# APS-C 60mm or 100mm macro lens?



## sandymandy (Feb 21, 2015)

Hi,

im not sure if to buy the ef-s 60mm for my APS-C or the EF 100mm.

pro thing would be that i could use the 100mm on a FF camera too. contra perhaps that 100mm on APS-C is really shaky. but i wanna use a monopod anyway. 
price wise they are not so much different. so which one should i go for? thought im gonna go with the YN 14 EX flash. original canon flashes are like extremly expensive for macro shooting...


----------



## Vivid Color (Feb 21, 2015)

I'm not sure that you haven't set up a false "contra" scenario, but why don't you just go to a camera store and try out the 100 mm macro? If you don't live near a store which sells the 100 mm macro, then just order it from someone with free shipping, try it out, and worst-case scenario you send it back and pay a few dollars for shipping. When I bought my Canon T1i in 2009, it never occurred to me that I would someday buy a full frame camera. In those days, the price differential between crop and full frame was huge. So, I bought a 60 mm macro. Later, when I bought my Canon 6D, I needed to buy a new macro lens. I ended up buying Canon's 100 mm L version, but the Non-L version also has excellent IQ and had I bought it in the beginning, I would've been set. I sold the 60 mm for a pretty good price but at some loss.


----------



## 9VIII (Feb 21, 2015)

I love my Sigma 150mm macro, the extra working distance is great. Like with any telephoto, you can shoot handheld as long as you keep your shutter above 1/1000 (which normally requires daylight).
The only 60mm macro I would consider is the one with a 5x zoom, I've spent too much time bumping into things trying to get close to bother with shorter focal lengths anymore.


----------



## dcm (Feb 21, 2015)

Faced the same dilemma a while back. Chose the 100L since I knew I would upgrade to FF in a few years. The IS was really helpful. Quite happy with the choice even though it cost more up front. Even happier when I went full frame and didn't need to upgrade the lens.


----------



## Click (Feb 21, 2015)

dcm said:


> Faced the same dilemma a while back. Chose the 100L since I knew I would upgrade to FF in a few years.



Same here.

+1 for the 100L


----------



## Marsu42 (Feb 21, 2015)

sandymandy said:


> price wise they are not so much different. so which one should i go for?



The 100L is the better choice hands down - sealed and longer working distance so your shadow doesn't get in the way.

I admit I'm a bit puzzled why Canon insisted on releasing a ef-s macro lens at all, the 100L performance on crop is very good even if you can pixel-peep a slight sharpness difference wide open vs. ff. But actually imho the bokeh is *better* on crop as the 100L has a "radial" bokeh which can be distracting on ff.


----------



## Mt Spokane Photography (Feb 21, 2015)

Everyone seems to think you are asking about the 100mm L, but I think you are referring to the 100mm f/2.8 or the 100mm f/2.8 USM. There are three Canon 100mm Macros in existence, but the non USM version is long discontinued.

Of course, the 100mmL is wonderful, Ilve had all three 100mm Macros. 

If you are worried about shaking, then you are trying to handhold a Macro shot?? IMHO, only the 100L allows you to consistently handhold the camera at near macro distances due to its hybrid IS.

Otherwise, you may find that a macro rack and tripod will be on your shopping list for a non is macro. That evens the price up a bit.

Here re a couple of hand held shots with the 100mmL (I really never was able to use my other 100mm macros for macro distances handheld)


----------



## Marsu42 (Feb 21, 2015)

Mt Spokane Photography said:


> If you are worried about shaking, then you are trying to handhold a Macro shot?? IMHO, only the 100L allows you to consistently handhold the camera at near macro distances due to its hybrid IS.



Oh my, my favorite fallacy - my observation is that IS near 1:1 is next to useless, though it makes soothing sounds so you think it probably does something 

As for the non-L (I've got both): It's nearly as fine as the L, but not sealed and a more nervous bokeh which actually can be more interesting than the "boring" smooth L. As the non-L is rather expensive in comparison, I'd go for the L or get the non-L used.


----------



## Mt Spokane Photography (Feb 21, 2015)

Marsu42 said:


> Mt Spokane Photography said:
> 
> 
> > If you are worried about shaking, then you are trying to handhold a Macro shot?? IMHO, only the 100L allows you to consistently handhold the camera at near macro distances due to its hybrid IS.
> ...



