# EF 100mm f/2.8 Macro vs. EF-S 60 f/2.8 Macro ?



## Grigbar (Jan 28, 2012)

Witch one is sharper? I need to rent one of these macro lenses for some archival work with a measly T1i body. I can get most of the detail i need with a 50 1.4 but not quite enough. Is one of these lenses much sharper than the other? Will the 100mm really bring me in further than the 60? The 60 says it can focus a minute amount closer (60mm Closest Focusing Distance 0.2m /0.65 ft. vs. 100mm Closest Focusing Distance 0.31m / 1 ft. (film plane to subject) Im planning on using a tripod and i might be shooting tethered.

Im also planning in getting a macro ring light MR-14EX to go with it.

Those are my only two option for lenses aside from a MP-E 65 f/2.8 1-5x Macro but im not really sure how to use that lens.


----------



## Kernuak (Jan 28, 2012)

They are both 1:1 macro lenses, so should give equivalent amounts of detail. I haven't used the 60mm, but the non-IS version of the 100mm is very sharp. That said, reviews suggests there's nothing in it in terms of sharpness and I'm yet to hear of a bad macro lens. THe main advantage of the 100mm is the longer working distance (which may not be relevent to your needs) and less potential for intruding background elements, due to the longer focal length (the blur will be the ame though) giving a narrower field of view. The advantage of the 60mm, is that you could add extension and get higher levels of magnification if required, without any loss of image quality (although you will get light fall-off).


----------



## mb66energy (Jan 28, 2012)

A hard choice but if you want rent it, some remarks might be helpful:

I cannot see any difference in visible sharpness between both lenses from viewing real photographs in 100% magnification. I own both lenses (100mm macro USM, non-L!).
If the objects are small and have a larger depth think about the 60mm which give you larger depth of field at the same magnification.
If you want to take photographs of larger objects in a smaller room the 60mm might help too: It is easier to frame the objects.
If you have a small background (e.g. lighted matte screen or similar) which should fill the background of your objects evenly, the 100mm might be the better choice: The narrower angles helps to fill the frame with the same background arrangement at the same magnification of the object.

A few remarks:

About the sharpness I recommend the comparison at photozone:
http://photozone.de/Reviews/canon-eos (right column, 15MP tests)

My decision for BUYING these macro lenses:
60mm was my first EF lens ever and the reason to switch from the G2 compact to DSLR (20D). Ever satisfied, very compact lightweight lens, tack sharp from 2.8 onwards (f/2.8 in macro has nearly no vignetting, at infinity focus it has strong vignetting!).
100mm 2.8 USM was my second macro to have a more tele-like macro for APS-C and to be prepared for full frame (if ever a choice of mine) before it vanishes and I have to pay twice the money for the L version. And it has less lens elements helping for contra light situations I like!

Finally: What I would do:
Take one object (or a comparable one in times of size etc.) with you and check both lenses with the review mode of your camera and, perhaps more important, your feeling of appropriateness of the lenses for YOUR application!


----------



## well_dunno (Jan 28, 2012)

I went with 100mm non-IS basicly because I use tripod for any macro shots and 100mm allows more working distance from the object for the same magnification. Happy with it's sharpness but as Kernuak put it very accurately, these are macro lenses sharpness is usually not an issue with them.

My thought was, if I used 60mm, I would probably need to shoot handheld macro more frequently... Potential for camera-shake and macro?.. Maybe works better for someone with a "surgeon hand" 

Just my thoughts...

Cheers!


----------



## wickidwombat (Jan 29, 2012)

If you are renting you may as well rent the 100f2.8L
but you can buy the older 100f2.8 non L quite cheap second hand, depending on the duration of use might be cheaper than renting


----------



## sawsedge (Jan 30, 2012)

All macro lenses are very sharp. Sharpness isn't the main concern. Focal length is more important. And bokeh, IMHO. Between the two lenses, which one do you think you'll need? I own the 100mm and love it. The focal length feels right to me, and I love the bokeh. I haven't used the 60mm, but owners I know love it too.

To be perfectly honest, if I had to start over, I would not look at resolution values at all, I'd just look at sample images for bokeh to decide which macro lens to buy.


----------



## Michael_pfh (Jan 30, 2012)

I have got the 100mm f/2.8L IS and can highly recommend it. Even without a ringflash you can take great macro pics handheld. Of course a tripod will be a big advantage since you can stop down much further then to capture more detail with less shallow DoF...


