First macro lens?

[SHaller]

So I am looking to buy my first canon macro lens and I am not sure what to get. I am stuck between the 100mm 2.8 and the 60mm 2.8. I hear great things about the 100, but i fear that it may be a little too much on a crop sensor for the average flower and insect shots. I am also wondering if there are any good third party lenses that are worth looking at.

 

[KenC]

They are both good lenses, but two things to consider: (1) when you are doing really close work on flowers or insects you can't really have too much room to work; the 100 on a crop body will still put your lens within a foot or so of the subject, and (2) the 60 is an EF-S lens, which means if you ever get a full-frame body the lens will not work on that body.

 

[flyingember]

have you looked at the close focusing distance, dof and the like for each lens and determined if it works for your needs? and what's the magnification amount? some macro lenses aren't 1:1

macro goes further than just lenses too. you can get into reversing couplers, extension tubes or a filter and go the macro route

 

[mike3767]

I just got the 60 and have rented the 100 and 50. The thing I like best about the 60 is the quite focus. The 50 and 100 were really loud. So keep that in mind cuz you might scare your subject with a loud focus. I do love my 60, takes great pics and it's also a dual purpose lens, cuz you can use it for portraits as well.

 

[SHaller]

They are both good lenses, but two things to consider: (1) when you are doing really close work on flowers or insects you can't really have too much room to work; the 100 on a crop body will still put your lens within a foot or so of the subject, and (2) the 60 is an EF-S lens, which means if you ever get a full-frame body the lens will not work on that body.

Thanks. I didn't know that about ef-s. Another thing i was wonder was if the 60mm would be sharper than than the 100mm while filling the frame with the identical shot. I'm not sure if you will lose sharpness from being farther away from the subject.

 

[NateS]

They are both good lenses, but two things to consider: (1) when you are doing really close work on flowers or insects you can't really have too much room to work; the 100 on a crop body will still put your lens within a foot or so of the subject, and (2) the 60 is an EF-S lens, which means if you ever get a full-frame body the lens will not work on that body.

Thanks. I didn't know that about ef-s. Another thing i was wonder was if the 60mm would be sharper than than the 100mm while filling the frame with the identical shot. I'm not sure if you will lose sharpness from being farther away from the subject.

No, the distance from you to the subject will not play a role in sharpness (not at these short distances).

I would honestly get the 100mm. You will still be (guesstimate) around 6-7 inches from your subject at 1:1 which is still pretty close. I shoot with a 180mm macro and am only about 12-14 inches away at 1:1. With a 100mm, the most you will ever have to "back away" from a flower or bug would be maybe 12-18 inches, and that's if you are shooting in the 1:2 range. That still is pretty close.

Look at the Tamron 90mm f2.8 as well. It is one of the sharpest lenses out there and probably a bit cheaper than the Canon 100mm....might save you a bit of money to put toward lighting or other wants/needs.

 

[Derrel]

Sigma 150mm EX Macro would be my suggestion. Skip the 60mm macro lenses entirely--60mm is fine for copying documents like 8.5x11 sheets of paper, but it is actually a royal PITA for small things...with a 60 on a crop-body, the FOV reduction still does not compensate much for the short focal length, and so with a 60, your front element is like 3 inches from small objects...leaving no room to light, shadows from your body under certain conditions, etc,etc.

 

[Dao]

With my Canon 100mm, sometimes I still felt I am too close to the BEEs.

 

[nahtanoj]

i use the 100mm 2.8 on a crop sensor. i have no complaints on the lens. it is sharp from a few feet back, all the way up to it's closest focusing distance. if you are after macro, i say go for the bigger focal length. it'll give you the close up detail, and still allow you to back off for a more open shot.

 

[SHaller]

No, the distance from you to the subject will not play a role in sharpness (not at these short distances).

I would honestly get the 100mm. You will still be (guesstimate) around 6-7 inches from your subject at 1:1 which is still pretty close. I shoot with a 180mm macro and am only about 12-14 inches away at 1:1. With a 100mm, the most you will ever have to "back away" from a flower or bug would be maybe 12-18 inches, and that's if you are shooting in the 1:2 range. That still is pretty close.

Look at the Tamron 90mm f2.8 as well. It is one of the sharpest lenses out there and probably a bit cheaper than the Canon 100mm....might save you a bit of money to put toward lighting or other wants/needs.

I really appreciate all the input from everyone! But, isn't the closest focusing distance 12in?

 

[Josh66]

But, isn't the closest focusing distance 12in?

Yes, but that is measured from the film/sensor plane.

From the end of the lens, it would be like 5 or 6 inches (for the 100mm).

 

[SHaller]

I forgot to mention, are the sigma 105 and the tokina 100 worth looking at? Also, i will probably me making more threads like this in the future while I am trying to acculate the gear for my needs. Thanks again!

 

[SHaller]

From the end of the lens, it would be like 5 or 6 inches (for the 100mm).

Thanks. I learn something new everyday.

 

[eccs19]

I forgot to mention, are the sigma 105 and the tokina 100 worth looking at? Also, i will probably me making more threads like this in the future while I am trying to acculate the gear for my needs. Thanks again!

The Sigma 105 is nice and sharp. Here's a sample from it. I've not had it long, but can't complain so far.