EF-S 60mm or EF-100mm?

I have right now the ef-100mm lens but i mainly use it to shoot watches in closeups (dials, and so on)

it will not be used to shoot insects/etc. someone i know had mentioned that i will be better off with the ef-s 60mm lens. he has a lot more experience with dslr's than me and he is very sure about it. but i dont understand his reasons.

hence why i ask here. please let me know why ef-s 60mm would be better for me or not. only thing i can see is, i wont need to sit as far as i do with 100mm...

thanx

p.s my body is 30d

i chose the 60 over the 100 is because its smaller, lighter & cheaper. the disadvantage of the 60, if you consider it to be, is that its EF-S. i also dont shoot insects as of now. i only use it for flowers, found objects & as a portrait lens.

i use my 60 on a 40D & sometimes on an XTi.

The main advantage of the longer focal lengths is to not scare animals away and to easier get some light in there. If you don't have problems with that with a 60 mm, then the EF-S 60 mm f/2.8 macro USM would do you just fine.

But if you already have the EF 100 mm f/2.8 macro USM, I don't see any reason to change?

Both lenses should work fine for shooting watches, but how do you feel with the working distance when using the 100mm. When you get closer to the subject, you need to decrease aperture so that the DoF is not too shallow and your subject is in focus. This results in slower shutter speeds may result in camera shake if you do not use a tripod. The 60 mm is a bit easier to use as you can afford shutter speeds approx 2x longer than with 100 mm owing to the shorter focal length.

If you're going to be shooting static objects, tripod mounted, you may want the shorter working distance of the 60.

I picked up a 60mm, also to shoot watches. It is a also a great portrait lens.

Are you over at Timezone as well? I would love to see some shots of the collection.

1.

The 60mm macro, being a physically shorter lens, will let you use the onboard flash down to 1:1 magnification, if that's all the illumination you have available.

Also, it has slightly more center resolution than the 100mm macro.

sebr wrote in post #6049222
Both lenses should work fine for shooting watches, but how do you feel with the working distance when using the 100mm. When you get closer to the subject, you need to decrease aperture so that the DoF is not too shallow and your subject is in focus. This results in slower shutter speeds may result in camera shake if you do not use a tripod. The 60 mm is a bit easier to use as you can afford shutter speeds approx 2x longer than with 100 mm owing to the shorter focal length.

i think it was something like that what he meant

something along the line of controlling DOF much easier



my reason to downgrade was also due to weight and focal length, right now i need 2-3 ft between i can get it in focus and my space at home is limited. i am guessing it will be cut in 1/2 with 60mm (or so)

What I woudl recommend instead of buying a EF60. It is to sell the 30D and get a nice used 5D. Full frame will give a better DOF and with full frame you can shoot at f16 without worries about loosing IQ. Crop bodies (30d) tend to loose IQ after f11-f13. I would also use strobres (even 200w ones) for the lighting with customwhite balance.

There are a number of third party macro lenses that are excellent, as well.

Sigma offers 50mm and 70mm that are both full frame lenses as well. Tamron has the 90mm, also full frame capable, but that's pretty close to the 100mm you already have.

On 1.6X crop cameras, I use the 45mm TS-E for close-ups a lot. With extension tubes, it can get into the macro ranges. Manual focus only (which no matter to me, I tend to turn off AF on macro lenses that have it, anyway). The ability to control the plane of focus is really useful. For more reach, and on full frame, the 90 TS-E is another top possibility.

They are both great lenses (I have both), it all comes down to working distance and whether you intend going to 'full-frame' in the future or (like me) want to use one on a 35mm film camera, in which case go for the 100mm, although it is bigger and heavier than the EF-S 60mm.

money wont lie.

Go for 100mm.

silvex wrote in post #6050802
What I woudl recommend instead of buying a EF60. It is to sell the 30D and get a nice used 5D. Full frame will give a better DOF and with full frame you can shoot at f16 without worries about loosing IQ. Crop bodies (30d) tend to loose IQ after f11-f13. I would also use strobres (even 200w ones) for the lighting with customwhite balance.

unfortunately i wont be getting 5d...

but question remails.. while i gain few things, what do i lose with 100mm shooting strickly watches?

thanx

The 2 main differences between the 100 and the 60 are: 1) working distance from the lens, and 2) the angle of coverage. The 60 is slightly wider and therefore more of the background will come into a shot. This can be good or bad, depending on what or how you shoot.

sebr wrote in post #6049222
Both lenses should work fine for shooting watches, but how do you feel with the working distance when using the 100mm. When you get closer to the subject, you need to decrease aperture so that the DoF is not too shallow and your subject is in focus. This results in slower shutter speeds may result in camera shake if you do not use a tripod. The 60 mm is a bit easier to use as you can afford shutter speeds approx 2x longer than with 100 mm owing to the shorter focal length.

I don't understand. The further you are away from the subject, and for the same aperture, the depth of field is greater. So with the 100 you should be able to keep your shutter speeds higher than the 60 because you can open up to a wider aperture. Isn't that the opposite of what you're saying?