I and many others use the 100L at MFD handheld, so its not a fallacy. Perhaps your IS is defective? Its certainly not easy, you need to hold very still or use high shutter speeds, but it works. I could have never taken those images handheld without the IS, I've tried with my other 100L Macro's.

There is little doubt that use of the proper tripod and head will give better results, but when I see a bug or item that I only have seconds to capture, I can now do it by grabbing the camera, lens, and snapping a few quick shots. I certainly do not get 100% keepers, more like 70% under those conditions.


----------



## danski0224 (Feb 21, 2015)

sandymandy said:


> Hi,
> 
> im not sure if to buy the ef-s 60mm for my APS-C or the EF 100mm.
> 
> ...



The 60mm ef-s is designed for the APS-C cameras. It is razor sharp.

It may come down to minimum focus distance of either lens. 

The 100mm may give you a bit more working distance, but it isn't optimized for the APS-C sensor.

About $130 at new retail separates the 60 from the non-L 100 and the L is almost $1k (plus the lens collar). Used/refurbished is always an option.

The EF-S seems to hold value reasonably well in the used market, so if there are no plans to move to a FF camera, and if the minimum focus distance is good...


----------



## Marsu42 (Feb 21, 2015)

Mt Spokane Photography said:


> I and many others use the 100L at MFD handheld, so its not a fallacy. Perhaps your IS is defective? Its certainly not easy, you need to hold very still or use high shutter speeds, but it works.



Sure it works, but here's the thing: With the high shutter speed required and holding the lens veeeeeery still, turning IS on makes no or nearly no difference  ... but it's simplest to agree to disagree on this and recommend a tripod in any case.



danski0224 said:


> About $130 at new retail separates the 60 from the non-L 100 and the L is almost $1k (plus the lens collar). Used/refurbished is always an option.



Good point there, I didn't look at the price difference - a lot of €€€ for more working distance. Just make sure not to get the lens wet or work outdoors near ground level, I broke my 100 non-L twice due to moisture :-\


----------



## sandymandy (Feb 21, 2015)

well from my experience tripods are really huge and not so comfortable for me since i like to stroll around a lot and not only take macros of insects but also other interesting stuff i find on the way. and sometimes a tripod just gets in my way. so i think a monopod should be a better option and also im gonna use a flash for quick shutter speeds.

so should i go for the NON L 100 or 60mm ? im not changing to FF soon. i just feel its a bit silly if i have to throw away some lenses if i go to FF some day. 

http://lh4.ggpht.com/_dlkAw43cLC0/Sb-aTUb7DJI/AAAAAAAAD5E/tA5bJxRoz8c/s800/eye-macros-human-eye2.jpg

would something like this be possible with the 60 aps-c or 100mm FF ? maybe even a tad closer ? can somebody try it out with their lense for me? it should be not too hard with connecting it to the pc nadusing live preview.


----------



## beforeEos Camaras (Feb 21, 2015)

sandymandy said:


> well from my experience tripods are really huge and not so comfortable for me since i like to stroll around a lot and not only take macros of insects but also other interesting stuff i find on the way. and sometimes a tripod just gets in my way. so i think a monopod should be a better option and also im gonna use a flash for quick shutter speeds.
> 
> so should i go for the NON L 100 or 60mm ? im not changing to FF soon. i just feel its a bit silly if i have to throw away some lenses if i go to FF some day.
> 
> ...


both lens can take photos of a eye how ever the 60 can take on the fly stills with out a tripod or monopod you will lose depth of field as you will shoot very close to wide open. with a macro you really need a tripod and a remote release to get the most out of the lens. I have done walking around with the 60 macro and using it free hand. f 10 plus works the best with a macro as it gives you the needed depth of field. if your really not going to go full frame in the next 2-3 years get the 60 if not get the 100. I will most likely get both as I have 2 crop cameras and the t1i will go to my grand daughter and any ef-s lens I wont be needing. so don't think ef-s as throwaway lens most are well made outside the kit 18-55 lens.


