Macro Lens Question

I have a Canon Rebel XTi & am interested in buying an EF 100mm f/2.8 Macro USM lens. However, I recently heard that it would be preferable to buy the EF 60mm f/2.8 Macro USM since this lens was designed for small-sensor cameras (whereby the 100mm was designed for full-frame). Is there any truth in this? If so, what would be the adverse effect(s) of using the 100mm on the XTi?

Thank you for helping me with this.

Think about it this way, the 100mm macro has been a popular lens for 35mm cameras for a long time. It's versatile because it can be used for macro (with a decent working distance at 1:1 magnification), but it can also be used for still life setups and portraits because the focal lens is right in the middle of the so-called classic "portrait" focal lengths.

With the 60mm macro, Canon tries to recreate that experience for the users of the 1.6x format DSLRS. 60mm on these cameras is roughly the same field of view as 100mm on a 35mm camera. So the 60mm will generally do the same thing on a 1.6x camera that a 100mm will do on a 35mm camera.

To whatever extent that there is an "adverse effect" of using the 100mm macro on a XTi, it is the lack of versatility for other, non-macro, photos. For example, 100mm on the XTi is very long -- longer than any of the typical portrait focal lengths -- and you might not like the distance that this will force between the photographer and the subject.

Player9 offers a good analysis of the difference in the two lenses for their secondary roles, but if your interest is purely in macro work, then there are major adverse effects of using the 100 on APS-C. It is a bit heavier, and it is more expensive. The gain of about 60 mm of working distance may well be considered a significant advantage.

If you really want to get into macro work, pick the 100 mm--it makes it much easier to get close to those critters that are shy and or sting!

Julius

Player9: Thank you for your response. The smaller field of view with the 100mm on the crop camera makes sense. But, I assume, this should be less of an issue with macro work.

Xarqi: I guess that I was a bit unclear in my reference to "adverse effects". I was referring to issues with IQ. For macro work I would be using a tripod so heaviness shouldn't be an issue. As for expense, I'll cut back on buying lattes for a couple of weeks.

Again, my primary concern is IQ.

Thank you.

For shooting insects or other critters, the 100mm is preferable. Otherwise, either lens will do fine. Both are deadly sharp lenses.

+1 on the 100mm macro. The further the better from scaring it or being bitten/stung.

My preference is the Sigma 150, but it depends on what you want. Nothing particularly wrong with most of the macro lenses, it mostly comes down to a decision based on focal length.

What I've found is that most people are surprised how close you have to actually be for macro stuff. They just assume that the extreme close-ups of bees and flies are at distance, yet most are taken within centimetres of the insects.

kitjv wrote in post #10768227
Xarqi: I guess that I was a bit unclear in my reference to "adverse effects". I was referring to issues with IQ. For macro work I would be using a tripod so heaviness shouldn't be an issue. As for expense, I'll cut back on buying lattes for a couple of weeks.

Again, my primary concern is IQ.

The optics of the 100 and 60 macros are excellent, by all accounts, and neither should give you reasonable cause for complaint.

For FF or APS-H, it's only a choice between the 100 and 100L (or a 3rd party lens); with APS-C, you are spoilt for choice. Decide on budget and working distance - none will disappoint.

Player9 wrote in post #10766210
To whatever extent that there is an "adverse effect" of using the 100mm macro on a XTi, it is the lack of versatility for other, non-macro, photos. For example, 100mm on the XTi is very long -- longer than any of the typical portrait focal lengths -- and you might not like the distance that this will force between the photographer and the subject.

Really! I use a 90mm Tamron Macro for head and shoulders portraiture and if I am using a zoom which includes 100mm focal length, I like to use it at 100mm. I prefer longer focal lengths when shooting portraits since I have a large studio in which to shoot.

Of course, if you are shooting your portraits in a constrained area, the 100mm focal length might be a bit too long.

The 90mm or 100mm focal length obviously will provide you with a greater lens to subject distance than the 50mm or 60mm. This facilitates lighting your macro subject and tends to scare your creepy crawlie subjects less because of the longer distance from them. The 90-100mm focal range is ideal for my uses and combines a decent lens to subject distance with relatively light weight. Weight is important since I often shoot my creepie crawlies hand-held.

Additionally, the 100mm makes a very nice short telephoto f/2.8 lens for general purpose shooting. The Canon lens with the faster focusing USM system is better for this use than my 90mm Tamron. However, since I use the Tamron almost exclusively for macros in which I manually focus and for portraits where fast A/F speed is not a requirement; the Tamron suits me just fine.

Of course, the fact that I got the Tamron used a few years ago for just over a hundred bucks, makes this lens even sweeter to me.

Thank you, everyone, for your thoughts. Considering the IQ of the 100mm & my interest in both a macro & a shorter telephoto lens, I think the 100mm will fit the bill perfectly.

It depends on what you're going to be shooting.

Like others have said, the 100mm is giving you almost twice the enlargement in your frame, which is great if you're shooting insects and stuff. You can be further away from the subject, and still fill the frame.
With the 60mm, you have to virtually have the lens on top of them, which will scare them off, and block a lot of light.
If you're shooting portraits or headshots in small rooms, on a ASP-C, then you're going to want to stick with the 60mm.

You'll be capable of blurring the background more, with the 100mm (shallower DOF).

I can vouch for the 60mm being amazingly sharp.
I don't know what the MFD is on the 100mm, but (IIRC) the 60mm MFD is about 3.5", which is just what I needed for detailed product photography.

.

In addition to macro subjects, I will likely use the lens for general outdoor subjects requiring the telephoto capabilities of the 100mm lens. No studio work.

Sounds like the 100mm is right up your alley.

Here's a good review for you to read. It's a review of the 60mm, but talks about the differences to expect between it and the 100mm and the 180mm Macros.

http://www.the-digital-picture.com …acro-USM-Lens-Review.aspx

.

In addition, if you decide to go full frame the 100mm will still be usable. I had both when I shot exclusively crop bodies. Other than working distance they were both very sharp.