Canon 60mm f/2.8 or Canon 100mm f/2.8 macro??

I'm sorry, I'm sorry - I feel like such a pest, asking so many lens questions, but I'm completely stuck here! I want a macro lens. That I know. I'd like to photograph all sorts of things with it - bugs, flowers, little objects, what have you. I've heard good things about both of these lenses, the 60mm and the 100mm, but I've also read so many reviews that say you should definitely go with one over the other, but while everyone seems to have very firm opinions, there's no consensus as to which one to go with! I've heard the 60mm would be a poor choice because you have to get to close to photograph, say, insects...but I've also heard that the 100mm is very difficult to use, and I'm not a skilled photographer. Is it really that hard? Does the 60mm really require you to get that close to things? Please help!

I'm new here and I just saw your post. I have owned both but hands down the 100mm with IS is my favorite. I have taken many hand held shots of butterflies, bees and hummingbirds that have totally amazed me. I'd love to have a tripod with me at all times but it's just not possible. I love it!

Thank you so much for your input. Unfortunately though, the 100mm with IS is out of my price range... Do you think you'd still be as enamored by the lens without that feature?

Also, I recall reading that the extremely shallow depth of field on the 100mm can be a problem, and that it practically requires the use of a flash. Thoughts?

Take a deep breath and relax!

I have the 60mm f/2.8 lens. It is a great lens at a great price. I use it on a T2i for portraits and macros of inanimate objects.

Arguably, the king of the hill here is the Canon 100mm f/2.8L IS, with the expected price premium of an "L" lens.

The 100mm f/2.8 lens without IS is from all reports an outstanding lens, as is the Tamron 90mm f/2.8.

On B&H today, you can have the Canon 60 for $469, or a Sigma 70mm or Tamron 90mm for $499; the Canon 100 non-L/non-IS is $599. No experience and haven't seen many reviews of the Sigma; the Tamron is generally viewed as outstanding, especially for the money.

What do you really plan to photograph with a macro lens? Are we talking >50% insects and things that move? If so, I'd look at 90-100mm so your lens isn't causing them to move. If mostly inanimate and portraits (macro lenses tend to be very good portrait lenses), then the 60mm is fine.

In the macro range, I'd expect any of these lenses to have a shallow depth of field, and a flash might or might not help. If you're photographing jewelry, watches, etc., that have an inherent glare, then a flash won't help, generally speaking. Bugs, maybe.

Hope that helps.

What camera are you shooting?

I can't speak for the 60mm and only have experience with the 100mm L, but I really miss that 100mm. I sold it to fund another lens and plan to replace it, but with the non-L.

I suppose my advice would be based on what you plan to shoot. Flowers, I'd say the 60mm would be fine. Bug portraits, the 100mm for sure. You want bug lips, the 100mm with a set of extension tubes.

The 100mm hard to use? Never heard that. Same as any other lens, far as I could tell. One does need to practice their technique, though. Regulating your breathing and finding a firm platform, for instance. My wife thought I was an idiot, crawling around on the floor to shoot bugs.

Take a deep breath and relax!

 

I have the 60mm f/2.8 lens. It is a great lens at a great price. I use it on a T2i for portraits and macros of inanimate objects.

 

Arguably, the king of the hill here is the Canon 100mm f/2.8L IS, with the expected price premium of an "L" lens.

 

The 100mm f/2.8 lens without IS is from all reports an outstanding lens, as is the Tamron 90mm f/2.8.

 

On B&H today, you can have the Canon 60 for $469, or a Sigma 70mm or Tamron 90mm for $499; the Canon 100 non-L/non-IS is $599. No experience and haven't seen many reviews of the Sigma; the Tamron is generally viewed as outstanding, especially for the money.

 

What do you really plan to photograph with a macro lens? Are we talking >50% insects and things that move? If so, I'd look at 90-100mm so your lens isn't causing them to move. If mostly inanimate and portraits (macro lenses tend to be very good portrait lenses), then the 60mm is fine.

 

In the macro range, I'd expect any of these lenses to have a shallow depth of field, and a flash might or might not help. If you're photographing jewelry, watches, etc., that have an inherent glare, then a flash won't help, generally speaking. Bugs, maybe.

 

Hope that helps.

 

What camera are you shooting?

Thanks :-)

I have a t2i also, and as far as what I plan to shoot...I say a little of everything because I guess I don't really know without having the proper lens, you know? I tend to take a lot of pictures of flowers and whatnot, would like to get some neat seashell shots on my upcoming trip to the beach...but I do also like trying to get shots of bees and lizards and things, and I wonder if that would become even more of a hobby/challenge if I did have a lens more catered to that sort of thing.

One other issue: I do have a 50mm f/1.8 that's my go-to portrait/indoor lens. Obviously it's not a macro, but talk of the 60mm being a good portrait lens makes me worry that the 50mm would become obsolete for me. Would it be better, do you think, in that regard, to get the 100mm so I have more range in my lenses? I also have an 18-55, a 55-250, and a recently-purchased 18-270.

I have/had both for my T3i. I found that I struggled with the 100mm (non-IS) without a tripod, and I ended up selling it.

