I'm contemplating purchasing the Canon EF-S 60mm f/2.8 macro. The reviews I've read are all good. Does anyone here have experience with this lens or a suggestion for a better one?

 

I played around with one at my local camera shop and was pretty impressed by it. It's small, light, and sharp. The only thing I wasn't wild about was how close you needed to be to the subject for 1:1 magnification. It would be fine for flowers and stationary subjects, but if you're trying to capture insects, they'll likely be too skittish to let you get that close. The upside is the 60mm focal length is great for portraits when you're not using it for macro duties.

SS uses the EF 100mm macro which is also a fantastic lens, and it affords a little more working space between you and the subject. If I were buying a macro today, it would likely be the Sigma 150mm HSM. It's the same price as the Canon 100mm, but it has a farther working distance and a tripod collar included. Sigma's HSM is just as quiet and fast as Canon's USM, but you're not likely to use the autofocus much if you're using them for macros.

 

Thanks Dan - I'll definitely check out the other 2 lenses before I buy!

 

I've been thinking about getting a macro lens too. It may be my next lens. My understanding is that a macro lens will allow you to take pictures of things up close but how is it when taking pictures from far away. Meaning, how is a 50mm macro lens different from a regular 50mm lens when taking portraits? Also, how do you know when you have 1:1 magnification? Is there a setting you put it on and you move until the subject is in focus? I read on one of my magazines that the 60mm finally gives digital users a true 1:1 lens. So is 1:1 not possible with a 100mm on my Rebel? Is 100mm still good for portraits? I would like more distance when taking macro pictures but if I can make more use out of it for other things, that would probably be better.

I may ask my wife for a macro lens for christmas unless I find a nice, fast and sharp lens that gives me more distance than my 18-55mm. The 70-200mm you guys keep raving about sounds nice, but is probably too much for me at this stage. I would like something I can carry around as well. Any suggestions would be great. I've got a couple of months to think about it. lol.

 

A macro lens makes for a great portrait lens. There's really no downside to using one as a regular lens, other than they tend to be a little slower to autofocus.

I'm assuming the magazine meant to say that the EF-S 60mm is the first cropped-sensor macro in Canon's lineup. Any of the 1:1 lenses will give you 1:1 on your Rebel. All you have to do is turn the focus ring to the closest setting, then move the camera backwards or forwards until the subject is in focus. Autofocus will fight you here, so be sure to flip the switch to manual mode.

The 1:1 concept is a little confusing with cropped sensors. The image being projected by the lens at the sensor's plane is in fact 1:1 regardless if it's full frame or cropped. The difference is your effective field of view is 1.6x smaller than the full 35mm frame. Essentially, it will seem like you're 1.6x closer. If you want the same field of view as a full frame, you can work 1.6x farther away. Or, you can trade that working distance for essentially a 1.6:1 magnification.

 

What he's really trying to say is: Get a full-frame sensor!

 

 

Don't sweat 1:1 magnification.
a 1:1 lens means the lens can take pictures of smaller objects than a 1:2 lens.
It's just a specification.

In general, higher focal length + smaller f stop are good for portraits, since both
reduce depth of field.

Something to think about, buying a lens with 1:1 magnification means you intend to use it to shoot objects roughly as big as the sensor. that's 24mm x 35mm.
If you don't shoot that small, you should consider getting something else that would suit your needs better. I mention this because I got a macro lens,
and rarely ever use it. I just don't think that small. (yet).

 

Thanks for all the info. That is what I understood from the magazine, but just didn't know how to convey it correctly. They said that the 60mm will be about 96mm on the cropped-sensor cameras.

Anyway, so there really isn't any difference between macro lens and regular lens? Since I already have a 50mm, I may consider the 100mm more than the 60mm.


I wish I could


Thanks for the info. I have some fondness to looking at and taking pictures up close. So I've been thinking about a macro lens from the beginning. I just don't know much about them and the specifications. There are times when I want to take a much closer shot at something that I end up having to back away cause my lens can focus on it. That is something a macro lens will allow me to do right?

