prosand cons of 50mm Macro vs 100mm Macro

Not sure if this goes here. Well I have been thinking about getting my feet wet and getting into Macro. I am trying to decide between a 50mm Macro and 100mm Macro. Can someone give me the pros and cons of each one since I am new to Macro. Also, if anyone has comparison shots with each lens or knows where I can find some I would love to see them.

Thanks

One big point is with a 100mm macro, you can be twice as far away for the same shot. If you're shooting bugs, this makes a difference! Also, 100mm gives twice the magnification over a 50mm. Couple either with some extension tubes, and you'll be amazed at what you never noticed before.

Search though the forum, and you'll find some totally incredible macro shots. Possibly those will help you choose equipment!

Curious what body will you be attaching to?

If you have a full-frame body, go with the 100mm hands down. It's a great lens and very versatile. Canon's 50mm isn't a 1:1 macro. You can pick up an $85 50mm 1.8 to fill that range.

If your body accepts EF-S lenses, go for the 60mm macro. It's a true 1:1 macro; it is equivalent to (roughly) 100mm on the crop body; and, like the EF 100mm, it is very sharp.

Also, if you really get into macro with the 60mm, you can throw tubes on it and grow magnification beyond 1.5x. Can't easily do that with the 50mm or 100mm macros.

Yay for spam bots. What kind of macro do you want to do? If it's anything that can move, get the 100. If price is an issue the Tammy 90 and Sigma 105 are great options. The Canon 100 is awesome though, I wish I could have afforded it. The internal focusing adds a pretty significant working distance.

I'd always get a macro in the 100 range or above (save for the Tokina 35mm ), and any of them will do just fine... They're all excellent lenses - don't forget about Tamron 90, Sigma 105, Tokina 100 as an option.

The Canon 60mm macro is also very sharp, but I don't really see any advantage to the none-L 100mm macro except for maybe a slightly lower price.

frankk wrote in post #11454188
Curious what body will you be attaching to?

Canon T2i

I have both and they are excellent lenses. The 100mm is far more useful for macro shots. The Canon 50mm is not a 1:1 macro, so I look at this lens as a sharp 50mm lens with excellent close up ability. You should also consider the extremely sharp 60mm 2.8 if you have a T2i. Perhaps the best deal right now would be on a used 100mm 2.8 non-IS macro. They can be had for under $400.

The 100 is a 1:1 macro (If you want 1:1 out of the 50, you'll need the life-size converter, which will result in a similar price to the 100).

The AF on the 100 is substantially better.

The Sigma 50mm 2.8 macro is 1:1 and is a very good lens . I own it and the Sigma 150mm 2.8 macro.
Like others have said the problem with the 50mm is the working distance , you are really close to the subject for 1:1 . The 150mm macro is much better for macro work.

I have the Sigma 50f2.8 macro and just got the Canon 100f2.8 macro (older version). The Sigma is easier to hand-hold and is sharp. It is a very useful and sharp lens. Sometimes, the working distance can get so short that lighting is a problem. If you are going to photograph flowers, the 50 is a great focal length, and gives you the field of view of an 80.
The Canon 100, though larger, does have good ergonomics and a longer working distance. This can be good for photos of bugs, but not larger stuff.
I originally got the Sigma so that I could get shots of flat artwork for my wife.
You have a range of choices in focal lengths from 50-100 and longer. Pick the lens that gives you the optics you want and working distance that you need.
The Sigma 50 is an excellent lens, as is the Canon 60. The Sigma is less expensive, but just as sharp.
All macro lenses will be sharp stopped down to f8. Differences appear wide open in optics, but that is not how you would use them for macro.
Focus speed can differ, as can focus accuracy. My Sigma is fine in this regards, but the Canon is faster.
You don't get a macro lens for focus speed, and use manual focusing in macro.
The important question is - what do you want to photograph? That determines your choice.

Well I started looking at the 60mm Macro and it looks like I could get a lot of use out of it for portraits and Macro work. Macro I'm not sure exactly what I want to try I guess bugs and small objects and flowers as well. It's winter here and I leave for work in the dark and get home in the dark so I need something to help pass the time until spring and I figure this may be a good all around lens. Somebody mentioned extension tubes with it and I've never used those.

Given the choice, and spending my own money, I would buy the 100mm macro.
True 1:1 and a reasonable working distance.

I do own the 50mm f2.5 macro, although when it's mounted on a 1d classic and given away free it's very hard to say no (actually I have 2, my personal one, and the one issued to met at work)

It's a bit noisy in the autofocus, but other than that it's a pretty nice sharp 50mm lens.
I use mine for photographing knives and flashlights, and occasionally a bit of jewelry

nightcat wrote in post #11456014
I have both and they are excellent lenses. The 100mm is far more useful for macro shots. The Canon 50mm is not a 1:1 macro, so I look at this lens as a sharp 50mm lens with excellent close up ability. You should also consider the extremely sharp 60mm 2.8 if you have a T2i. Perhaps the best deal right now would be on a used 100mm 2.8 non-IS macro. They can be had for under $400.

I have the 60mm Macro, and the T2i.

The 60mm is an awesome lens, in every regard, be it for macro work, or as a portrait lens.

However, if I had to do it again, I'd get the 100mm Macro, be it for macro, or for portrait. But especially for macro, as for indoor portrait work, it would be a little long, on a crop sensor camera.

.

It is all about the subject of your macro photos. Best butterfly lens = EF 300/4 L IS. Perspective also comes into play. I have a macro 28, 35, 60, 90, 100, 135 and 150. Sold my 2 180's and 300.