----------



## bmwzimmer (Feb 22, 2015)

The longer the working distance the better in my opinion if you don't want to scare away bugs and things. I don't shoot macro all that often but was intrigued at the Canon 180L after owning and selling the 100L twice over the years. I shoot at f/16-22 so the only thing the sensor sees is the flash so IS or tripods don't matter that much. Anyways i found a Sigma 180mm f/3.5 macro for $375 on Craigslist and see them on Ebay from $350-450. The 180L might be sharper at f/3.5 but i don't use macro lenses wide open. They are more or less equal optically after f/11. The siggy's construction is not as solid as the L but slightly better than a 100 USM.


----------



## sagittariansrock (Feb 22, 2015)

I am not sure I can see any benefit of getting the 60mm except for slower minimum shutter speed required. The DoF advantage of a wider FL vanishes due to a shorter working distance, I believe (please check DoFmaster).
Advantages of the 100mm on the other hand:
1. Greater working distance- always useful.
2. Compression will allow a smaller part of the background to be visible, and look less busy
(see the comparison between 60, 100 and 180mm in http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/Canon-EF-180mm-f-3.5-L-USM-Macro-Lens-Review.aspx)
3. No worries if and when you move to FF.
Given your intention to hand hold, I think 100L might be worth saving up for. I believe most people won't be repulsed by a smoother bokeh than the non-L, and will be able to hand hold it reasonably well at 1:1 (I was, and I am no great shakes at steady handholding).


----------



## danski0224 (Feb 22, 2015)

There are no hard and fast rules for macro photography. 

It doesn't matter if you shoot handheld, monopod or tripod. Those methods and more all exist to be used as the photographer sees fit. 

There are people that use the MPE-65 handheld...

The big advantage of the 100 over the 60 is about 4" of working distance at MFD.

The special IS in the 100L is there for macro work and probably worth it if that lens is in your budget.


----------



## Berowne (Feb 22, 2015)

The EF-S 60/2.8 is a Bargain: it is small, AF very fast, very sharp, Bokeh nice. The resolution is excellent from the beginning and increases in the corners slightly with maximum at f5.6. For Canon APS-C Cameras you cannot have more quality for your money. 

EOS 550D, EF-S 60/2.8; ISO 250; f3.2; 1/1000sec.


----------



## Marsu42 (Feb 22, 2015)

sandymandy said:


> so should i go for the NON L 100 or 60mm?



This comes down to the question only you can answer: Do you want longer working distance (100mm ef) or slightly better iq (60mm efs)?

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=107&Camera=736&FLI=0&API=0&LensComp=335&CameraComp=736&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=0&APIComp=4


----------



## mjbehnke (Feb 22, 2015)

You may want to Consider the Tokina 100 f2.8 Macro. It is a super sharp lens. Runs about 380US.


----------



## GmwDarkroom (Feb 22, 2015)

All three lenses -- 60mm, 100mm, and 100mm L -- are all super sharp and will focus very well. I think the working distance and the flexibility of working on full frame cameras makes the 100mm your best choice.

They can be had for good deals on Craigslist and eBay quite a lot as well. If you go for the 100mm, go on eBay and get a tripod collar for ~$20 -- don't pay for the Canon one, it's not worth it. The collar will greatly improve the balance of the camera on a tripod.


----------



## wsmith96 (Feb 22, 2015)

I'm in the same boat as you, but I do have the 60 macro. I really enjoy this lens, but late last year I purchased a FF camera and I'd like to have just one macro I can use on both cameras. I'll get the 100L when that time comes, but my 60 macro is on the "to sell" list. I would recommend you go for the EF lens.


----------



## sulla (Feb 22, 2015)

Definitely the 100. Gives you more working distance. Working distance can only be trumped by - more working distance.


----------



## Don Haines (Feb 22, 2015)

sulla said:


> Definitely the 100. Gives you more working distance. Working distance can only be trumped by - more working distance.


+1

The longer working distance is fantastic for dealing with insects.... and the 100L is one of those rare lenses that seems to have gotten everything right and in balance.....


----------



## Joey (Feb 22, 2015)

I have the EFS60mm and I'm very pleased with it. Razor sharp from wide open, it also doubles as a useful portrait lens and the bokeh is beautifully creamy. 100mm on a crop camera is a little long for portraiture in my experience.

The EFS lens uses internal focussing so there is no external movement, dust is not going to get into the lens. Reviewers have commented that it lacks only a moisture seal on the mount and a red ring round the other end to qualify as an L - but Canon haven't designated any EFS lens as L, probably for marketing reasons.

