Macro Lenses

A

A.E.S

Messages
2
Edit My Images
No
Hi, I'm in search of some advice on a lens for macro photography. I have a crop sensor (1.6x) canon and the lenses I'm looking at are the EF 100mm and the EF-S 60mm. The price of both these lenses are quite similar so I'm not to worried about that. I understand the it will depend on what exactly what I plan to photograph but I don't really know, I plan to try out some different and see what I enjoy the most. So I suppose I'm looking for the best... multipurpose lens? (I feel like I will prefer static objects like flowers ext. but would still like to try insect photography)

Anyway, I would appreciate any opinions. Do you have either of these lenses? What do you use them for?
 
Try looking at my signature and click on the flickr link...there's an album for the Canon 100mm f2.8 ...... Or even look on the internet for some ideas :)
 
Last edited:
A.E.S said:
I have a crop sensor (1.6x) canon and the lenses I'm looking at are the EF 100mm and the EF-S 60mm.
Click to expand...
They'll both be good optically. All macro lenses are good optically. And both will give you 1:1 magnification, which means that at the minimum focus distance (MFD) the image on the sensor is the same size as the subject. In other words, you can take a photo of something which is about 22mm x 14mm and it will fill your frame.

The big difference between them is how close you have to be to your subject, to achieve that level of magnification. The 100mm lens has a MFD of about 30cm, and the 60mm lens has a MFD of about 20cm. But these are measured from the sensor. You need to subtract the thickness of the camera and the length of the lens from the MFD to get the MWD, minimum working distance, which is the distance from the front of the lens to the subject. The MWD is about 15cm for the 100mm lens and about 9cm for the 60mm lens.

For still life it doesn't really make much difference, though having a larger MWD may make it easier for you to light your subject. But for insects and creepy crawlies which might get skittish if you put the lens too close to them, a larger MWD can be very helpful.
 
StewartR said:
For still life it doesn't really make much difference,...
Click to expand...

One difference for still life is perspective.

Personally even for still life I prefer a longer lens. On my Canon APS-C and FF I used a Sigma 150mm f2.8 which I thought was very nice, these days I use a 50mm on MFT for a 35mm equivalent field of view of 100mm but I do still find it a bit short and lust after that 150mm.

So... I think that focal length and working distance and perspective are all worth giving thought to.
 
I had a 60mm macro once, it was ridiculous how close you had to be to the subject sometimes and that focal length was covered by other lenses so it wasn't useful for anything but macro

I now have a 90mm macro which is much more useful as a macro, but also doubles as a good portrait lens too, so I'd defo suggest you go for the 100mm rather than the 60mm based on my experience

Dave
 
A huge thanks to everyone that has commented! It has been hugely helpful. I have decided that the 100mm is definitely the best lens for me.

A further question for anyone that has the 100mm or a similar lens: Do you use a tripod mount ring?

I didn't think one would be needed for a 100mm lens but it is listed as one of the accessories for the lens and I'm not sure if I need it or what the benefits of using one are. It is very expensive for what is is.
If I don't use one do I risk damaging the tripod mount point on my camera or the head of my tripod (a ball head) ?
 
A.E.S said:
Do you use a tripod mount ring?

I didn't think one would be needed for a 100mm lens but it is listed as one of the accessories for the lens and I'm not sure if I need it or what the benefits of using one are. It is very expensive for what is is.
If I don't use one do I risk damaging the tripod mount point on my camera or the head of my tripod (a ball head) ?
Click to expand...
Canon make two different types of 100mm macro lens: the "L" series one with IS and the "ordinary" one without IS. The "L"one can accept a tripod mount ring but the other one can't.

I can't see that the weights and lengths of the lenses are sufficiently different that a tripod mount ring would be required. The L version is 625g and 123mm and the other is 600g and 118mm. And when you look at other manufacturers, the Sigma 105mm macro is 725mm and 126mm but that can't accept a mount ring. I really don't understand why Canon think it's necessary, even as an option.

FYI the weak point in the setup is usually the lens mount. With the camera on a tripod and the lens unsupported, the weight of the lens on the camera mount is more of an issue than the weight of the camera+lens on the tripod. (Unless you have an extraordinarily feeble tripod.)
 
I can't recommend the Sigma 105mm OS highly enough, it's a truly brilliant lens. I tried most of the Canon fit macro lenses prior to purchase and it was as good, if not better than the Canon 100mm L.

As for tripod mounts, I've always shot hand held with this lens. Hardly ever bother with a tripod.
 
Last edited:
I have owned the Canon 100mm macro and it's a BRILLIANT lens - pin sharp and with extension tubes you can get even better than the 1:1 magnification.

It's also a pretty good portrait lens if you can get back far enough!

This is an example of what it can do:


blossom.jpg
​

That little flower was about 5mm across.

Photographed indoors with Kenko auto extension tubes and tripod on a 1.6 crop camera (Canon 450D).
.
 
Last edited:
A.E.S said:
A further question for anyone that has the 100mm or a similar lens: Do you use a tripod mount ring?
Click to expand...

Hi A.E.S...the Canon 100mm f2.8 USM ( the older one and not the "L" version ) does take a Tripod Mount Ring, see below.

IMG_2262-Edit.jpg

But, if you use a Battery Grip like I do, it can cause the grip to foul certain tripod heads, so I only use it under certain circumstances.

Whichever lens you go for ( and I'd go for the above lens as it is a quality piece of glass ) I hope you enjoy it (y)

Here is a shot taken with my 100mm f2.8 USM

Yellow-Dung-Fly-web.jpg

Andy...:)
 
A.E.S said:
A huge thanks to everyone that has commented! It has been hugely helpful. I have decided that the 100mm is definitely the best lens for me.

A further question for anyone that has the 100mm or a similar lens: Do you use a tripod mount ring?

I didn't think one would be needed for a 100mm lens but it is listed as one of the accessories for the lens and I'm not sure if I need it or what the benefits of using one are. It is very expensive for what is is.
If I don't use one do I risk damaging the tripod mount point on my camera or the head of my tripod (a ball head) ?
Click to expand...

If a lens needs a tripod collar, then Canon supplies one, though for some (eg 70-200 f/4, 70-300L) it is definitely desirable if not actually essential. In use, a disadvantage of not having a tripod collar is the camera/lens becomes very front-heavy and that can make accurate positioning more difficult.

Third-party collars are available at much more reasonable prices, but some are rubbish (plastic), some are crudely made (inconvenient, and can scratch the lens) and some are as good as the real thing. I have had them all, and the very good one I use now is by Fotodiox (on a 70-200/4).

Edit: Fotodiox website doesn't appear to list a tripod collar for the Canon non-L 100/2.8 macro
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top