Macro 1:1 and 60mm VS 100mm which is larger?

msaha

TPF Noob!
Joined
Jun 7, 2012
Messages
77
Reaction score
5
Location
The Sultanate of Oman
Can others edit my Photos
Photos OK to edit
Hello everybody! ;)

I have a question about macro photography with a Canon DSLR such as the 60D (Future upgrade) given the two lenses to choose from: Canon EF-S 60mm macro or the Canon EF 100mm macro?
I won't be upgrading to a Full-Frame camera anywhere soon.
Thinking of the 1:1 magnification ratio and the focal length of both lenses I thought that a 100mm would get a HUGE magnification in close-up shots, but 1:1 ratio on both lenses means that both get the same magnified image?
If I shot an ant with 60mm 1:1 would it be the same as 100mm 1:1 ?
If so, then why do people buy the EF 100mm more than they buy the EF-S 60mm as it has a lesser focal length which means a LARGER depth of field which should be GOOD for macro photography.?
images

or
images

Still not sure!
What about lens sharpness?
I heard that the 100mm because it is an EF mount lens, Has a better sharpness in the corners if used in an APS-C sensor as it will only see through the best part of the lens which is the middle?
what should I do?
I Totally have no idea!
:(
Would appreciate some help!
 
The longer focal length allows you to get the picture from a farther distance which is good for insects or anything you can scare by getting to close. Personally I would prefer the 100mm but as it is longer you have a slightly greater chance of camera shake. but chances are you will be using a tripod for these shots anyway
 
Also, your field of view will be different a little bit. Your subject may be the same size but you see more of the background on the 60mm.

I would get the 100mm one... only because it can be used for both crop and full frame. Easier to find someone to buy it.
 
I think the main different you will notice is the EF vs EF-S and the working distance at 1:1 macro distance.


60mm macro: Min focus distance around 7.9 inches while working distance around 3.5 inches
100mm macro: Min focus distance around 12.2 inches while working distance around 5.9 inches.

So you have about extra 2 1/2 inches if you use the 100mm. For me, I prefer longer distance from the insect not to scare them away (or scare me away). In additional, it maybe harder to apply lighting if the distance between the subject and front element is kind of close.
 
OTOH, if planning on using extension rings or bellows, you will get more magnification with less extension when using the 60mm over the 100mm.

Other than the the primary difference ought to be working distance.
 
The big difference is how close you have to be to your subject. With the 100mm about 8 to 9 inches. With the 60mm about 4 to 5 inches. Therefore the 100 is better especially when shooting insects as they don't hold still very well t
Hello everybody! ;)

I have a question about macro photography with a Canon DSLR such as the 60D (Future upgrade) given the two lenses to choose from: Canon EF-S 60mm macro or the Canon EF 100mm macro?
I won't be upgrading to a Full-Frame camera anywhere soon.
Thinking of the 1:1 magnification ratio and the focal length of both lenses I thought that a 100mm would get a HUGE magnification in close-up shots, but 1:1 ratio on both lenses means that both get the same magnified image?
If I shot an ant with 60mm 1:1 would it be the same as 100mm 1:1 ?
If so, then why do people buy the EF 100mm more than they buy the EF-S 60mm as it has a lesser focal length which means a LARGER depth of field which should be GOOD for macro photography.?
images

or
images

Still not sure!
What about lens sharpness?
I heard that the 100mm because it is an EF mount lens, Has a better sharpness in the corners if used in an APS-C sensor as it will only see through the best part of the lens which is the middle?
what should I do?
I Totally have no idea!
:(
Would appreciate some help!
 
The longer focal length allows you to get the picture from a farther distance which is good for insects or anything you can scare by getting to close. Personally I would prefer the 100mm but as it is longer you have a slightly greater chance of camera shake. but chances are you will be using a tripod for these shots anyway

Yeah, for taking photos of dangerous insects such as wasps, scorpions, and bees. Also great for snakes!

Also, your field of view will be different a little bit. Your subject may be the same size but you see more of the background on the 60mm.

I would get the 100mm one... only because it can be used for both crop and full frame. Easier to find someone to buy it.

Hmmmm.... Haven't thought about that! Yeah now I see why most people buy the EF model.
Thanks!

I think the main different you will notice is the EF vs EF-S and the working distance at 1:1 macro distance.


60mm macro: Min focus distance around 7.9 inches while working distance around 3.5 inches
100mm macro: Min focus distance around 12.2 inches while working distance around 5.9 inches.

So you have about extra 2 1/2 inches if you use the 100mm. For me, I prefer longer distance from the insect not to scare them away (or scare me away). In additional, it maybe harder to apply lighting if the distance between the subject and front element is kind of close.

Right!
Lighting is also a decisive factor here.
Might think it all over again with another way.
Thanks allot!

OTOH, if planning on using extension rings or bellows, you will get more magnification with less extension when using the 60mm over the 100mm.

Other than the the primary difference ought to be working distance.

I see, Hmmm.... How frustrating!
well, you can't get everything in one package.
Thanks!

