CANON EF 100 2.8 Macro vs. CANON EF-S 60 2.8 Macro – I’m I getting this right?

Hi guys. I’ve been thinking about moving from the 100 Macro to 60 Macro for a few reason. Tell me if I’ve got it right please.

First of all, I’m not big on shooting insects at all. The reason why I wanted a macro lens is to be able to do ultra sharp detail shots of leafs and such, object and also portraits. Now, the 100 Macro works very well for all that BUT it is a little long on my 40D.

One thing I read was (and I don’t fully understand the mechanics of it although I get it) that with the 60 macro, you can get more of the subject in focus at the same aperture and distance than the 100 Macro. Is this correct?

Another thing, which hasn’t been mentioned much when people try to pick between these two lenses is that with the 100 Macro, I have to be at 1/160 shutter speed minimum to avoid blur. In the sun, that’s easy but as soon as you walk into a shade, you can kiss ISO100 good buy. On the other hand, with the 60 Macro, 1/60 sec shutter is okay and that is a big difference. Am I right to think this way?

Sharpness seems to be equal between the two. In fact, Photozone shows the 60 macro to be a little sharper in the center but the 100 Macro has sharper borders. Color and contrast are about the same also.

I’m not planning on moving to FF any time soon. I like my 40D quite a bit. So for someone who isn’t into shooting insects and uses the macro lens for portraits, close up detail shots, wouldn’t the 60 Macro be a better choice? Is there something else that I’ll be giving up if I do the switch? I may be missing something …

pixel_junkie wrote in post #6293743
Hi guys. I’ve been thinking about moving from the 100 Macro to 60 Macro for a few reason. Tell me if I’ve got it right please.

First of all, I’m not big on shooting insects at all. The reason why I wanted a macro lens is to be able to do ultra sharp detail shots of leafs and such, object and also portraits. Now, the 100 Macro works very well for all that BUT it is a little long on my 40D.

One thing I read was (and I don’t fully understand the mechanics of it although I get it) that with the 60 macro, you can get more of the subject in focus at the same aperture and distance than the 100 Macro. Is this correct?

Same distance, same aperture, yes, the shorter focal length will have more DOF - BUT - the image will be smaller (or should I say a smaller magnification)

pixel_junkie wrote in post #6293743
Another thing, which hasn’t been mentioned much when people try to pick between these two lenses is that with the 100 Macro, I have to be at 1/160 shutter speed minimum to avoid blur. In the sun, that’s easy but as soon as you walk into a shade, you can kiss ISO100 good buy. On the other hand, with the 60 Macro, 1/60 sec shutter is okay and that is a big difference. Am I right to think this way?

A lot of those "rules" fall apart when you get to macro size. The shutter speed vs focal length is one that falls apart. The other is that a shorter FL has the capability to produce higher magnifications than longer focal lengths. Also - once in the "macro" range, image stabilization technology becomes innefective.

In reality, the difference between the two lenses will be working distance to the subject - the 100 will allow a greater working distance.

fxk wrote in post #6293917
Same distance, same aperture, yes, the shorter focal length will have more DOF - BUT - the image will be smaller (or should I say a smaller magnification)


A lot of those "rules" fall apart when you get to macro size. The shutter speed vs focal length is one that falls apart. The other is that a shorter FL has the capability to produce higher magnifications than longer focal lengths. Also - once in the "macro" range, image stabilization technology becomes innefective.

In reality, the difference between the two lenses will be working distance to the subject - the 100 will allow a greater working distance.

How come? Are you talking about using the lens for strictly macro work? If I'm 2 feet away from the subject, does that still apply?

2 feet away isn't anywhere close to 1:1 magnification (unless you're talking about a mythical 500mm Macro lens ) so at 2 feet you're using your 100mm/60mm lens like pretty much any other lens.

pixel_junkie wrote in post #6293953
How come? Are you talking about using the lens for strictly macro work? If I'm 2 feet away from the subject, does that still apply?

Pretty much all you'll notice regarding shooting macro/close to 1:1 with the 60 vs the 100 is that you'll be able to get closer to the subject with the 60.

pixel_junkie wrote in post #6293953
How come? Are you talking about using the lens for strictly macro work? If I'm 2 feet away from the subject, does that still apply?

Macro is expected to be very crisp because of the very small size of things. Camera motion is greatly magnified and is seen.

The other piece of this is that on macro, one starts dealing with magnification - and whether the grain of rice is magnified to life size (1:1) with a 60mm macro, or a 100mm macro, the rice is the same size on the sensor, and an identical amount of camera movement will blur the rice equally, regardless of the lens.

And yes, all this is true when you pass into the macro zone - shooting at 30 ft to infinity, all the rules you're used to all come back into play - because you are not dealing with strict magnification ratios any longer.

That help?

fxk wrote in post #6294017
Macro is expected to be very crisp because of the very small size of things. Camera motion is greatly magnified and is seen.

The other piece of this is that on macro, one starts dealing with magnification - and whether the grain of rice is magnified to life size (1:1) with a 60mm macro, or a 100mm macro, the rice is the same size on the sensor, and an identical amount of camera movement will blur the rice equally, regardless of the lens.