----------



## Mt Spokane Photography (Jan 30, 2012)

Grigbar said:


> Witch one is sharper? I need to rent one of these macro lenses for some archival work with a measly T1i body. I can get most of the detail i need with a 50 1.4 but not quite enough. Is one of these lenses much sharper than the other? Will the 100mm really bring me in further than the 60? The 60 says it can focus a minute amount closer (60mm Closest Focusing Distance 0.2m /0.65 ft. vs. 100mm Closest Focusing Distance 0.31m / 1 ft. (film plane to subject) Im planning on using a tripod and i might be shooting tethered.
> 
> Im also planning in getting a macro ring light MR-14EX to go with it.
> 
> Those are my only two option for lenses aside from a MP-E 65 f/2.8 1-5x Macro but im not really sure how to use that lens.



Archival work of what? Documents, paintings, drawings, statues? It sounds like you want to be close.

You should look for a lens that is equally sharp at the center and borders with low distortion. Most Macro's are pretty good, but since you are on a tripod and tethered, I'd go for a Zeiss 100mm Macro. Manual focus is a breeze when tethered to your computer.

Its better by far for your work than the others you mentioned.

http://www.lensrentals.com/rent/canon/lenses/macro/zeiss-ze-100mm-f2-makro-planar-for-canon


----------



## kdw75 (Feb 7, 2012)

I have the EF-S 60mm Macro and it is the sharpest lens I have used. I haven't compared it to a 100mm L but for the price I don't think you can go wrong as long as the focal length is right for you.


----------



## Marsu42 (Feb 7, 2012)

I've got the 100 without L and have shot about 10k pictures with it using a 60D crop body. You can get it used from ebay, since it has no IS there's nothing that could already be worn down. My opinion:

1. sharpness is not an issue with macro lenses because they are *not* the sharpest you can get, at least not at non-macro distances! A macro lens is basically a zoom lens with a fixed focal length. You can notice this because the picture gets way darker at macro distances (*) - however, unlike Nikon the Canon lens still reports the same amount of light which is simply wrong and you have to manually compensate. Use macro lenses for macro work, get a prime like the 85 or 100 for sharpness. In addition, on 1:1 live objects you have to use f/10+ so the optimal sharpness of 6.3-7.1 doesn't help you much - or you have to use focus stacking with still objects.

2. forget the L version, it's way too expensive except if you're rich. You don't need it because a) the IS doesn't help at macro distances and b) even if IS would help the improvement would be too little (see *) - you do need a tripod for 1:1. The sharpness of the L and non-L version is nearly the same. The one improvement on the L lens might be dust resistance, which is a problem because outdoor macro shots tend to be near the earth.

3. A little disadvantage of the EF-S is obviously that you cannot keep it if you ever go full frame, nor can you sell it to a ff user.

4. A big disadvantage of 60 compared to 100 is the working distance. With 100, live objects won't frighten as fast. With 100, you often still can use the internal flash in addition to external remote flashes. And yes, you will want to use a flash even on 1:1 live objects in bright sunlight (see *)


----------



## CatfishSoupFTW (Feb 8, 2012)

aside from the quality, focal length etc, you are comparing an EF lens and EFS lens. all lenses im sure you will purchase, you intend to have for quite some time. now, if you, later down the road you want to update the body from APSC (cropped sensor) to APS (full frame, FF) then purchasing a 60 mm EF-S lens would be useless. 

Though you did say earlier for renting. for renting, then it doesnt really matter the mount type, but if you do buy one of the two, then in the long term investment i would rather look at EF lenses .


----------



## arioch82 (Feb 8, 2012)

Marsu42 said:


> 2. forget the L version, it's way too expensive except if you're rich. You don't need it because a) the IS doesn't help at macro distances and b) even if IS would help the improvement would be too little (see *) - you do need a tripod for 1:1. The sharpness of the L and non-L version is nearly the same. The one improvement on the L lens might be dust resistance, which is a problem because outdoor macro shots tend to be near the earth.



That's absolutely not true.
I've got the 100L a while ago and I love it (and I'm not rich), the IS helps A LOT, you can take handled macro shots without problems.
it all depends on what kind of shooting are you planning to do.

this is a sample I took in a park last summer (handled, like all the other macros currently on my flickr account, all without flash)




_MG_1629-2.jpg di ocangelo, su Flickr


----------



## PCM-Madison (Feb 8, 2012)

I have both. My copies are both very sharp on my 60D 18 megapixel crop sensor camera. They both also have great overall IQ. Get the 100mm EF if you plan to upgrade to full frame in the future. The longer working distance and narrow field of view of the 100mm are also advantageous in some situations. The 60mm EFS is much smaller and lighter so I find it very easy to take with me as part of a multi-lens kit for hiking, travel, etc.


----------



## pj1974 (Feb 8, 2012)

Like others have mentioned, the working distance is probably the main differentiating factor between the EF-S 60mm and the EF 100mm. Also, the 100mm is full frame compatible (not the 60mm).