Thanks :-)

 

I have a t2i also, and as far as what I plan to shoot...I say a little of everything because I guess I don't really know without having the proper lens, you know? I tend to take a lot of pictures of flowers and whatnot, would like to get some neat seashell shots on my upcoming trip to the beach...but I do also like trying to get shots of bees and lizards and things, and I wonder if that would become even more of a hobby/challenge if I did have a lens more catered to that sort of thing.

 

One other issue: I do have a 50mm f/1.8 that's my go-to portrait/indoor lens. Obviously it's not a macro, but talk of the 60mm being a good portrait lens makes me worry that the 50mm would become obsolete for me. Would it be better, do you think, in that regard, to get the 100mm so I have more range in my lenses? I also have an 18-55, a 55-250, and a recently-purchased 18-270.

Tough call. You would be getting pretty close in range between the two. The 100mm will give you more working range; you get 1:1 macro at a foot away, versus 7-8 inches for the 60mm. The 60mm is designed for the APS-C camera (such as the T2i), and is much lighter. The 100mm is much more likely to require a tripod (although you can compensate in good light with good technique). Neither lens is image stabilized, but keep in mind that IS only compensates for YOUR movement, not your subjects. so that really amazing 100mm f/2.8L IS lens isn't going to help if the bug doesn't want to sit still!

Unless you're thinking about overhauling your lenses (which you may eventually do), I'd probably look at the 100mm, even though it is more expensive. Ideally, you can try both of them and understand the weight and size difference. If you are thinking about overhauling, then I'd probably look at the 60mm and save some change for a Sigma 30mm f/1.4 down the road. 28-30mm is generally a better working distance for an APS-C camera compared to 50mm for 35mm film and full frame digital. But that's a discussion for another day!

Also consider the Tokina 100mm f/2.8 macro - it is a very sharp lens and probably less expensive than the Canon.

Both of your suppositions are true - at 60mm, you will have some issues with bugs as you have to be close, and at 100/105mm it is harder to use due to the shallower DoF - which can be wafer thin, the possibility of having to use a flash, manual focus, tripod, etc.

In fact you all but need to also buy a macro flash when using a macro lens in the 100mm range so you can boost the DoF. Lenses such as the Tokina will go up to f/64 (and don't worry about diffraction at this close range). This drives up the cost significantly since a good macro flash system is not inexpensive, and can cost as much or more than the lens.

Regardless, you will need a tripod when using 100/105mm lenses - so IS is not really necessary as you generally have to turn IS off when using a tripod.

And you also typically need to go to manual focus controls - at least with the 100/105mm macro lenses as the autofocus system in most DSLRs are not very good at such close distances.

And you will also want a shutter release, and if your camera has this feature - use the MUP (Mirror Up) mode, as even mirror slap will cause blurry photos.

I have two macro lenses, a Nikon AF-S 40mm f/2.8 micro (Nikon calls their macro lenses micro) and the Nikon version of the Tokina 100mm f/2.8 macro.

I use the 40mm for all general purpose macro uses - flowers and other inanimate items - as it has a much favorable DoF, and I can use the camera hand-held without a flash.

For bugs (at least those that are not on a pin), I switch to the Tokina 100mm along with a Nikon R1 macro flash, tripod, cable release, etc. While this can be rewarding, it is fairly involved compared to the 40mm focal length.

So as the way I see it; the shorter focal lengths are fine for everything but bugs, and more convenient as you can often use the camera handheld and without a flash. It is also less expensive. For bugs though, the 100/105mm lenses/flash/tripod/cable-release/MUP enabled camera is the way to go.

I have taken my 40mm micro on cruises before - I would not take the 100mm and all of the extra junk on a cruise.

My daughter has a 50mm macro (which is a equivalent to a 75mm on that cameraon our Sony APS-C Alpha cameras, and she gets amazing shots with it. We have even got some get "bug shots" with that lens without issue.

I had her try a 100mm macro lens, and she found it too hard to work with.

The longer focal length of the 100 will allow you to be a little further away. This not only lessens the scare of the big lens to little critters, but lessens the chance of the lens and/or hood blocking light onto the subject. However, on a crop camera, the effective 160mm focal length means it's not as useful for other things.

We rented the 100 IS macro once, and my wife loved it. We rented it a time or two after that, and then I rented the Zeiss 100mm f/2 "Makro", and it blew the 100 IS macro out of the water if manual focus didn't present a challenge to the shot (the Zeiss is manual focus but with camera AF "assist"). Another time I rented the EF-S 60mm macro for my wife, and I don't think it got used at all, though possibly at no fault of the lens (busy event to shoot, little time for creative stuff).

We purchased the 100 IS macro last summer during the rebate season. Keep an eye out for next rebate season, as it may help out your next purchase.

Thank you all for your input. I truly do appreciate it :-). I'm still agonizing over the decision, however. One new thing I've come across that I'm considering is the Canon 500D close-up lens. What are y'alls thoughts about getting one of those to use with my 55-250 and purchasing the 60mm macro lens?

If you're thinking of an interim step, I'd instead suggest you try an extension tube (or a set). These fit between the camera and lens - you will lose the ability to focus more than several feet away while in place, but gain some macro-ish ability. These are a great way to dip your toe in the water for macro work, and any brand tube will work (there's no glass inside, it's just a spacer with electrical contacts). I picked up a Kenko set (12mm/20mm/36mm) for $125 I think, or you could just get a 12mm as that's probably enough.

I posted some pictures earlier on another thread. These three were taken with my 60mm Macro Lens...