And yes, all this is true when you pass into the macro zone - shooting at 30 ft to infinity, all the rules you're used to all come back into play - because you are not dealing with strict magnification ratios any longer.

That help?

Yes, now I got. For some reason the magnification factor never crossed my mind. I wasn't even sure what 1:1 meant exactly, now I know.

pixel_junkie wrote in post #6293743
Another thing, which hasn’t been mentioned much when people try to pick between these two lenses is that with the 100 Macro, I have to be at 1/160 shutter speed minimum to avoid blur. In the sun, that’s easy but as soon as you walk into a shade, you can kiss ISO100 good buy. On the other hand, with the 60 Macro, 1/60 sec shutter is okay and that is a big difference. Am I right to think this way?

1. I ALWAYS USE FLASH with macrophotography. This will provide better lighting than the sun alone and allow a smaller f/stop or faster shutter speed (or both) - especially in shaded areas.

2. When shooting macros, the standard 1/focal length shutter speed formula is not necessarily valid. A 1:1 ratio will often require a faster shutter speed than the 1/FL formula would indicate. However, again, shutter speed can be faster or f/stop smaller (or both) when you use flash as your lighting.

3. Why restrict yourself to ISO100 when shooting? The Canon's high ISO performance allows a much higher ISO while maintaining exceptional image quality. I usually shoot at ISO 400 using my 30D or 40D cameras.

4. I love the 90-100mm focal lengths (I use a 90mm Tamron) when shooting macros with a 1.6x camera. IMO these focal lengths give the best compromise between image-subject distance and weight. The 50mm or 60mm lenses are a bit short for my style of shooting. This makes lighting the subject with flash a somewhat more troublesome. I don't like the looks of ring flasg for macro work.

HOSTED PHOTO
please log in to view hosted photos in full size.

RPCrowe wrote in post #6294163
1. I ALWAYS USE FLASH with macrophotography. This will provide better lighting than the sun alone and allow a smaller f/stop or faster shutter speed (or both) - especially in shaded areas.

2. When shooting macros, the standard 1/focal length shutter speed formula is not necessarily valid. A 1:1 ratio will often require a faster shutter speed than the 1/FL formula would indicate. However, again, shutter speed can be faster or f/stop smaller (or both) when you use flash as your lighting.

3. Why restrict yourself to ISO100 when shooting? The Canon's high ISO performance allows a much higher ISO while maintaining exceptional image quality. I usually shoot at ISO 400 using my 30D or 40D cameras.

4. I love the 90-100mm focal lengths (I use a 90mm Tamron) when shooting macros with a 1.6x camera. IMO these focal lengths give the best compromise between image-subject distance and weight. The 50mm or 60mm lenses are a bit short for my style of shooting. This makes lighting the subject with flash a somewhat more troublesome. I don't like the looks of ring flasg for macro work.

I understand what you're saying and all above are valid points. Thank you. But the thing is that I'm not into super close up macro photography. I shoot detail shots and portraits with my macro lens and the results are fantastic. With detail shot, I don't have to get THAT close to the object (maybe 1-2 feet) and for my style of shooting and the look I go for, flash is my enemy. I do shoot at higher ISO, I have to. I was only saying that I try to be as close to ISO100 as possible, always. But I understand now that length of the lens and slower shutter speeds with wider lenses don't apply in macro photography.

pixel_junkie wrote in post #6294055
Yes, now I got. For some reason the magnification factor never crossed my mind. I wasn't even sure what 1:1 meant exactly, now I know.

Cool. Glad to help.

Sounds like 60mm may be more practical for you. I don't think most will question that it's both a superbly sharp lens and a more versatile/practical length for other non-macro use on a crop body than a 100mm lens is.

60mm is certainly a better portrait length than 100mm with your format.

fxk wrote in post #6293917
A lot of those "rules" fall apart when you get to macro size. The shutter speed vs focal length is one that falls apart.

I was just reading The Digital Picture review of the EFS 60 Macro and it says:

"There are downsides to the longer focal length macro lenses. They are larger/heavier and require a faster shutter speed for handholding."


Whats up with that? These guys don't know what they are talking about, eh?

pixel_junkie wrote in post #6296923
I was just reading The Digital Picture review of the EFS 60 Macro and it says:

"There are downsides to the longer focal length macro lenses. They are larger/heavier and require a faster shutter speed for handholding."


Whats up with that? These guys don't know what they are talking about, eh?

Not really seeing the confusion here. That statement was referring to the 100mm and 180mm lens they tested. And it's true.

LiquidSword wrote in post #6296955
Not really seeing the confusion here. That statement was referring to the 100mm and 180mm lens they tested. And it's true.

So then the EFS 60 Macro does have a slight advantage shutter speed wise?

Shutter speed at non-macro distances will depend on focal length; shutter speed need at macro distance depends on magnification - so 1:1 with any lens should require same shutter speed, at least as I understand it; though a really big lens like a 180mm could cause shakiness handheld by weight factor alone.