It's true that working distance is important, particularly with jumpy subjects (grasshoppers?) and I once owned a Sigma 180mm f/2.8 APO macro lens which was wonderful. But it was FD mount and has long since gone the way of all things (ebay). 

While it would be easy to recommend the 100L, as so many here have done, the choice you gave us was the EFS60 or the non-L 100. The EFS60 is a sharper lens, the 100 gives greater working distance. On a crop camera the 60 will take fine portraits, the 100 will be less useful in that role.

In terms of optical quality the 60mm is a true bargain, in my view the best justification of Canon's policy of designing lenses that only work on crop sensors. The same lens in an EF mount would be bigger, heavier, more expensive and/or optically poorer. Not all of Canon's EFS lenses are so easy to justify.


----------



## pj1974 (Feb 22, 2015)

I have used the EF-S 60mm, multiple copies of the EF 100mm USM and EF 100mm L. They're all great lenses.

Any distinction between the 3 lenses based on sharpness makes little sense, they're all sharp, very sharp, and have good contrast & generally smooth bokeh. Particularly the difference in sharpness between the 60mm and 100mm USM is at a hyper-pixel peeping level … plus don’t forget lens to lens variation. The L on average is a smidge sharper… but I challenge people to find meaningful difference between all 3 lenses. (Too many pixel peepers, too few photographers!) #rantover

In the end I went for the 100mm USM (non L) –… and I got a good copy. Biggest bonuses / pros of the 100mm USM for me over the EF-S:
-	Longer working distance (for both insects, and often helps with less problems with 'shadows' 
-	FF compatible (if upgrading to FF from APS-C)
-	it can often be bought on sale here in Australia for good prices (significantly cheaper than the 100mm L, and often less expensive than the EF-S 60mm).
-	
For some outdoor portraits, I really like 100mm length for outdoor portraits (and for indoor / general portraits, I most often use focal lengths of between 40mm and 85mm)… As I have had 50mm primes, another prime at 60mm is too close.

Hybrid IS helps for 3:1 and less so at 2:1 distances, but does little at 1:1 working distance handheld. At 1:1 the slightest sway (even when breathing, or trying to hold still, holding one’s breath in) – will render an out of focus (OOF) outcome. That’s why for true 1:1 macro photos, I recommend using a tripod (or other sturdy base on which to place the camera). Not to say I haven’t taken 1:1 macro photos handheld… I have… with my 100mm L and often get good results.

Yes, I’m still waiting for a new Canon 50 – 55mm prime, with great optics, USM and IS…. Please pretty please.

Anyway… hope you’ll do well in your decision of what macro lens to get, and enjoy taking photos!


----------



## sandymandy (Feb 23, 2015)

Well, its a really hard decision. The 100mmL im very interested in too and it would be the perfect starting lense with a new FF body. But its like double the price than the non-L. And im still not really sure if the cash is worth the L features since IS on a macro lense is not too useful imho since i like to go as close as i can. And i dont use macro lenses for anything else than macro shots. Snapshots okay sometimes but nothing that matters.
I think ill probably go for the 60mm and work the hell out of it and if i go FF ill buy the 100L. Still...there arent many other cases where lenses are this equal haha.

p.s.

i mostly go for spiders. theyre quite small so magnification is important. more than for like...frogs or such

the picture is about the closes i can go with my old 35mm 2.8 m42 lens. its not even called a macro lens i think.
important for me that i can go closer than this! cropping is not so nice on my 1100D...


----------



## privatebydesign (Feb 23, 2015)

sandymandy said:


> Well, its a really hard decision. The 100mmL im very interested in too and it would be the perfect starting lense with a new FF body. But its like double the price than the non-L. And im still not really sure if the cash is worth the L features since IS on a macro lense is not too useful imho since i like to go as close as i can. And i dont use macro lenses for anything else than macro shots. Snapshots okay sometimes but nothing that matters.
> I think ill probably go for the 60mm and work the hell out of it and if i go FF ill buy the 100L. Still...there arent many other cases where lenses are this equal haha.
> 
> p.s.
> ...