I've go the Canon 100mm Macro USM (non L) and love it a lot. Very sharp (as is the 60mm macro which I've used). For most macros I use a tripod, though occasionally I shoot handheld. The L's IS is helpful here, but reported at only about '1-stop' advantage (at macro distances!) from most field reports.

The 100mm makes a good casual portrait / subject isolation lens for me too. The fast USM focus (especially on my 7D) is great. Some people say it focusses slow, but not mine!

All the best.

Paul


----------



## Marsu42 (Feb 8, 2012)

arioch82 said:


> That's absolutely not true. I've got the 100L a while ago and I love it (and I'm not rich), the IS helps A LOT, you can take handled macro shots without problems.



Admittedly, "rich" is a relative defintion. But anyway: Of course everybody loves their expensive lenses. But I've got many shots like yours and better with my non-L lens, handheld too. Which t did you do this shot with? Of course, without a tripod the dof is too thin in any case, you cannot see the see the tiny insect eyes on the eye facing the lens.

But this isn't a picture contest - the question is: did you try to shoot the same object with IS, then with IS disabled? If so, you propably would come to the same conclusion as comparison tests on the usual websites: IS does not help macro distances.


----------



## Marsu42 (Feb 8, 2012)

pj1974 said:


> The 100mm makes a good casual portrait / subject isolation lens for me too. The fast USM focus (especially on my 7D) is great. Some people say it focusses slow, but not mine!



I think the speed of the 100mm non-L is ok, too - but it takes about two seconds to focus completely from macro to infinity and back. In comparison to modern lenses (try the 17-55, 15-85, ...) this is slow like molasses.


----------



## arioch82 (Feb 9, 2012)

Marsu42 said:


> arioch82 said:
> 
> 
> > That's absolutely not true. I've got the 100L a while ago and I love it (and I'm not rich), the IS helps A LOT, you can take handled macro shots without problems.
> ...



i've tried (not on the same object) with both IS and without, that's why i'm saying that handled macro is immensely better with the IS, but again as I said it depends on what kind of use of that lens he will do... I haven't posted that picture to say "look at my big expensive lens shots quality", "i'm amazing", "bow down" etc., I'm only an amateur and i do it as an hobby, it was only to show what kind of shot you can take with an IS without any effort (i really took that as a point & shoot picture)...

Of course when you want to take some pro macro shots a tripod is mandatory but for people like me that does it as an (expensive) hobby and doesn't always walk around with a tripod, flashes etc. the IS is incredibly helpful, I haven't even bought a flash yet, you get 3 stops improvements.

I also like to use it as a portrait lens and in any case the IS is always a good addition.

ps. sorry i don't know what you mean with "Which t did you do this shot with"...


----------



## unfocused (Feb 9, 2012)

Ask a simple question and get a lot of conflicting answers.

Let's try a simple answer (maybe).

You are renting. The difference between the 100 "L", the 60mm and 100 non-L is less than a dollar a day at Lens Rentals. It sounds like the work you are doing will be using a tripod, inside. I like the working distance of the 100 on my 7D. It just feels less crowded to have a bit of distance between me and subject. But that's personal preference. 

My suggestion: do you think you will ever want to buy one of these lenses? If so, I'd rent the one that you might want to eventually buy. That way, you can use it for your project and test it out for a future purchase.

I love my 100 "L" But, I use it for short telephoto work, portraits and close-ups (non macro) as much or more than for macro. I love the IS for those purposes, but if I were doing a project like you describe, it would be mounted on a tripod, so the IS wouldn't make any difference. 

Rent the one that you are most interested in. Any of them will work for your project.


----------



## arioch82 (Feb 9, 2012)

if he only has to rent it once for a job I would go with the 180L f/3.5 honestly if the price difference isn't too much...


----------



## Marsu42 (Feb 9, 2012)

arioch82 said:


> ps. sorry i don't know what you mean with "Which t did you do this shot with"...



Well, what t (time) did you use? The images on Flickr don't have the exif data.

I'm usually shooting macro subjects w/ 1/250 second (fastest flash sync), very seldom 1/60 second if I really need the background lighter. My experience is: with 1/250 there is no shake, and I can use the lens' sharpest f (both L and non-L: 6.3 and 7.1) aperture. This is the reason I said I doubt IS would help. On the other hand, with a large aperture like f20+ or focus stacking, you need a tripod anyway, so again no use for IS.

But of course, since the IS version is as light as the non-IS version, the L is the one to get if one can afford it. But I would be hesitant to buy a used IS lens, e.g. I heard about the 17-55 "weak is" that the motor does wear down more over time then the aperture.


