the longer the lens the greater working distance & if your shooting a flower the background will appear larger giving the illusion that its more out of focus on a 100mm than it does on a 60mm, but you will need faster shutter speeds on the higher focal length macro lenses.

Have to Disagree with the chart
AF: 100mm wins (AF switch), less hunting
Landscape/Detail: how is the 60mm better/sharper?

bufferbure1 wrote in post #3908901
Have to Disagree with the chart
AF: 100mm wins (AF switch), less hunting
Landscape/Detail: how is the 60mm better/sharper?

Maybe because the 60mm is wider and is capable of giving more depth of field? I'm not sure really.

Wim, your chart is very confusing. I don't understand why so many numbers are actually missing...the 100 doesn't appear to have a score for portraits on APS-C, yet it still does portraits quite well and maybe even better than the 60 (although focal length is rather personal). Also, what do you mean by DoF at same f-stop? At higher magnifications, DoF will be the same as long as the magnification is the same. The angle of view changes, however, so the background/persective will look slightly different. Finally, what is "architectual details?"

Anyway, for the OP, you actually answered your own question. The main advantage of the 60 is the smaller (substantially smaller) size, and the advantage of the 100 is the longer (slightly longer) working distance and compatibility if you're ever going to go full frame. So weigh out your priorities and go for whichever one you think fits your needs better.

Wim, your chart seems bias. I own the 100, so I am also bias. This thing focuses fast in two different ranges, has a fabulous bokeh and I have also used it for portraits. Matter of fact, when the light starts getting really low at afternoon soccer adn field hockey games, the 2.8 speed has allowed me to use it for action sports. 60 may be great, but you will not go wrong with the 100 - and it allows you to migrate to a full frame sensor body.

Mrvile wrote in post #3908921
Wim, your chart is very confusing. I don't understand why so many numbers are actually missing...the 100 doesn't appear to have a score for portraits on APS-C, yet it still does portraits quite well and maybe even better than the 60 (although focal length is rather personal). Also, what do you mean by DoF at same f-stop? At higher magnifications, DoF will be the same as long as the magnification is the same. The angle of view changes, however, so the background/persective will look slightly different. Finally, what is "architectual details?"

Anyway, for the OP, you actually answered your own question. The main advantage of the 60 is the smaller (substantially smaller) size, and the advantage of the 100 is the longer (slightly longer) working distance and compatibility if you're ever going to go full frame. So weigh out your priorities and go for whichever one you think fits your needs better.

It is because I scored it for my own preferences, for what I find important. No score just means no points for the lens in that category, according to what I personally find important. And personally, I find a 160 mm AoV equivalent for portraits just a tad too long, even the 85 normally is a little on the long side, for me that is, and the 60 is just right. But it is just right for me.

At the same magnification DoF is the same, but I mean at the same distance here, in non-macro mode.

By architecture details I mean details of buildings and the like. I think the perspective offered by the 60 mm on APS-C to be just right for this type of thing. I find the 100 m mon APS-C just a tad too long for this. In the past, with film, I used a 100 or 105 mm for this purpose, and the 60 on APS-C is very similar.

HTH, kind regards, Wim

I have the 100mm and it is the single best lens I have ever owned or used.

It's the one that stays on the camera most out of all three of my lenses, because of its low light capability, all-round portrait and general shot goodness, and crisp, sharp macro shots.

I considered the shorter lens, but am glad I went the extra mile and bought the 100mm: less chance of scaring off the little insects and birds!

The only three disadvantages, none of which put me off: price, size/weight, 100mm on a 400D = 160mm, which means you need to back up a bit for portraits.

Love it.

I think you need to ask your self one ? are you always going to use a crop 1.6, if yes go for the 60mm efs, it is a very very good lens, If you are planning on a FF or a 1.3 crop, then the 100mm but that on 1-6x at some point will annoy you, or even loose certain shots as you cannot get far enough away

buddy4344 wrote in post #3908943
Wim, your chart seems bias. I own the 100, so I am also bias. This thing focuses fast in two different ranges, has a fabulous bokeh and I have also used it for portraits. Matter of fact, when the light starts getting really low at afternoon soccer adn field hockey games, the 2.8 speed has allowed me to use it for action sports. 60 may be great, but you will not go wrong with the 100 - and it allows you to migrate to a full frame sensor body.

I own both lenses. And no, the 100 is not a bad lens at all, quite the opposite is true. However, on APS-C the 60 is, for my uses, better than the 100.

The chart is biased because it is supposed to be, as I tried to explain. You really have to create your own little chart, select some characteristics that you find important, and score those according to your own feelings regarding importance. That is what it is about. It was just meant as an example.

Kind regards, Wim

bufferbure1 wrote in post #3908901
Have to Disagree with the chart
AF: 100mm wins (AF switch), less hunting
Landscape/Detail: how is the 60mm better/sharper?

Well, do you actually have both lenses? I have seen many comments about less hunting on the 100 due to the AF range limiter switch, but that just isn't true. I have both lenses BTW.

You may disagree with the chart, as I tried to explain, it is my bias, for characteristics I selected. Yours may well be different. it is just meant as an example of a tool that helps you to decide which lens to choose, based on characteristics that you find of importance, and based upon how you feel about those. But again: only an example. It is only my truth, nobody else's.

Kind regards, Wim

EMarkM wrote in post #3908981
I have the 100mm and it is the single best lens I have ever owned or used.

And that is your truth, which is fine.

The 60 is a better all-round lens on APS-C, just like the 100 is a better all-round lens on FF. The 60 is also slightly better than the 100, but you need to pixelpeep to the extreme to see the difference. Bit of a moot point IOW.

I've always found this an interesting statement, whenever it was made. I always found that anything shorter than 200 to 300 mm scared away skittish insects, and I have never been able to shoot a bird with anything shorter either, unless it was used to people. Oh, and I do shoot insects with an MP-E 65, occasionally, talking about being close to insects.

It is not an extra mile BTW , it is only about 4 cm of additional working distance at 1:1. Again, personally I don't think the difference between ~10 cm WD and ~14 cm WD is critical. And a 50 mm is fine too, which is something I have used in the past a lot for macro shots on film, FF IOW.

You don't always have space to back off, plus, personally, I prefer the 60mm perspective for portraits on APS-C. I was used to this FL in FF equivalent (yes, 100 mm in FF ) back in my film days, and always loved it.

So do I. After all, I have both the 60 and 100.

In the end, it is about what you find important, but that is true with any lens.

Kind regards, Wim

^^^Wim: v. true, and personally I found both your observations and your suggested "weighted" score chart to be sound ideas.