Using that reasoning the most important difference between the three lenses is working distance. 60mm is 3.5" very short for live bugs, the 100L is 5.9", the 100 non L is 6.0". Personally I got the L, for me the differences are worth the money, the build, sealing, modern coatings, smoother aperture add up to a comfortably better package than the non L, throw in the IS, however regularly you use it, or not, and the L is a it of a bargain. 

The other huge difference between the 60 and the 100 focal lengths is the background blur at same apertures, look at the difference below between a 60 Macro and the 100L Macro at the same magnification, framing and aperture, I prefer the considerably more blurred 100 but others might not. Link here http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/Canon-EF-100mm-f-2.8-L-IS-USM-Macro-Lens-Review.aspx


----------



## bluenoser1993 (Feb 23, 2015)

I'm making the same choice currently and have about 90% decided to go with the EF-S 60. For me, I've tried to put a cap on the number of lenses I own, otherwise I know it will get a little out of hand. I want to expand my photography so I need to compromise somewhere. I already have 35, 50, and 135 primes (not willing to give up 135) so the 60 is the best fit by selling the 50. I find most of my 50 shots are stopped down some any way, so I'm not giving up much and actually getting a better spread plus gaining macro. It just might be the first practical choice I've made since I bought a DSLR.

Take everything I said with a grain of salt, in the last two months I've bought two lenses, I'm watching a couple 60 macros on Ebay, and will soon be pulling the trigger on the new 100-400 and haven't actually sold anything yet. Don't tell my wife! I do have the best of intentions though.


----------



## wsmith96 (Feb 23, 2015)

Yes, working distance with an insect,or arachnid, will be tricky with the 60 macro, but it can be done. Sometimes you get a subject that is well behaved like the one below (which was taken with a 60 macro).


----------



## Marsu42 (Feb 23, 2015)

privatebydesign said:


> The other huge difference between the 60 and the 100 focal lengths is the background blur at same apertures, look at the difference below between a 60 Macro and the 100L Macro at the same magnification, framing and aperture, I prefer the considerably more blurred 100 but others might not.



Fair enough, but this isn't a good sample for macro - it's a closeup-ish flowery shot that probably is just in macro distance, I dunno how large the plant actually is. For actual near 1:1 macro, I guess the background would be plenty blurry with a 60mm, too. Last not least, I'd simply focus-stack such a flower = total background blur and max. sharpness.

I have no idea how big the dof difference is for the same framing 100mm vs 60mm on crop. But it's important because with anything that moves and you cannot focus stack, your primary concern is not to get a pleasant bokeh but to somehow manage enough dof to get anything into focus at all.

That's even if a butterfly is sitting right angle to the lens any you might think dof shouldn't be a problem, but it usually is below diffraction f-stops...



wsmith96 said:


> Yes, working distance with an insect,or arachnid, will be tricky with the 60 macro, but it can be done. Sometimes you get a subject that is well behaved like the one below (which was taken with a 60 macro).



... the sample shot just above is a good demonstration: the fur near the camera is in focus, the eye just barely and the head is already clearly out of focus even for web size, never mind the wings.

Btw in my experience the working distance isn't so important for butterflies, either they decide to flee very early on or sit still unless you bump 'em with the lens. It's more about getting your own lens into the way of the ambient light or flash(es) that makes the difference with longer focal lengths.


----------



## Bennymiata (Feb 23, 2015)

I have the 60mm, the 100L and the Sigma 150mm OS macro, and to be frank with you, it's hard to tell the images apart.

While a longer focal length gives you more room between the lens and your subject, the longer the focal length the more difficult to get sharp hand held shots.


----------



## jwilbern (Feb 23, 2015)

sagittariansrock said:


> I am not sure I can see any benefit of getting the 60mm except for slower minimum shutter speed required. The DoF advantage of a wider FL vanishes due to a shorter working distance, I believe (please check DoFmaster).
> Advantages of the 100mm on the other hand:
> 1. Greater working distance- always useful.
> 2. Compression will allow a smaller part of the background to be visible, and look less busy
> ...


I went for the 100 for the above reasons. I got the non -L to save money. I like using my lightweight Gitzo tripod.


----------



## Berowne (Feb 23, 2015)

I do not understand the argument with the long reach. When it is about a crop-Camera, then the EF-S 60 gives 100mm-FF-Äquivalent, same Focal lenght as the 100 USM or 100L on a FF-Camera. When you want to have realy long reach, then use a Tele-Lens. 

