Totally confused - Newbie in need of help

[Herd57]

Hi Folks,

Over the last several months I have really enjoyed my 60D with the kit 18-135mm lens. I also picked up a Tamron 70-300mm lens which has performed wonderfully.

Now, I am looking at adding a macro lens and have been considering the Canon 60mm or the Canon 100mm macro. Based on the lenses and focal lengths that I currently have, does anyone have any thought on which direction maybe the best for me to go? Maybe just use some Kenko's on the 18-135? I'm actually leaning more towards the 60mm for just general use and macro.

I've learned so much from this forum and appreciate everyone's willingness to exchange information. For this newbie, that's awesome.

Thanks.

William

 

[tocar]

Most postings I've seen likes the 100mm macro lens. I myself have the Tokina 35mm macro.

 

[Peter 13]

The 60 is sharper overall because is an EF-S lens. On the other hand, for bugs, etc., a larger FL is better.

If you are going to shoot real macro rarely, I would chose based on FL. The 60 does not suffer so much from the lack of IS, and is sharper. The 100 macro is longer and provides better subject isolation. On the other hand, for subject isolation, you may get the 100/2 that is faster but not a macro and can suffer from PF, etc. Just depends on what you need.

Hi Folks,

Over the last several months I have really enjoyed my 60D with the kit 18-135mm lens. I also picked up a Tamron 70-300mm lens which has performed wonderfully.

Now, I am looking at adding a macro lens and have been considering the Canon 60mm or the Canon 100mm macro. Based on the lenses and focal lengths that I currently have, does anyone have any thought on which direction maybe the best for me to go? Maybe just use some Kenko's on the 18-135? I'm actually leaning more towards the 60mm for just general use and macro.

I've learned so much from this forum and appreciate everyone's willingness to exchange information. For this newbie, that's awesome.

Thanks.

William

 

[csfbphoto]

On the body that you have...
60mm canon macro is an amazing lens. (non bug macro)

100mm Canon macro........amazing/tripod.
portrait......amazing

I have shot with both of them.
I enjoy the 100mm more.
Cheers*

 

[dsmcl77]

I also like the 100mm better for both macro and portrait
--
Steph.
(dsmcl77)

 

[Herd57]

Thanks to everyone for your replies. I do appreciate the feedback.

 

[WT Jones]

The 60 is sharper overall because is an EF-S lens.

Would you explain what you mean by that. I am confused as to why an EF-s Lens would be sharper than say a EF 100 f2.8 or the EF 100mm f2.8 IS etc.. I have a both a EFS 60 & a EF100 macro & I'll be darned if can tell if one or the other is sharper. They are both outstanding lenses
--
Warren

 

[rcook0525]

Hi Folks,

Over the last several months I have really enjoyed my 60D with the kit 18-135mm lens. I also picked up a Tamron 70-300mm lens which has performed wonderfully.

Now, I am looking at adding a macro lens and have been considering the Canon 60mm or the Canon 100mm macro. Based on the lenses and focal lengths that I currently have, does anyone have any thought on which direction maybe the best for me to go? Maybe just use some Kenko's on the 18-135? I'm actually leaning more towards the 60mm for just general use and macro.

I've learned so much from this forum and appreciate everyone's willingness to exchange information. For this newbie, that's awesome.

Thanks.

William

Any thoughts on the Tamron 90mm 2.8 Marco? I have also been looking at some good options for a macro with my week old 60D and the images I've seen online with this lens just look amazing. Might see if I can rent one for a few days to test.

http://www.flickriver.com/lenses/tamron/tamronspaf90mmf28dimacro/

 

[jitteringjr]

The 60 is sharper overall because is an EF-S lens.

Furthermore, that statement suggests all EF-S lense are sharper than EF lenses on crop. That is ridiculous. So by this logic the EFS 55-250 would be sharper than the 70-200/2.8 II.

Would you explain what you mean by that. I am confused as to why an EF-s Lens would be sharper than say a EF 100 f2.8 or the EF 100mm f2.8 IS etc.. I have a both a EFS 60 & a EF100 macro & I'll be darned if can tell if one or the other is sharper. They are both outstanding lenses
--
Warren

Back to the OP I would go with the 60 because it doubles as a portrait lens better on crop cameras. The Tamron 60/2 even better here. One problem with the Tamron on a 7D is that it doesn't work with the 7D to triple sample rates when using it in servo focus.

One user and I wish I could find a link, likes the Canon 60 over the 100s when shooting bugs because he can get higher magnifications using extension tubes with the 60 over the 100s. I remember something like 2.5 times life-size.

 

[Peter 13]

The 60 is sharper overall because is an EF-S lens.

Furthermore, that statement suggests all EF-S lense are sharper than EF lenses on crop.

No, it does not. What is implicit there is "lenses of the same class and equivalent FL", and that is true for all EF-S lenses that I am familiar with.

That is ridiculous. So by this logic the EFS 55-250 would be sharper than the 70-200/2.8 II.

It is certainly sharper than the 75-300 that is of the same class.

 

[TCampbell]

The EF-S 60mm f/2.8 Macro USM is one of the two best EF-S lenses ever made. It's astonishingly sharp. I also have the EF 100mm f/2.8L IS USM and, apart from focal length, it's hard to tell the difference when it comes to image quality. I have no intention of parting with either of them -- I use them both.

If I were you, I would buy based on the focal length you prefer.

What sorts of things do you plan to shoot with macro?

 

[Peter 13]

The 60 is sharper overall because is an EF-S lens.

Would you explain what you mean by that. I am confused as to why an EF-s Lens would be sharper than say a EF 100 f2.8 or the EF 100mm f2.8 IS etc.. I have a both a EFS 60 & a EF100 macro & I'll be darned if can tell if one or the other is sharper. They are both outstanding lenses

First, it just is. Check the PZ numbers. Why? Because it is optimized for a smaller image circle.

I own the 60 and have used the 100/2.8 IS. At f/2.8, I can see some difference. Not too much, but still, there is. Still, as I said, depends which FL the OP needs, whether macro is the main purpose, or not, etc. I am not saying that the sharpness of the 60/2.8 should be the decisive factor.

BTW, compared side to side for real macro work, I found the 100L slightly better in terms of color and contrast but I am really splitting hair. For non-macro use, the 60 is sharper but again, there is no really huge difference.

The 100L is probably the best choice overall because of the IS but the OP did not mention it - it might be out of his budget.

 

[WT Jones]

Interesting, thank you Peter
--
Warren

 

[Herd57]

Thanks to everyone for their replies and suggestions. After much thought, I've decided to order the Canon 60mm. Should be here sometime tomorrow and I'm hoping to give it a workout this coming weekend. Again, thanks to all those that replied.