EF-S 60mm Macro

I just got a nice new 40D and completely lack any macro lenses. Since I plan on sticking with the 40D for a long while, would the EF-S 60mm f2.8 Macro be a good choice for an inexpensive macro lens, or should I go for the 50mm f2.5? Has anyone had any experiences with these two lenses? I'm leaning towards the 60mm.

Give your provided choice, I would go with the 60, but having said that I personally would go with the 100mm even with the increased price. I use the 60 now, it's a great lens, but I find myself wishing I had the extra length for true macro work.

hobbler said:

I just got a nice new 40D and completely lack any macro lenses.
Since I plan on sticking with the 40D for a long while, would the
EF-S 60mm f2.8 Macro be a good choice for an inexpensive macro lens,
or should I go for the 50mm f2.5? Has anyone had any experiences
with these two lenses? I'm leaning towards the 60mm.

Click to expand...

Not sure what the comment above means?!...

The Canon 60mm macro does 1:1 just like the 100mm lens. Both are great lenses, but the 60mm is smaller, lighter, and I think has better bokeh. In my opinion, if you have a 1.6X crop body this is the best lens around. For larger bodies I think the Canon 100mm macro would be the lens to get for anyone starting out with macro.

My 0.02 worth.

I have owned the 60mm for a year and a half. I use it extensively for product photography. If you want a good close-up lens, the 60mm is superb. It can do macro photography, but a longer focal length (like 100mm or 150mm) gives you extra working distance and convenience (plus a nicer blurred background). On the other hand, the 60mm is relatively small and light and can be put in the corner of you bag so it will be available.
--

hobbler said:

Bill.

Click to expand...

The 100mm is tempting, but the difficulty comes with the money. I just bought a 40D and the 70-200 f4 in the past few months, and the wife made me promise to not buy another lens for a while. I can "ask forgiveness" for the 60mm and 50mm, but the 100mm would be a bit much

byteseller said:

Not sure what the comment above means?!...

Click to expand...

Generally speaking, the longer the focal length of a macro lens the greater the working distance (distance from end of lens to subject). Hence a 100mm macro lens would allow you to be further away from the subject than the 60mm macro for the same magnification.

Rough working distances at 1:1 magnification :-

60mm lens - approx 9 cm
100mm lens - approx 14.5 cm
180mm lens - approx 24 cm

If you're shooting live subjects the extra working distance can be very useful. It also makes getting light onto the subject easier.

--
You want macros? We got 'em! Check out:
http://www.pbase.com/cjed

I use the EF-S 60/2.8, EF 100/2.8USM, and EF 50/2.5, the latter two on FF as well as 1.6-factor. If you are not looking over your shoulder at moving right away from 1.6-factor to FF, then the 60/2.8 is significantly preferable to the 50/2.5 for its much better handling (including full-time manual focus) and its range to x1, for which the 50/2.5 requires the (quite expensive) Life Size Converter (which does actually work very well) or an EF25 tube. Also, for general use, the 60/2.8 activates high-precision focus, wheras the 50/2.5, despite being a faster lens, has a special flag set in its 'handshake' with the camera that limits it to normal precision. Optically there is little to choose between them. I prefer the 60/2.8 strongly for fieldwork, but (even on 1.6-factor) I find that the 50/2.5 is the better lens for copying artwork.

The 100/2.8 is a much bigger and heavier lens than either the 60/2.8 or 50/2.5. It covers the same range of magnifications as the 60/2.8, to x1, but with longer working distance. It's a great lens on FF, but on 1.6-factor it can be a bit in-between - the working distance is inconvenently long for a lot of medium close-up work, but not long enough for insects like many butterflies and dragonflies. It has the added advantage of a focus-limiter switch, but the disadvantage that, because it uses a 58mm filter, you can't mount a filter and a macro flash together, whereas you can do this with the 50/2.5 and 60/2.8, both of which use a 52mm filter.

My advice would be to go for the 60/2.8 initially. If you then decide you want the 100/2.8, very likely it will be to supplement rather than replace the 60/2.8.

RS_RS said:

My advice would be to go for the 60/2.8 initially. If you then decide
you want the 100/2.8, very likely it will be to supplement rather
than replace the 60/2.8.

Click to expand...

How well does the 60mm hold up as a portrait/walkaround lens? Right now, my lineup is the EF-S 10-22m, 35mm f2, and 70-200mm f4. The 35mm pretty much lived on my 350D, and is doing much the same thing with my 40D. Having something in the middle ranges isn't really vital, but definitely desirable. Especially if it can do macro shots as well as be usable in "normal" situations while traveling.

I have the EF-S 60mm macro lens and it is my second most used lens.

Don't buy the 50mm f2.5 macro. You do want a longer lens to keep some distance to your subject. Even the 60mm is very close sometimes.

I have used this lens for portrait work and it gives very good results. The images are very sharp and colour and contrast is good.

The only problem you can have sometimes is that this lens can hunt for focus sometimes. The lens is designed for close-up work and it sometimes takes a second to find focus if it misfocusses and goes through the full focus distance range in search of focus. If you're not in a hurry this isn't an issue and you can prefend it by carefully aiming your camera before half-pressing the shutter button.
In my last studio shoot I used the 70-200mm f4 IS which I liked even better.

