EF-S 60mm f/2.8 Macro VS. EF 50mm f/2.5 Macro

I am looking to get my first macro lens and I have found these two to be in my price range. I was wondering what you'd recommend for someone who just plans to dabble in macro? I understand that the EF-S is only for a crop body but essentially puts the focal length to almost 100mm (life size) and I will always have a crop. Any other lens recommendations would be great too. Open to any/all ideas!

Thanks in advance,
Nick

The 50mm isn't a true macro. It's 1:2. A true macro by definition must do at least 1:1. The 60mm, on the other hand, is a 1:1 lens and is a true macro.

The 60mm is not the equivalent of 100mm. It's still 60mm. On a crop body, it's going to have a frame equivalent to that of a 96mm lens on a full frame body. You still get the reach of a 60mm lens.

If you want a true macro lens, for your money, the 60mm is a solid bargain. Sigma's 50mm macro is a true 1:1 lens and thus a true macro, and it's a little cheaper than the Canon 60mm, so it's worth a look too.

A lot of people choose the 100mm over the 60mm due to its longer focal length (being able to stand further away from a fluttering bug is a big advantage when you're sticking a camera in its face). Depending on how much dabbling you want to do, it might be worth it to save a little more money and get the 100mm. Sigma makes a 105mm macro designed to compete against Canon's 100mm, and that's worth looking into as well since it's $100 cheaper than Canon's.

I have all 3. For macro uses, the best one is the 100mm 2.8. The extra focal length gives you more room and makes it easier to use. All 3 lenses are very sharp. The sharpest by a hair is the 60mm 2.8. They also all do well as portrait lenses. The 50mm 2.5 and the 60mm work better as everyday uses due to their focal range and small size. The thing the 50mm has going for it is the very low price. Even though its not a true 1:1 macro, it will due fine for most macro uses. you can get a good used one for $150 - $200. If price wasn't a concern and you were going to use macro quite a bit, I'd say the 100mm is the first choice followed by the 60 and then the 50.

There is no definition that says a true macro lens has to go down to 1:1, sorry. Many of the true macro lenses out there only go to 1:2. Before you decide on 50 vs 60, think about working distance and look into getting longer. Say 150mm.

There's a good compromise in the Sigma 50mm f2.8 macro. Same price as the 50mm f2.5, but focuses to 1:1 like the 60mm.

And I agree with gasrock, macro just means very close up. Personally, I find 1:1 not very useful unless you like tiny bugs. I do think that if you are going to spend the money you might as well get 1:1 capability since it doesn't cost a lot more.

gasrocks wrote in post #8256881
There is no definition that says a true macro lens has to go down to 1:1, sorry. Many of the true macro lenses out there only go to 1:2.

And some lenses are designated 'macro' by their manufacturers, yet only go down to 1:4 (yes, I'm looking at you, Tamron). From what I've read 1:1 is what a true macro lens should be able to achieve. Anything less is a 'close-up; lens.

How long before anything better that 1:10 is termed 'macro' by the marketing droids?

Since you say you always will have a crop, I'd suggest to go with the 60 F/2.8 macro first, and if you do like macro, maybe get additional lenses later.

It is relatively cheap, but has USM, is light, has a WD of 9.4 cm (which is more than any non-IF macro out there up to about 105 mm), is light and compact, and bokeh is very pleasant in normal shooting mode up to about F/4 -F4.5, hence great for, e.g., portraits too. It is just a pleasure to use, and I miss something like it on FF. The 100 macro is just not the same.

The 50 CM is a great lens, has very good bokeh, but you may get annoyed by the AF engine - rather noisy, and it only does 1:2 without Life Size converter or extension tubes. Great lens however.

In short: get the 60 . You won't look back.

Kind regards, Wim

I'm looking at the same choice. I've got the 50mm 2.5, but I'm finding it softer than I'd like and also some pf in some "normal" shots I took of my dog.

I don't have the 60mm yet, but I've also been trying a close up filter on my 55-250. At 100mm, it's actually a nice combination, though it's a little slow (f/5.0). At 250mm, the lens is too soft to benefit from the close-up FL provided by the filter. I like the idea of the close up filter because it gives me a walk-around combo of a zoom plus macro (and macro with IS!), but it does mean threading the filter on/off the plastic threads of the 55-250, which makes me a bit nervous.

The 50 2.5 is going back, and I may continue to try working with the close-up filter. If this doesn't do it for me, then I think the 60mm is the next stop, as that lens gets some pretty rave reviews.

I have the EFs 60 and love the sharp picture that come from it. I have not used it on my 7D yet but on my 40D it was great. My macro shots suck but that is just me not putting in the time to learn how to be more creative with it.

60mm would be pretty useful for general picture taking on a crop body as well, and it's not like it's a slow lens or anything.

I have the EF-S 60mm Macro. It's a great macro lens, and a very useful lens for day-to-day use too. Very versatile. High image quality.

Another vote for the 60. It's by far my favourite lens - awesome.

The 60 is a great lens on crop bodies. I just bought the 100 macro (non-L) since I have a full frame body now. Because of this I will probably end up selling my 60, which is now my last remaining EF-S glass. IMO, the 60 macro is easily the best EF-S lens that Canon makes even over the popular 17-55 f2.8 IS.

I'm gonna throw a wrench in this thread...

Tamron 60mm f/2 1:1 Macro.

I've got the Sigma 50mm macro, also goes 1:1, but cost less than the Canon. For the limited use I give it I'm pleased with the result.