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

[nerwin]

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.

 

[FotosbyMike]

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. Also macro lens let you focus closer (Canon 60mm Macro - is 7.8") compared to then standard lenses (50mm 1.8 - 18"), that's a 10" difference.

A benefit you said is size, lighter smaller...etc. which could allow you to add expansion tubes, ease of carry.

 

[tirediron]

I don't design lenses for a living, nor have a background in optical physics, but I will assume that there are basic reasons for it. Like many things governed by the laws of physics, light has certain behavioral constraints. There are going to be optimal sizes for every function, and maximum and minimum practical sizes (hence why no one offers a 400mm f1.4). I assume that 60mm is a convenient focal length for achieving 1:1 magnification at a modest price point.

 

[nerwin]

Ha, I never considered compression or field of view a factor in a wider focal length.

So essentially, for example, Using a 60mm macro focusing to 1:1 on grass blade would allow you show more of the scene, adding context to the photo whereas a 100mm macro lens at 1:1 focused on that grass blade would basically almost and probably most likely isolate it.

Yep, that makes sense. I guess it just really depends what kind of macro style images you are trying to portray.

 

[table1349]

Because they can. People buy them.

 

[fmw]

I've used a 60mm macro lens for decades because it is the ideal focal length for tabletop product photography which is something I do a lot of. I just ordered a 60mm macro for my new Fujifilm system which has an APS-C sensor. 90 or 100 was terrific for 35mm but is too long for applications like mine on a smaller sensor.

I brought in a 40mm micro Nikkor at one point and found it to be an awful lens. I won't get into the details. I sold it immediately and went back to my old 60mm D lens.

Understand that you are influenced by this forum which has what I might term "acceptable" positions on equipment. Somebody states an opinion. It gains popularity and, after a while, it is repeated over and over by people who have never owned a macro lens or more than one so that they can make a comparison. At some point it becomes the "acceptable" position whether or not it is the best solution for a given application. I like the 90/100 focal length for full frame but I think 50 or 60 is better for APS-C sensors for most applications.

If I were an insect or medical shooter, I think I'd want a longer lens as well. For the rest of us on smaller sensors, I recommend 60mm for most applications.

 

[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.

 

[table1349]

I've used a 60mm macro lens for decades because it is the ideal focal length for tabletop product photography which is something I do a lot of. I just ordered a 60mm macro for my new Fujifilm system which has an APS-C sensor. 90 or 100 was terrific for 35mm but is too long for applications like mine on a smaller sensor.

I brought in a 40mm micro Nikkor at one point and found it to be an awful lens. I won't get into the details. I sold it immediately and went back to my old 60mm D lens.

Understand that you are influenced by this forum which has what I might term "acceptable" positions on equipment. Somebody states an opinion. It gains popularity and, after a while, it is repeated over and over by people who have never owned a macro lens or more than one so that they can make a comparison. At some point it becomes the "acceptable" position whether or not it is the best solution for a given application. I like the 90/100 focal length for full frame but I think 50 or 60 is better for APS-C sensors for most applications.

If I were an insect or medical shooter, I think I'd want a longer lens as well. For the rest of us on smaller sensors, I recommend 60mm for most applications.

Yep. a long user of the Canon MP-E 65mm Macro Lens for small product shoots. I love the fact that It can go from a 1 to 1 ratio to a 5 to 1 ratio. Bit of an expensive beast.

 

[nerwin]

I've used a 60mm macro lens for decades because it is the ideal focal length for tabletop product photography which is something I do a lot of. I just ordered a 60mm macro for my new Fujifilm system which has an APS-C sensor. 90 or 100 was terrific for 35mm but is too long for applications like mine on a smaller sensor.

I brought in a 40mm micro Nikkor at one point and found it to be an awful lens. I won't get into the details. I sold it immediately and went back to my old 60mm D lens.

Understand that you are influenced by this forum which has what I might term "acceptable" positions on equipment. Somebody states an opinion. It gains popularity and, after a while, it is repeated over and over by people who have never owned a macro lens or more than one so that they can make a comparison. At some point it becomes the "acceptable" position whether or not it is the best solution for a given application. I like the 90/100 focal length for full frame but I think 50 or 60 is better for APS-C sensors for most applications.

If I were an insect or medical shooter, I think I'd want a longer lens as well. For the rest of us on smaller sensors, I recommend 60mm for most applications.

Yep. a long user of the Canon MP-E 65mm Macro Lens for small product shoots. I love the fact that It can go from a 1 to 1 ratio to a 5 to 1 ratio. Bit of an expensive beast.

5:1!? Well hot damn.

 

[table1349]

I've used a 60mm macro lens for decades because it is the ideal focal length for tabletop product photography which is something I do a lot of. I just ordered a 60mm macro for my new Fujifilm system which has an APS-C sensor. 90 or 100 was terrific for 35mm but is too long for applications like mine on a smaller sensor.

I brought in a 40mm micro Nikkor at one point and found it to be an awful lens. I won't get into the details. I sold it immediately and went back to my old 60mm D lens.

Understand that you are influenced by this forum which has what I might term "acceptable" positions on equipment. Somebody states an opinion. It gains popularity and, after a while, it is repeated over and over by people who have never owned a macro lens or more than one so that they can make a comparison. At some point it becomes the "acceptable" position whether or not it is the best solution for a given application. I like the 90/100 focal length for full frame but I think 50 or 60 is better for APS-C sensors for most applications.

If I were an insect or medical shooter, I think I'd want a longer lens as well. For the rest of us on smaller sensors, I recommend 60mm for most applications.

Yep. a long user of the Canon MP-E 65mm Macro Lens for small product shoots. I love the fact that It can go from a 1 to 1 ratio to a 5 to 1 ratio. Bit of an expensive beast.

5:1!? Well hot damn.

Yep, you can get so close you can see a pimple on a gnat's @$$.

 

[nerwin]

I've used a 60mm macro lens for decades because it is the ideal focal length for tabletop product photography which is something I do a lot of. I just ordered a 60mm macro for my new Fujifilm system which has an APS-C sensor. 90 or 100 was terrific for 35mm but is too long for applications like mine on a smaller sensor.

I brought in a 40mm micro Nikkor at one point and found it to be an awful lens. I won't get into the details. I sold it immediately and went back to my old 60mm D lens.

Understand that you are influenced by this forum which has what I might term "acceptable" positions on equipment. Somebody states an opinion. It gains popularity and, after a while, it is repeated over and over by people who have never owned a macro lens or more than one so that they can make a comparison. At some point it becomes the "acceptable" position whether or not it is the best solution for a given application. I like the 90/100 focal length for full frame but I think 50 or 60 is better for APS-C sensors for most applications.

If I were an insect or medical shooter, I think I'd want a longer lens as well. For the rest of us on smaller sensors, I recommend 60mm for most applications.

Yep. a long user of the Canon MP-E 65mm Macro Lens for small product shoots. I love the fact that It can go from a 1 to 1 ratio to a 5 to 1 ratio. Bit of an expensive beast.

5:1!? Well hot damn.

Yep, you can get so close you can see a pimple on a gnat's @$$.

You probably could even pop some extension tubes on and get even further magnification! It would be scary what you could see.

 

[table1349]

I always wanted to put extension tubes on this and see how it worked.

Macro from 28 miles away.

 

[fmw]

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?

 

[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.

 

[fmw]

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.