60mm macro vs 70-200mm

Well - after that 50D review, I ordered the 450D. I wished the 450D had some basic video features but maybe that will show up in the next version, but I can't wait for it. I'm leaving in January to go backpacking around the world, so weight is an issue too.

Is there a big difference in terms of the type of photos I can take with a 60mm vs. a 70-200mm? Here's what I'm thinking about doing:

Have - 17-40mm L, 70-200mm L, and 100mm macro

Thinking about leaving those at home and getting this for my travel:

10-22mm, 70-200mm IS L, and maybe the 60mm macro, but I'm not sure if the 60mm is a overkill especially if I'm concerned with weight. I just realized I can probably answer my own question by comparing my 70-200mm L and the 100mm macro... doh!

I'll be taking mainly landscape / wildlife / people photos. Thanks

George

George Lin said:

Is there a big difference in terms of the type of photos I can take
with a 60mm vs. a 70-200mm?

Click to expand...

I apologize if I am being rude, but is this a serious question?

--
http://www.flickr.com/abnorm

I wouldn't take a 70-200 backpacking around the world. Weight makes a huge difference. on a crop I think I'd take a 10-22 and a 17-50 2.8 and maybe leave it at that. or various permutations on wide to portrait. If you're totally into macro then go for it. 3 pounds of extra weight is a lot for the 70-200. And usually 200mm is short for wildlife. But then the the 70-300 might not let in enough light, and 300mm can be too short too. For bright daylight wildlife the 100-400 is probably a better bet.

Try to think about the least you can carry. It's all about tradeoffs. Your wildlife desire often means long focal length which means weight. You don't have any fast lens in your lineup for low light/indoor photography.

Or you could try 10-22. 17-40 and a 50 1.8 or a 35 f2, or a sigma 30 1.8-something fast for low light.

Sorry - it's a serious question - I didn't clarify with the title - I was asking about the 60mm macro vs 70-200mm for MACRO purpose. "If I want to take a close up of a bug on a flower, I should be able to accomplish it with either one right?" That should've been the full question

For the 70-200mm L IS, I was thinking about the 4.0 version which is a lot lighter right?

Oh ok. For macro use, of course 60mm will let you focus much closer. (1X life-size). To make 70-200 focus closer (still not as close as 60mm macro), you can use it with a Canon 500D Close up filter or some extension tubes. It won't be as good as a real macro lens, but more versatile.
--
http://www.flickr.com/abnorm

George Lin said:

Sorry - it's a serious question - I didn't clarify with the title - I
was asking about the 60mm macro vs 70-200mm for MACRO purpose. "If I
want to take a close up of a bug on a flower, I should be able to
accomplish it with either one right?" That should've been the full
question

Click to expand...

No. The 70-200/4 is fairly close-focusing at 1.2 m, but in terms of magnification it is 0.21x (or 1:4.8) at minimum focus distance - nowhere near macro territory.

You can use extension tubes but I wouldn't recommend them with this lens, they mess up the focusing and zoom and make using it very counter-intuitive.

You can use the 500D supplementary close up lens on the 70-200/4 - I have one and the results are very good, with a maximum magnification of about 1:1.5 (0.66x). Limitations to be aware of are:

• With the 500D fitted, your focusing range is 300 mm minimum and 500 mm maximum, measured from the front of the lens. While that is perfect for insects because of the huge working distance, it is also quite limiting.

• The 500D is not available with a 67 mm thread, so you will have to buy a larger size and use a step-up ring. This means you can't use the lens hood.

I would still recommend the 500D, but you can't compare it with the convenience of a true macro lens which works all the way from 1:1 to infinity focus. I like to carry both - the 60 mm lens for the majority of macro work, and the 70-200 plus 500D (or the 300/4 plus 500D) when I want the greater working distance. But I wouldn't want to lug that lot around the world on my back!

If macro is important to you, but you also want something longer, how about the 100/2.8 macro and a Kenko Pro 300 DG 1.4x teleconverter? It's not a solution that I would normally suggest, but for backpacking it could make sense. That would give you a very capable macro lens which doubles as a portrait lens and shortish telephoto; with the TC you can do macro work from a greater distance (great for insects) and you also have a slightly longer telephoto (140 mm f/4). For one lens and one very small accessory that's not bad.

While the above combination does work, you should be aware that the Canon TC can't be used on the 100 macro; and there is no TC which works with EF-S lenses such as the 60 macro.

George Lin said:

I'm leaving in January to go
backpacking around the world, so weight is an issue too.
...
I'll be taking mainly landscape / wildlife / people photos. Thanks

Click to expand...

If weight is a big issue: 450D+18-55IS (the excellent new kit lens)+55-250IS+50/1.8

If weight is not quite as big an issue: 450D+Tamron 17-50/2.8+70-200/4IS+60/2.8 macro

I would leave the 10-22 at home (unless you absolutely need extreme wide angle).

mattr said:

If weight is not quite as big an issue: 450D+Tamron
17-50/2.8+70-200/4IS+60/2.8 macro

Click to expand...

--

I think this is the option to go with, with one exception. I say leave the 60mm f/2.8 at home and bring a set of extension tubes. The real question is how much 1:1 macro shots you intend to take. If you're planning to do a lot of shooting at 1:2 (which, with a 1.6x format camera, involves very small subjects), I would think that the dedicated macro lens is overkill. Slap even a single 25mm tube on the Tamron (or, even better, on the 18-55mm IS, which has better native magnification than the Tamron), and you're good for most purposes.

Player9 said:

... I say
leave the 60mm f/2.8 at home and bring a set of extension tubes.

Click to expand...

Yes, extension tubes for the 17-50 is an option if 1:1 is not required.

Another IMO even better option is a close up lens for the 70-200/4IS. I'm using the 58mm diameter 500D with a step-down adapter. Results are excellent, magnification can be changed from the same shooting distance by zooming, it's much easier to put on and off compared to extension tubes, and additional weight is almost zero.

I have the 17-40L, 60mm macro, and 70-200 f4/L as my current full kit.

I did own a 17-55 IS 2.8 for a while last month, but after taking 30 shots inside my house and finding noticeable dust inside the lens, I returned it for the 17-40L, and I would feel pretty nervous about taking the unsealed, complex IS lens on a backpacking around-the-world trip.

While I love the 70-200, it's probably my least used lens, and my current travel kit is the 17-40L mounted 80% of the time, and the 60mm macro for portraits/macros/ more critical work/ lower-light situations.

Every time I use the 60mm macro I am stunned by the images - it's not just sharp , it has gorgeous colour and contrast rendition. It is far and away my favourite lens (and IMHO, has significantly better IQ than the 17-55 2.8).

To make a long answer short, I'd take your 17-40L and the 60mm macro.

dc