What's the real purpose of the 60mm macro? (full frame)

[jcdeboever]

Not sure but the Fujifilm 60mm 2.4, 1:2 macro is very versatile, portraits, street, macro, whatever. Only thing it's not ideal for is capturing fast action. It is my favorite lens. There is more to lens than focal length... Micro contrast, luminance, bokeh, focus control, etc. I picked it over the Zeiss (50mm 1:1 macro) mainly due to micro contrast.

I think you can say that about virtually any macro lens. They have a flat field and, hence, have great corner resolution when used as a regular lens. That makes them quite effective at wide apertures. I use macro lenses a lot.

Glad to know the Fujinon 60 is so good. Mine should be here next week. Out of curiosity, are the Zeiss Touit lenses compatible with metering and AF?

They are compatible all the way around. It is very nice but rather noisy, they like buzz and make electronic sounds. I borrowed the 50 1:1 and I called him immediately because I thought something was wrong with it but I guess that is the nature of it.

You will love that Fujifilm 60mm, super nice optics, Zeiss is right there with it but I liked how the Acros simulation looked with the Fujifilm, slightly better micro contrast. If your camera has focus peaking highlights, try it, pretty darn cool and extremely useful.

Yes my E1 has focus peaking. Now I need to find a deal on a Fujinon 14.

Good luck with that. Rumor has it, a sales is coming up in June on Fujifilm, not sure what is going to be on sale.

 

[Overread]

Note Canon's 60mm is an efs and thus made for crop sensor camera bodies

The nice thing about real macro lens is the 1:1 life size ratio, wider macros would let you get more in focus at the 1:1 scale.

1:1 is a ratio of
Size of the subject reflected on the sensor by the lens - : - size of the subject in real life.

As a result a 1:1 ratio photo on a 60mm and a 180mm lens will give you the same frame content because the subject is being magnified at the very same value. The longer focal lengths do give increased blurring of the background areas; though you've got to compare extreme ends of focal lengths to really see the difference.
The depth of field (for a given aperture) remains the same.

The minimum focusing distance and thus the working distances of shorter focal length macro lenses are shorter than longer focal length lenses. So longer ones typically give you more room to work with.


So why would you want a shorter focal length macro:
1) Price - smaller lens, less optics and thus cheaper to produce.

2) Reduced working distance - some macro or close focusing photography benefits from less working distance. Copy work of prints or indoor macro photography often benefits from less working distance where you've easier control over lighting and you don't always want huge distances.

3) lighter and smaller lens - sometimes its good to have a small macro to throw in the bag on the off-chance without it taking up as much room and weight.


As said above there is the Canon MPE 65mm macro which gets some outstanding results so 60mm is very workable; but the closer you are the more tricky it becomes and the harder lighting is as you overshadow your subject far more.
The recommended 90-100mm or longer focal lengths for macro are aimed at beginners as they offer an easier time of lighting whilst being a good set of focal lengths for price and performance. That said there are many who begin on a 60mm and do fine.

I would say that 50mm is pushing it a little and that anything shorter is typically very hard to impractical for 1:1 (eg Tokina has a 35mm macro which is very very hard to use at 1:1 due to overshadowing - get the right lighting or be copyying slides, for example, and its a great little lens)

 

[nerwin]

Its tough. Nikon's 60 2.8D macro and heck...even the new G version is really cheap used.

I'm tempted.

But I also enjoyed the 105 2.8G I had as well. But that lens was a beast, lots of glass and so it was heavy and not something I brought with me all the time. That's why I'm sort of fascinated by the 60mm macros because they are fairly compact and lighter weight.

 

[table1349]

Its tough. Nikon's 60 2.8D macro and heck...even the new G version is really cheap used.

I'm tempted.

But I also enjoyed the 105 2.8G I had as well. But that lens was a beast, lots of glass and so it was heavy and not something I brought with me all the time. That's why I'm sort of fascinated by the 60mm macros because they are fairly compact and lighter weight.

That short focal length is not suited, at least to me it's not, for all sorts of general macro work. Short focal lengths are good for non living, non moving subjects like small object product shoots, etc.

 

[beagle100]

I agree, the longer focal lengths are better for moving things like insects
www.flickr.com/photos/mmirrorless

 

[nerwin]

What if you're not taking pictures of bugs?

 

[table1349]

100mm f2.8 macro was my choice.

 

[Derrel]

The 60mm macro gives the right angle of view for much close-range work; it's not only the magnification up-close, but the behind-the-subject angle of view that has long made the 50,50,amd 60mm macro lenses useful for "close-range work" of many types;boudoir/figure, floral;tableptop;small product;landscape.

Again: prime lenses are used by people who want the good rendering, and the good performance, but who also understand that the angle of view of a lne determniones not only the closest-area's contents, but ALSO regulated the angle of veiw and size/apparent distance/apparent size of background objects.

I personally LOVE the 60mm Micro~NIKKOR lens for close-range, small-scale landscape work! it's a nice, selctive focal length, and is good for walk-around uses, especially on FX. The difference between a 50mm (some of which have been 48.5mm or 51.5mm in actual measured length at Infinity focus) and a 60mm lens is VERY significant in angular view.

 

[Dave442]

I've had the 60mm Micro G lens now for around three years. I have found that it has met the expectations I had for it very easily. Most insects seem to have no problem with moving right in close to them. For plants, I find it easy to hold the plant with a couple fingers so it does not move in the breeze with the same hand that is holding the lens. In most of these cases I do not have the lens hood installed and with that have never had a case where I could not achieve good lighting due to front of lens to subject distance.