The big difference is how close you have to be to your subject. With the 100mm about 8 to 9 inches. With the 60mm about 4 to 5 inches. Therefore the 100 is better especially when shooting insects as they don't hold still very well t
Hello everybody! ;)

I have a question about macro photography with a Canon DSLR such as the 60D (Future upgrade) given the two lenses to choose from: Canon EF-S 60mm macro or the Canon EF 100mm macro?
I won't be upgrading to a Full-Frame camera anywhere soon.
Thinking of the 1:1 magnification ratio and the focal length of both lenses I thought that a 100mm would get a HUGE magnification in close-up shots, but 1:1 ratio on both lenses means that both get the same magnified image?
If I shot an ant with 60mm 1:1 would it be the same as 100mm 1:1 ?
If so, then why do people buy the EF 100mm more than they buy the EF-S 60mm as it has a lesser focal length which means a LARGER depth of field which should be GOOD for macro photography.?
images

or
images

Still not sure!
What about lens sharpness?
I heard that the 100mm because it is an EF mount lens, Has a better sharpness in the corners if used in an APS-C sensor as it will only see through the best part of the lens which is the middle?
what should I do?
I Totally have no idea!
:(
Would appreciate some help!

Best to buy the 100mm, after reading all the helpful comments I now know the different between them both!
Thank you all!
 
Just a point ,but if you are going after snakes and other dangerous animals you might want to consider a 180mm macro lens. Canon makes a 180mm L but Sigma also make a very good 180mm macro which always proved to be a the more popular choice over the canon L (same performance, lower price). It was discontinued very recently, so only on the second hand market; however a newer 180mm f2.8 macro is listed for release at some point in the near future. Till then you've got the original on the second hand market and Sigmas 150mm f2.8 macro (also recently ended line, but replaced with a 150mm OS edition).
 
Just a point ,but if you are going after snakes and other dangerous animals you might want to consider a 180mm macro lens. Canon makes a 180mm L but Sigma also make a very good 180mm macro which always proved to be a the more popular choice over the canon L (same performance, lower price). It was discontinued very recently, so only on the second hand market; however a newer 180mm f2.8 macro is listed for release at some point in the near future. Till then you've got the original on the second hand market and Sigmas 150mm f2.8 macro (also recently ended line, but replaced with a 150mm OS edition).


Okay, now I am confused!
will the OS version be at a similar price range as the 100mm non-L?
I meant the 150mm Sigma, and what are your general thoughts about it?
IQ, CA, Vignetting compared to the 100mm Canon?
I know someone in Sigma that can lower the prices for me (That is what made me interested).
 
I would expect the sigma 150mm OS to be more than the 100mm non L version from Canon - by how much I'm not sure (I'm not in the US market) but Adorama or any major store should already be selling the 150mm OS edition. In the UK its price is more comparable to that of the 100mm L.

That said the original 150mm is no slouch and if you can get a copy its a fantastic lens. Honestly trying to tell macro lenses apart is hard, really hard. They all deliver a very similar very high quality of finish and most differences are really going to come down to very picky personal tastes. In general there are no bad prime macro lenses on the current market from the major producers both 1st and 3rd party.
 
If I shot an ant with 60mm 1:1 would it be the same as 100mm 1:1 ?
!

Yes

If so, then why do people buy the EF 100mm more than they buy the EF-S 60mm as it has a lesser focal length which means a LARGER depth of field which should be GOOD for macro photography.?

No. That doesn't mean larger depth of field. The Depth of Field is the same on either lens at any given aperature. People buy the 100mm for the increased working distance.

What about lens sharpness?

What about it?

I heard that the 100mm because it is an EF mount lens, Has a better sharpness in the corners if used in an APS-C sensor as it will only see through the best part of the lens which is the middle?

Because the EF lens was made for bigger sensors so on the smaller silicone it uses the lens sweet spot.
 
will the OS version be at a similar price range as the 100mm non-L?

Check B&H Photo Video Digital Cameras, Photography, Camcorders to compare prices.

I meant the 150mm Sigma, and what are your general thoughts about it?

I use the lens on my Nikon D7000 with and without a Sigma 1.4x teleconverter. It's awesome. Plain and simple.

IQ, CA, Vignetting compared to the 100mm Canon?

You won't be able to tell a difference at 800 pixels wide on the long edge.
 
Just a point ,but if you are going after snakes and other dangerous animals you might want to consider a 180mm macro lens. Canon makes a 180mm L but Sigma also make a very good 180mm macro which always proved to be a the more popular choice over the canon L (same performance, lower price). It was discontinued very recently, so only on the second hand market; however a newer 180mm f2.8 macro is listed for release at some point in the near future. Till then you've got the original on the second hand market and Sigmas 150mm f2.8 macro (also recently ended line, but replaced with a 150mm OS edition).

Even a 200mm macro lens only has a working distance of about 10 inches. Since most shakes can strike at a distance about half their body length that would put you in the strike zone for most of them. Why not just use a conventional zoom or prime for that sort of thing?
 
What does the 1:1 ratio mean? Is it a setting on the lens?
 

Most reactions

New Topics

Back
Top