Canon EF-S 60mm f/2.8 Macro Lens

One more question - very sorry!

I have a Canon 50mm f/1.8 lens...is the abovementioned macro lens worth it/different enough? It has rave reviews, but I do love my 50mm also.

I think it all depends on what it is you'd be using it for. If you are wanting to take macro shots of skittish insects, 60mm may be too short a focal length as you will be right on top of your subject scaring them away. Also, with a really short focal length macro, you run the risk of casting a shadow on your subject. Personally, I would recommend a longer focal length for macro work, somewhere around the 90mm or longer if you can. I'm a Nikon shooter, but I know Canon makes a 100mm macro & there's always Sigma & Tamron who also make really good macro lenses. Hope that helps.

I think it all depends on what it is you'd be using it for. If you are wanting to take macro shots of skittish insects' date=' 60mm may be too short a focal length as you will be right on top of your subject scaring them away. Also, with a really short focal length macro, you run the risk of casting a shadow on your subject. Personally, I would recommend a longer focal length for macro work, somewhere around the 90mm or longer if you can. I'm a Nikon shooter, but I know Canon makes a 100mm macro & there's always Sigma & Tamron who also make really good macro lenses. Hope that helps.[/quote']

 

 

The 100mm F2.8 is available in both L and non-L. The L is of course sealed and has a higher build quality, as well as IS. The IS is helpful if you tend to do handheld photography (or are of course in lower light situations). The non-L is of course kinder to your wallet.

 

If you are interested in doing macro, the big difference you'll notice between a lens like the 100mm (or 60mm) and the Nifty-Fifty is that the dedicate macro lens will have a 1:1 (or better) magnification. The 50/1.8 will be around 50% magnification.