which combo would you prefer: 60mm macro + 100mm 2 or 50 1.4 + 100mm macro?

As given by the thread topic; which combo would you prefer: 60mm 2.8 macro + 100mm 2 or 50 1.4 + 100mm 2.8 macro?


The way I see it, both combinations have different advantages.

1. The first combo is more compact and well built over all. The 100mm f2 has a higher aperture which helps prevent camera shake for tele shots.

2. The second combo has 1.4 and is compatible with full frame. Some also prefer a longer distance for their macro shots.

depends on what you shoot and what you shoot it with.

I would take option 1 personally.

spelunker wrote in post #8587928
As given by the thread topic; which combo would you prefer: 60mm 2.8 macro + 100mm 2 or 50 1.4 + 100mm 2.8 macro?


The way I see it, both combinations have different advantages.

1. The first combo is more compact and well built over all. The 100mm f2 has a higher aperture which helps prevent camera shake for tele shots.

2. The second combo has 1.4 and is compatible with full frame. Some also prefer a longer distance for their macro shots.

Aperature doesn't change the shutter speed required to eliminate camera jitter from your photos. Its still gonna 1/(fl x crop factor)... so 1/(100 x 1.6) = 1/160th to eliminate the shake. Obviously the difference of f/2 to f/2.8 makes this easier, but its still the shutter speed that makes it happen not the aperature. I.e. you can't take a shot with a 100/2 @ f/2, 1/80 vs. 100/2.8 @ f/2.8, 1/160... the 100/2 @ f/2, 1/80 will still have shake.

The benefit comes from being able to shoot 100/2 @ f/2, 1/160 ISO100 vs. 100/2.8 @ f/2.8, 1/160 ISO200.

There is always new new solution... 100mm f/2.8L IS USM ... shoot f/2.8 ISO100 @ 1/10 - 1/20. Oh that lens is gonna be fun.

I went with option 1 so that I would have f/2 for kids hockey, and I couldn't bear to have two 100 mm lenses. It all depends on what your needs are.

i'll give an answer after i see reviews of the new 100L macro.

ed rader

Assumption 1.6X crop:

Just for working distance (lighting and not scaring the subject)I would say a 100mm macro works much better than the 60mm. Additionally for portrait or low light I would say the 50/1.4 is better than the 60mm for portrait and low light.

The 100/2 is OK but a little on the long side for portrait.

However if you want a short tele for low light/action the 100/2 might be a good choice. Depends on what you are doing.

UNless you are shooting gymnastics or some other horribly lit sport, I would get the 50 1.4 and 100 f2.8. 60 f2.8 is just too slow to replace a fast 50 IMO and 100mm f2.8 will provide better working distance for many macro subject. Also, for portraiture, 100mm f2.8 will provide all the BG blur you need.

A third option which would likely cost the same overall, is the 50 1.8, 60 f2.8 and 100mm f2. Then you get fast lenses at 50 and 100 and a nice compact macro.

50/1.4 + 100/2 (or 85/1.8) + Kenko tubes.

I have everything marked in bold.

I voted #2 and hope the 100 macro is the L.

I voted for... and have... #2.

And extension tubes I've used with both (Kenko and Canon).... As well as with other lenses.

On a crop sensor cameras I think the 50mm and 100mm Macro would make for a more versatile combination. The 50mm is more ideal for portaits than the 60/2.8. For one, f1.4 is two full stops faster.

I haven't used the 100/2 personally. Don't feel the need for it since I have the 100/2.8 Macro, which is a good, dual purpose lens thanks to adequately fast auto focus. Keep to 1/125, 1/160 shutter speed and the 100/2.8 is eminently hand holdable. Also, it can be fitted with a tripod ring, which of course makes it very usable on a monopod or tripod.

Yes, the new 100/2.8L Macro looks very interersting. I'm not going to be running out to buy one immediately, it's hard to imagine the image quality being all that much better than the current lens... and I don't particularly need IS on this focal length or the way I use a macro lens. However, Canon's MTF charts seem to show we might expect fantastic IQ from the new lens. Is it worth more than 2X as much? I dunno.

The only lens I've seriously considered instead of the 100/2.8 Macro is the 90mm TS-E. I have and use the 24 and 45mm TS-Es. The latter often serves as my short macro or near-macro lens, usually for table-top product shots.

Also have and use the 180mm Macro. I haven't been using it as much with crop sensor cameras (it's less a dual purpose lens, than the 100/2.8), but added a 5D Mk II full frame to my kit earlier this year... I used it more than the 100mm with my film cameras and imagine the 180 Macro will see more use in the future.