Some recommend the EF 85mm f1.8 for portraits which is a very sharp and faster lens. I can't comment on this lens as I don't own it [yet].

Yes, you can use this lens as a normal lens too but it is a bit long ( 100mm eqv.) for walkaround purposes. The 35mm is much better.

The 60 macro will fit in your lens lineup very nicely. It makes a fine portrait lens and also great at macro of course. It is also small and light so it doesn't take up much room in the bag and is easy to hand hold.

First a suggestion for the OP. I believe you said you have 70-200 f4. A less expensive option would be to try a 58 mm Canon 500D closeup lens plus 67 to 58 step down ring. Your 40D won't see the smaller diameter, in fact my 5D doesn't see it. Its a convenient intro to macro and your working distance is about 18" from the lens front.

Now the question regarding the 60 mm macro. Canon say it is 1:1 but isn't this 1:1 on an APS-C sized sensor? That is not the same as the 100 mm's 1:1 on FF. If the 50 f2.5 is 1:2 full frame then it is, I think, 1:1.25 on APS-C for a 0.8 magnification. I can't seem to get Julian's Lens Calculator to tell me for sure, but the focal lengths and minimum focusing distances seem to suggest this.

Also, what is with this flag that tells the camera that the 50's f2.5 is not as good as the 60's f2.8 and can't use the camera's higher precision focus detectors? Can you document this?

Thanks for your input.

Well on further reflection, I'm wrong. 1:1 is 1:1. If I photograph a 35 mm wide butterfly with my 100 mm lens using the 5D I get the entire butterfly but using a 40D I would only get a 1.6 crop of the butterfly. That is crop factor, not magnification.
60 mm is 1:1 and 50 mm is 1:2 no mater which camera you mount it on.

nolten said:

First a suggestion for the OP. I believe you said you have 70-200
f4. A less expensive option would be to try a 58 mm Canon 500D
closeup lens plus 67 to 58 step down ring. Your 40D won't see the
smaller diameter, in fact my 5D doesn't see it. Its a convenient
intro to macro and your working distance is about 18" from the lens
front.

Click to expand...

Huh. Cool suggestion. How would I go about this doing this, exactly?

hobbler said:

I'm leaning towards the 60mm.

Click to expand...

As you well should. : ) Take a gander:

http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1029&message=23292671

--
--joe

http://www.josephjamesphotography.com
http://www.pbase.com/joemama/

Sure here is the 500D:

http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/87494-REG/Canon_2822A002_58mm_500D_Close_up_Lens.html

And here is the adaptor ring:

http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/98926-REG/General_Brand_67_58_67mm_58mm_Step_Down_Ring_Lens.html

If the links don't work, part #s are B&H# CACUL500D58 and B&H# GBSDR6758. The 500D is $86.95 and the adaptor is $7.95. Optically, a dedicated macro will be bettter but these are light and simple and come very close in IQ. The zoom feature gives you a lot of flexability for framing a shot. Search on Canon 500D for reviews.

Good luck!

byteseller said:

The Canon 60mm macro does 1:1 just like the 100mm lens. Both are
great lenses, but the 60mm is smaller, lighter, and I think has
better bokeh.

Click to expand...

You'll find that the 100mm will have "more" bokeh than the 60, because of the longer focal length. Scroll down on this page for a comparison:

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/Canon-EF-S-60mm-f-2.8-Macro-USM-Lens-Review.aspx

I have both lenses and I use the 60 only when I need to. If you want to get 1:1 with the 60 and you need to be ridiculously close. The 100 is much easier to work with - longer working distance.

Cheers
Fred

--
http://www.fredwobus.com

The 60 is sweet. It is probably the sharpest, flattest field macro available, and it is easy to carry to boot. I also like the 100, but it is heavy, and it doesn't double as a short tele/portrait lens as well as the 60. I'd buy the 60 first, and look for a longer (maybe even third party) macro lens later if I felt the need.

--
Voyager

Thanks everyone, I really appreciate the help. The 60mm looks like what I'm going to go for, especially after seeing the pictures that Joe took. Just one more question. Say, for instance, I order it without the wife's knowledge. How similiar to the 35mm is it in size and appearance? Could I theoretically pass them off as the same for a bit? That's for later, though. I think right now I'll go ahead and order the 500D and use that. I take macro shots very, very rarely. Being able to take basic macro shots will give me the opportunity to figure out if I enjoy it. The size of the 500D is also much better, since my next trip will be fairly limited in what I can bring.

Thanks again!

Optically the 60/2.8 is outstanding as a general-purpose long-focus lens. As others have pointed out, the only real problem is that the lack of a focus limiter can cause it to rack through the entire focusing range if it loses focus badly.

RS_RS said:

for which the 50/2.5 requires the (quite expensive) Life Size Converter
(which does actually work very well)

Click to expand...

You can get these used for reasonable prices. KEH typically has some for under $100. (Interestingly, not that much more than the 25mm tube.) It can be used on other lenses too. I've used it on my 70-300IS with good success to get "standing distance" closeups (the IS works great although you tend to loose AF as you zoom.)

Here's an example:
http://www.pbase.com/maderik/image/79925291/original.jpg

--
Erik