R7 and Macro

Steve Balcombe wrote:

charlyw64 wrote:

Steve Balcombe wrote:

dwkdnvr wrote:

Steve Balcombe wrote:

I see you've used Olympus before - it would definitely be worth checking out the OM-1 before you decide. More expensive though.

It really does seem that the R7 and OM-1 are the 2 bodies to look at if you're considering the areas where crop has advantages or at least where the downsides are mitigated - telephoto/wildlife and macro. The OM-1 is more expensive, but has the very good Oly 60mm macro available which evens out the pricing if you're pairing the R7 with either of the 100mm lenses.

I'm considering the R7 + RF 100-400 + a macro, but was considering the EF-S 60mm on an adapter. Probably not close to the performance of the 100's, but at $300-ish used it's an easier first step and it does seem to be one of the better regarded EF-S lenses.

I think the EF-S 60 may be equal in IQ to the EF 100L macro, or at least very close,

It depends. If you are talking about non macro uses then they may be close. If you talk about use at 1:1 up to about 1:5 magnification then that isn't true. The 100L is a lot better at that. Unfortunately all the test charts that people have done over the years are at small magnifications - and so all these tests are not indicative of the lens performance.

No, I'm speaking from personal experience of both lenses.

Same here, I'm mostly shooting at MFD with the EF-S60mm and 100mm lenses. For the copy I had, my EF-S seemed to be as sharp or sharper than the my EF100L. But the difference was so minute that I can easily believe that other tests will show the EF100L to be better. And that's ignoring the possible copy to copy variance.

While I'm happy with the sharpness of my copy of the EF-S60mm, I still prefer using a 100mm on non-M bodies, it fits better with my style of shooting. So I'm not going to argue against getting one over the other, get the one that fits your needs and style best!