 

Did the OP end up getting the macro lens?

I am in the same boat and would like more opinions on the 60mm/100mm lenses.

 

I ended up purchasing the 60mm. It's the sharpest lens in my kit, and I really enjoy using it. I do find limitations along the lines of focal distance on occasion, as Dan mentioned. I don't shoot insects often, though, so it hasn't held me back too much. It's a very nice portrait lens, too. It's nice for the horses because I can back off a bit. Oh, and it's tiny & light! Great for hiking...

I've decided to go ahead & buy Jup's 100mm too, though, just so I no longer have to compromise.

 

I'd go with the 100mm just because of the reach, it works out a lot better. If you want more reach the Sigma 150mm 2.8 is also a good one, but it's but like a tank, the 100mm sits in your bag better and on your body.

If you really want reach 180mm, I have a Sigma 3.5 Canon mount , if anybody is interested.

 

If I didn't just buy a 50D and an Epson 4880, I'd be all over that 180mm. I'd love to add a longer macro to the kit.

 

Silly question:

What is the difference (in the view finder) between using the, say 70-200mm lens at 180mm, and using the 180mm macro?

 

None, 180mm is 180mm, the macro lens just allows 1:1 within the focus distance, as in the case of the Sigma 180mm macro, they have three distances to select from

Full
0.61-infiniti
0.46-0.61

this is meters

 

Is it safe to say that a macro lens simply has lesser minimum focus distance than a non-macro lens, which allows you to get close to the subject and acheive 1x1 magnification.


For example, if you lock the 70-200mm lens at 180mm, and compare with the 180mm macro. With the 180mm macro, get close to the subject to get 1x1 magnification. Now, from the same distance, mount the 70-200mm @ 180mm. From what I understand, the 70-200mm won't be able to focus on the object since it's too close. Please correct me if I'm wrong.

 

That's pretty much it, macro lenses are just designed to focus closer.

They also tend to have near-zero distortion, which is particularly important for macro work. Even though the 70-200 is well corrected for distortion, the distortion is noticeable when I use extension tubes to get it to focus like a macro lens. It becomes very hard to get the entire frame in focus without stopping down a lot.

 

Ah, married life.

 

I got the EF 100 macro as a wedding gift and it's been fun to use on the 40D. I was leaning towards the EF-S 60 at first, but the greater working distance swayed me, as did the fact that the 100 will work on any possible future FF purchases.

It does produce great images, and is really sharp. Primes are hard to beat for pure IQ.

 

Congrats waTSX

 

Thanks dude!

 

as others have already stated, but something that I was personally not to pleased with, the focus on macros is slower than standard canon zooms. this can make it especially challenging in low light situations.

i own the 100 2.8 and unless i need super shallow DOF or really need to get in close I find the 70-200 2.8 to do a pretty good job also

 

Welcome to AZ tjawed!

IMO, the slow focus of a macro isn't a huge issue, because, like Dan said, you're generally dealing with narrow depths of field, so you want to use manual focus anyway. For portraits, the AF is good enough.

 

If you're actually using a macro lens for macro work, you're better off not using autofocus at all. In fact, I don't even use the manual focus ring to focus. Instead, I leave the focus ring in place and just move the body back and forth until the subject is in focus.

The focus ring is really nothing more than a "magnification ring". A lens will only be at its maximum magnification at its closest focus distance. If the subject is too big for the frame at that magnification, you can focus farther away then move the camera back to focus. Because the subject is now farther away, it will be reduced in size, hence it will also be at a lower magnification.

That being said, most macros also make for good portrait lenses. If you're trying to track a moving subject, then you might have some trouble with the autofocus, but the limiting switch can help. General purpose lenses will still be faster though.

Edit: waTSX just beat me to the submit button.