The lens is very light and small, I toss it in my bag as a third or fourth lens when traveling. It is versatile enough that it can do some landscape shots in between macro so I have used it as a walk around lens.

I also do my product photography with this lens, nice working distance as the object is within or almost within arms distance from the camera, and can then go right in for a detail shot of the product.

I have used it for copy work, from 16mm negatives to poster size prints.

I went with the "G" version over the "D" version for two reasons: 1) the automatic manual-focus over-ride; 2) the non-extension of the front element.

I went with the 60mm over the 105mm for two reasons: 1) price - I wasn't looking for the cheapest price into macro, I had done that too much in the past, it was more of price vs percent usage compared to my other lenses and the macro is just my least used lens; 2) size - there's never an issue with fitting it inside the bag or carrying the extra weight.

 

[petrochemist]

Wider lenses are easier to get high magnifications with - as each focal lengths worth of extension giving an extra 1 to the magnification - and give a greater FOV in the background.
Longer focal length macro lenses give more working distance for a given magnification & a lesser background FOV, but get unwieldy at high magnifications. eg 200mm total extension (from infinity focus) to get 1:1 with a 200mm lens, or ~5m extension with the canon lens @gryphonslair99 linked too!

These factors make having a choice of macro lenses an advantage. For flowers & copy work lenses around 50mm work OK, for skittish insects working distance makes 100-200mm a better compromise.

 

[nerwin]

Also I wanted to add, just because you have a lens that can focus down to 1:1, doesn't mean you always have to focus to 1:1.

I loved my 105 2.8G VR, I thought that was a stellar macro lens but like I said, its not a lens I'd bring with me everywhere unless I'm specifically planned on doing macro.

I could easily see myself bringing my 16-35 and a 60mm macro on hikes. It's a great nature setup I think.

 

[KorinthDan]

Yes, yes, yes I know...its a macro lens and it's designed to take macro pictures. I get it. But hear me out.

Both Canon & Nikon makes a 60mm 2.8 macro. Sony makes a full frame 55mm macro I think? Nikon makes a 40mm macro for DX which is exactly equivalent of a 60mm macro. Canon doesn't seem to make a crop sensor macro, at least to my knowledge anyways. But there are third party options that give that same effect.

Even on M43 sensors, there are 30mm macros which also gives you a 60mm macro 35mm equivalent.

From all of the research I have done and articles about macro photography, just about everyone recommends a macro lens that is between 90mm-150mm because of the larger working distance and I agree with that.

But why do manufactores go the extra mile to make 60mm equivalents for smaller sensors when longer focal is generally preferred when it comes to macro photography?

What is the real purpose of the 60mm macro focal length? Is it just simply more affordable? Lack of physical room? Is more versatile because it's close to the common 50mm?

What do you think? I've always wondered this and interested to see your responses, especially @Derrel's.

I

Yes, yes, yes I know...its a macro lens and it's designed to take macro pictures. I get it. But hear me out.

Both Canon & Nikon makes a 60mm 2.8 macro. Sony makes a full frame 55mm macro I think? Nikon makes a 40mm macro for DX which is exactly equivalent of a 60mm macro. Canon doesn't seem to make a crop sensor macro, at least to my knowledge anyways. But there are third party options that give that same effect.

Even on M43 sensors, there are 30mm macros which also gives you a 60mm macro 35mm equivalent.

From all of the research I have done and articles about macro photography, just about everyone recommends a macro lens that is between 90mm-150mm because of the larger working distance and I agree with that.

But why do manufactores go the extra mile to make 60mm equivalents for smaller sensors when longer focal is generally preferred when it comes to macro photography?

What is the real purpose of the 60mm macro focal length? Is it just simply more affordable? Lack of physical room? Is more versatile because it's close to the common 50mm?

What do you think? I've always wondered this and interested to see your responses, especially @Derrel's.

Yes, yes, yes I know...its a macro lens and it's designed to take macro pictures. I get it. But hear me out.

Both Canon & Nikon makes a 60mm 2.8 macro. Sony makes a full frame 55mm macro I think? Nikon makes a 40mm macro for DX which is exactly equivalent of a 60mm macro. Canon doesn't seem to make a crop sensor macro, at least to my knowledge anyways. But there are third party options that give that same effect.

Even on M43 sensors, there are 30mm macros which also gives you a 60mm macro 35mm equivalent.

From all of the research I have done and articles about macro photography, just about everyone recommends a macro lens that is between 90mm-150mm because of the larger working distance and I agree with that.

But why do manufactores go the extra mile to make 60mm equivalents for smaller sensors when longer focal is generally preferred when it comes to macro photography?

What is the real purpose of the 60mm macro focal length? Is it just simply more affordable? Lack of physical room? Is more versatile because it's close to the common 50mm?

What do you think? I've always wondered this and interested to see your responses, especially @Derrel's.

I do not know the answer to your question for certain, but I DO know the 50-60 MM macro focal length has been commonly used for a long time for copy stand work where 1:1, 1:2 reproduction is needed and which I've done a lot of. Generally, anything longer than that, i.e., 90 MM+, is too long. However, if I am out and about, I will want a 90 MM or longer for the working distance. I believe some people will buy a "normal" focal length macro out of cost concerns and a good percentage are a bit disappointed at the working distance once used for a bit (unless for a copy stand).