550D; EF 200/2.8; ISO 200; f2.8; 1/1000sec.


----------



## wsmith96 (Feb 23, 2015)

Marsu42 said:


> ... the sample shot just above is a good demonstration: the fur near the camera is in focus, the eye just barely and the head is already clearly out of focus even for web size, never mind the wings.
> 
> Btw in my experience the working distance isn't so important for butterflies, either they decide to flee very early on or sit still unless you bump 'em with the lens. It's more about getting your own lens into the way of the ambient light or flash(es) that makes the difference with longer focal lengths.



Agreed - this shot was taken with the aperture wide open and the light source was troublesome in relation to the position of the lens.


----------



## Marsu42 (Feb 23, 2015)

Berowne said:


> When you want to have realy long reach, then use a Tele-Lens.



But a tele-lens (next to worse iq than a macro) needs way higher shutter speed as you're so far away from the subject, and you completely lose af precision when shooting with a thin dof. I have some nice "environmental" butterfly shots with my 70-300L on a 60d, but you never, ever get near that kind of magnification even on mfd. 



wsmith96 said:


> Agreed - this shot was taken with the aperture wide open and the light source was troublesome in relation to the position of the lens.



The nice thing about macro shooting is that you really learn to develop a sense for details - you don't see "oh, a butterfly!" anymore but know the whole animal front to back. And the behavior, if you try to crawl up on it.

The problem with shooting live animals (and we don't kill 'em for focus stacking, do we?) is that if you want to have a lot in focus this leaves you with exactly one position - right angle to the lens. With everything else, the dof is too thin to get even one eye into focus, let alone the whole head so I feel this always has a "out of focus" look to it. Ymmv.


----------



## Berowne (Feb 23, 2015)

Marsu42 said:


> Berowne said:
> 
> 
> > When you want to have realy long reach, then use a Tele-Lens.
> ...



Yes, but shooting the butterfly with the 200 on APS-C is funny!


----------



## NancyP (Feb 23, 2015)

What are you shooting, how are you lighting it, and are you likely to use the lens for studio copy work?

Shy critter - telephoto macro. Studio copy work at lower magnification 1:4 to 1:2 - normal or short telephoto macro. Natural light only - telephoto macro. Natural and flash - any focal length.

Are you likely to use the lens for non-macro applications? 

You can't go wrong. All the Canon macro lenses are very good. I have used EF-S 60 for a long time. I do a fair amount of studio work at 1:4 up to 1:1, and I have lighting, so the 60 allows me to work without standing on a ladder all the time.


----------



## Marsu42 (Feb 23, 2015)

Berowne said:


> Yes, but shooting the butterfly with the 200 on APS-C is funny!



Sure, I guess a lot of people buying macro lenses start off like that, shoot away and add a watermark. A tele lens can produce nice shots for web-size, but if you encounter really nice scenes you begin to wonder why you cannot make more of it - and with a tele-lens even with as little mfd as the 70-300L, you can only get so much magnification.


----------



## Arty (Feb 23, 2015)

I like the 100 mm Canon non-L. It is a fine lens. For lots of purposes, it will do better than the shorter lens. It is especially good for insects, small jewelry and flowers.
However, there are times when a shorter lens might be more useful, especially for copy work. A shorter lens gives you more versatility, and is certainly easier to hold at slower shutter speeds. I also have the Sigma 50F2.8 macro, and like it for trips to the gardens, flowers, close-ups of larger objects and portraits.
Lighting can be a problem with short working distances, as others have pointed out. If you think you may go full frame, then avoid crop lenses. There is no one correct answer here, as it all depends on what you want to photograph.
I like SLRs because you can pick the focal length and max aperture to suit your needs.


----------



## bluenoser1993 (Feb 23, 2015)

I wouldn't shy away from the 60 just because it is a crop lens. If you think you are going FF in a year or two, just buy used. Looking at completed listings on Ebay the used copies all sell at a very similar price point. You'd just be borrowing the lens for a year. You will lose a bigger percentage on the 60 if you buy new, at least in Canada. I find the used 60 sells for 250-300 below new retail (plus tax savings), but the 100L only saves you about 150-200 off retail (sorry, I wasn't looking at prices for the non L to compare).


