60mm EF-S Macro or 100mm EF macro

They're both f/2.8. I have a 40D but don't ever think I'll get a 1.3 or FF camera.

I've shot a borrowed 60mm EF-S and really liked it. I like the small size.

The closer focus of the 60mm kinda of makes up for the 100mm.

But, I think the 100mm is a little sharper.

I've only got 5 days before the rebate ends.

Any suggestions or experience that anyone would like to share?

I have a EFS 60 and love it! Its a great portrait lens and near normal lens, too, so it pulls triple duty.

I've had both, and I don't think there's much in it regarding sharpness.
The advantage of the 100mm is that you don't have to be quite so close to the subject which can be useful if you're shooting something that's a bit wary or moves a lot.
Personally for what I tend to shoot I'd actually prefer the 60mm, but short of modifying it (reasonably easy I believe) it's a non starter on my current body.

Rubberhead.
Selecting a macro lens always reduces to subject working distance versus price. I had produced this along time ago as a POTN sticky.
http://postit.rutgers.​edu …cro%5FWork%5FDi​stance.pdf

If a person is only going to own one macro lens, most folks would offer the 100mm focal length macro offers the most versatility, a better one lens do-it-all choice.

Choice is also influenced on what else you own and carry regularly. E.g., a 17-55mm (or 18-55 stock lens), a 60mm macro, and a 70-200L make a superb 3 lens travel kit, covering everything except ultra wide angle (if wide angle is your thing).

The EF-S 60mm macro is among the world's best macro lenses, at any price. Slightly better (though imperceptible in most cases) image quality than the 100mm macro USM. The EF-S60mm is a portable, hand-holdable bargain. The aperture blades render nicely smooth out-of-focus highlights until about f/5/6. The color and contrast are distinctly rich, pure, and neutral like Kodachrome 64 transparency film of years gone by.
Unless/Until you need more working distance for insects, critters, or avoiding lens/photographer shadows on subjects, it is a fine chunk of glass for many years of service. The moment you need more working distance, you'll know it.

Jack

I had the same decision a while ago and I went with the 100 just because I think it will be more versatile for normal shooting, as I already have the 50mm 1.8, which is close enough to 60mm to "cover" what I'd use the 60mm 2.8 for other than macro.

As you have the nifty fifty as well and the 70-200 f/4, just like me, I'd go with the 100, as it's nice to have something in that range faster since the 70-200 sticks at f/4. Now if you had the 70-200 2.8, I'd say get the 60mm.

Paul