----------



## arioch82 (Feb 9, 2012)

Marsu42 said:


> arioch82 said:
> 
> 
> > ps. sorry i don't know what you mean with "Which t did you do this shot with"...
> ...



uhm it's weird i can visualize the exif on that picture... 
anyway on that specific one is 1/800, is not a really good sample of the IS, was an outdoor shot in a really sunny day... 

the IS on this lens is really good, you can easily go down to 1/50 and lower (in reviews you can read of photographers shooting macro at 1/8 with that lens... my hands are not that still unluckly), that let you use smaller ISO values on handled shooting (on my camera i rarely shoot @ iso >= 800) and I have to say that i'm really happy with my handled shots and I'm not looking into spending other $500 on a macro flash.

But then again, if you plan (like in this case) to shoot some specific macros for a specific job you'll have all your gear with you (tripod flashes etc.) and the IS will be useless, but if you like me enjoy walking around with that lens in your bag and just want to take it out for a quick macro shoot on a subject that you just noticed without spending time setting up tripod, flash etc... well the IS is really helpful.

My advice to the OP is:

if you are looking to buy a macro in future rent the 100L and play with it handled too otherwise get the 180 if the price difference with the 100 Non-L isn't too big / you can afford it; I haven't tried the 60 but it just sounds too short, but this depends of course on your subjects


----------



## iaind (Feb 9, 2012)

Using FF the 60mm is a non starter.
Got the 100L for1.5x price of old 100. Its a great performer and would recommend it.

Always buy the best you can afford.


----------



## kennykodak (Feb 9, 2012)

i spent a week in Cleveland photographing small products for a catalog. afterwards they ask to stay another day and do head shots. i used the 100L for both. beautiful results


----------



## Marsu42 (Feb 14, 2012)

iaind said:


> Always buy the best you can afford.



Maybe, but what is the best? The heaviest, hightest iq lens? Personally, I think "the best" is the lens that feels best to you and "just works" - whatever the price. If its cheaper, then get an additional ultrawide for special shots, another flash and filters - that'll give you better pictures than the most expensive lens in the neighbourhood.


----------



## pj1974 (Feb 14, 2012)

Marsu42 said:


> pj1974 said:
> 
> 
> > The 100mm makes a good casual portrait / subject isolation lens for me too. The fast USM focus (especially on my 7D) is great. Some people say it focusses slow, but not mine!
> ...



Thanks Marsu42 for your reply to my comments above. 

You're right that it might take two seconds if the focus is at the MFD (1:1) focus setting and the (portrait) subject is eg 3 metres away (in a poor contrast setting) and it cycles from macro to infinity and back. But what I mean is the focus is much much faster under 'normal focus composition' for portrait.

That is, if the lens' focus is set at 1 metre, and my (portrait) subject is 3 metres away, it will jump there in about a third to half a second (or less time in good contrast). That's why I also find the minimal focal distance (MFD) focus limiting switch on the 100mm macro handy.

Some people have reported that even in situations like the above, the Canon 100mm macro USM nonL is slow and their 100mm L is much quicker... but certainly mine isn't slow. My experience is that my 100mm USM lens's focus speed is very close to other Canon USM lenses when the focus is 'already in non macro settings'.

I have the Canon 15-85mm and the Canon 70-300mm L (perhaps my fastest focusing lenses) - and I also had the Canon 28-135mm and Canon 100-300mm (sold both these recently), and I'm very happy with the focussing speed and accuracy of all my Canon USM lenses.

On the other hand, I sold my Canon 50mm f/1.8 lens a few months ago - the main reason being the focus speed, accuracy and consistency were not up to my standards. I'm waiting for a true (full ring) USM prime from Canon in the 50mm - 60mm range, between f/1.4 - f2.

Cheers all, and thanks again Marsu42. 8)

Paul


----------



## Marsu42 (Feb 15, 2012)

pj1974 said:


> On the other hand, I sold my Canon 50mm f/1.8 lens a few months ago - the main reason being the focus speed, accuracy and consistency were not up to my standards. I'm waiting for a true (full ring) USM prime from Canon in the 50mm - 60mm range, between f/1.4 - f2.
> 
> Cheers all, and thanks again Marsu42. 8)



You're welcome - while I think the author of this site couldn't confirm the rumor that his own pants he was wearing had just been stolen, the people and standard in the forum seem to be quite nice.

And I feel sorry for the poor soul who bought the 50/1.8 - I've got a broken one (fell down, of course the plastic lens split), but even before I wouldn't dare to give it to anyone else  ... the bokeh and af is so crappy in comparison to today's standards (not to speak of the bad quality @1.8) that the only application is "shoot moving objects in the complete dark"


----------

