Is 100mm to tight for a crop-sensor?

splproductions

TPF Noob!
Joined
Dec 14, 2011
Messages
191
Reaction score
16
Location
Colorado
Can others edit my Photos
Photos OK to edit
I decided I'd rather just swing the extra bucks and get a dedicated macro lens instead of extension tubes. I'm debating between the Canon 60mm 2.8 and the 100mm 2.8 (non-L).

I've never shot macro before, so I don't have a handle on what different focal lengths will do for me. Would 100mm be too long on a crop-sensor? I'd imagine I'm going to start out shooting random objects on my kitchen table, but I'd like to eventually head outdoors and do bugs and other things (or maybe bring the bugs inside).

Also, maybe a stupid question, but will the 100mm give me more "macro detail" than the 60mm because it's more telephoto? Or is the maximum magnification the only thing that determines that?

Thanks -
 

480sparky

Chief Free Electron Relocator
Supporting Member
Joined
Mar 8, 2011
Messages
24,901
Reaction score
8,880
Location
Iowa
Website
pixels.com
Can others edit my Photos
Photos NOT OK to edit
The magnification is what counts.

100mm might be better because you can stay further away from your tiny subjects. This allows you to 'leave them be' if they're skittish, as well as light them better. Downside: Less DOF.
 

cgipson1

TPF Noob!
Joined
Aug 18, 2011
Messages
17,143
Reaction score
4,350
Can others edit my Photos
Photos NOT OK to edit
^what Sparky said! Minimum Focus distance will give you the Maximum magnification in Macro. But you also have to worry about how close the lens is to your subject, either because it frightens the insects, or throws a shadow that is hard to compensate for. The minimum range I recommend is usually 85 to 90mm... and I really prefer the 100 to 105mm lenses for general use. The Tokina 100 is a great first macro lens, and even used.. it is a great deal. The Tamron 90 is very popular also. The OEM lenses are excellent, but more costly typically. You might want to consider buying a used lens... they are readily available!
 

greybeard

Been spending a lot of time on here!
Joined
Dec 30, 2011
Messages
4,161
Reaction score
1,276
Location
WV
Can others edit my Photos
Photos OK to edit
I have a 105 and I think it is just about perfect. Before I got it, I used a 50mm with a Raynox. It got me close but, I was right on top of things. The 105mm puts you back far enough so as not to disturb your subject nor cast a shadow as shorter lenses do.
 
Last edited:

tirediron

Watch the Birdy!
Staff member
Supporting Member
Joined
Jul 8, 2005
Messages
45,747
Reaction score
14,802
Location
Victoria, BC
Website
www.johnsphotography.ca
Can others edit my Photos
Photos OK to edit
I used a 60mm on my D300 and often it required me to get a lot closer to the subjects than they were comfortable with. If you can lay your hands on a 90-105, do it! You won't be sorry.
 

TheFantasticG

No longer a newbie, moving up!
Joined
Oct 21, 2010
Messages
1,513
Reaction score
200
Location
Houston, Texas
Website
www.gplimages.com
Can others edit my Photos
Photos NOT OK to edit
100mm isn't enough for me. If anything I would like to upgrade from the 150mm to the Sigma 180mm OS. Of course, all the extra reach you can get when shooting bugs always helps. Well, almost always.
 

AncientSnapper

TPF Noob!
Joined
Dec 20, 2007
Messages
215
Reaction score
0
Location
England
Can others edit my Photos
Photos OK to edit
I think the only advantage in a 60mm is that you get a standard prime lens as well - but for serious work you need 100+mm for distance
 

Overread

has a hat around here somewhere
Staff member
Supporting Member
Joined
May 1, 2008
Messages
25,373
Reaction score
4,943
Location
UK - England
Website
www.deviantart.com
Can others edit my Photos
Photos OK to edit
Also, maybe a stupid question, but will the 100mm give me more "macro detail" than the 60mm because it's more telephoto? Or is the maximum magnification the only thing that determines that?

As said above, in the world of macro photography magnification is what defines what fits into the frame (along with the format* size that you are using). So a 1:1 magnification photo will give you the exact same frame coverage from a 35mm all the way to a 200mm lens. What will change are:

1) Distance to the subject; longer focal length lenses will have a longer minimum focusing distance at 1:1 magnification. This also generally corresponds to giving you a longer working distance as well (it will vary but in general the longer the focal length the more working distance you gain)

2) Blurring of the background. Longer focal length lenses will render the background more out of focus. The depth of field remains the same, but the nature of the out of focus areas will change. Note that with some photos (ie where the background is closer to the subject) this can mean that shorter focal length macro lenses can appear to have a greater depth of field, however its only an illusion made by the reduced blurring. (note this tends to be something you need to see at the extremes of focal lengths to really see big differences in).


I fully support the motion that a good 90-100mm macro lens is an ideal place to start with macro photography. Especially if you're already looking to work both indoors and outdoors as the 90-100mm range gives you an ideal middle ground which should prove not too long to work indoors and not too short to work out doors with.



Note:
Minimum focusing distance - distance from the sensor/film inside the camera to the subject
Working distance - distance from the front of the lens to the subject (generally only comes up for macro photography).

*ie the size of the sensor/film that you are shooting with. Clearly if you've a camera with a bigger sensor/film size then you will capture more surroundings when at the same magnification, than you would on a camera with a smaller sensor/film size
 

Most reactions

New Topics

Top