----------



## sandymandy (Feb 27, 2015)

whats the closest you can go with the 60mm or 100mm on FF? like that butterfly sample photo?


----------



## Zeidora (Feb 27, 2015)

I also suggest a 100 mm lens. Even with crop factor, 50/60 mm is on the short side. Given that IS is useless at 1:1, and that AF is also useless at close focus, consider the Zeiss Makroplanar 100 mm f/2.0 ZE. Image quality is WAY superior to Canon [Although I have a Canon 180MacroL, it is a lens of last resort because of lateral color issues]. The one downside is, that the Zeiss only goes to 1:2, for 1:1 you use extension tubes. On the upside, you get f/2.0, so a bright screen. 
I've used a lot of macros over the years. OM 50 & 80 mm, Nikon 105, Pentax 100, Zeiss 100 C/Y & ZE, Canon 180 and MPE 65, Schneider 180Apo (on 4x5). The Zeisses are in a class of their own. The Zeiss 100 Makroplanar is my main workhorse lens for nature/natural history.


----------



## Marsu42 (Feb 27, 2015)

Zeidora said:


> Given that IS is useless at 1:1



... agreed (though others don't) ...



Zeidora said:


> and that AF is also useless at close focus.



... but I definitely agree here. Sure enough the keeper rate is very low with a very thin dof, but for example with shooting butterfly macros (i.e. really near or at 1:1) doing ~5 quick attempts to nail the focus it usually works.

I have no idea how I'd do that with manual focus because if you're in the real outdoors lying on the ground with a live animal, it's about speed. Esp. with the very small viewfinder of a crop camera, mf would be really tricky.


----------



## Zeidora (Mar 1, 2015)

Marsu42 said:


> Zeidora said:
> 
> 
> > Given that IS is useless at 1:1
> ...



Very simple. Keep focus = magnification fixed, move camera to/from subject, look at ground glass, shoot, shoot, shoot. If you know that AF is off, you are forced to look at viewfinder and make decisions. Keeper rate is low at any rate, but these days, no problem. 
Also consider that the MPE 65 is MF only, so somehow it must be possible to do macro with MF lens. Just did a Cyclosa spider last week. Then flash is of the essence (MT 24 EX).


----------



## Marsu42 (Mar 1, 2015)

Zeidora said:


> look at ground glass



You're right, this is an alternative, I nearly forgot about it. I use it to shoot macros of frog eyes as the dof is so tiny the af will never work. Imho it really depends on the vf size, for example I find it easier with my 6d than 60d. And for anything with less magnification, arguably af works better the larger the distance gets.

Another drawback of the fixed focus approach that you have to move the camera back and forth, this can be a problem if you're lying in the ground or standing waist-high in water and would rather keep a stable position .


----------



## Zeidora (Mar 1, 2015)

Marsu42 said:


> Zeidora said:
> 
> 
> > look at ground glass
> ...



"Movement" to get focus is on the order of a few millimeters, maybe a cm back and forth. No problem standing in water or lying on the ground. If you think about scaring animals off with movement, I'd be more concerned with rapid movement of lens parts under AF, than slow and controlled body/camera movement. I wouldn't do it on a tight rope, but then there are other reasons for not doing macro on a high wire


----------



## verysimplejason (Mar 1, 2015)

I'll not argue with the technical differences between 60mm EFS, 100mm USM, 100mm L USM IS. I had used the non-L 100 only both on my 6D and 500D. The only advice I'll give you is to invest in a good macro lighting equipment as it is arguably more useful for macro shots. Rarely I've used a tripod because it's very hard to tell insects to stay put. Another thing is to perfect your breathing techniques when taking macro shots. Please find below some shots taking with my 100mm USM. Some are taken wide-open. Holding your breath while taking a shot is very important to keep your hands steady. I guess that's what we call human IS.


----------



## SUNDOG04 (Mar 1, 2015)

I have the 50 compact macro and the 100L macro that I use on a 40D. I would certainly recommend the 60 over the ancient 50 macro, although optically it is excellent and cheap. 

I use the 100L for about 95% of my macro photography. My favorite subjects are reptiles and amphibians so the extra working distance of the 100L is helpful. Essential when photographing rattlesnakes. I generally use Canon's twin macro flash. However the camera makes a great telephoto because of the IS. Extremely sharp photos are possible handheld at about 1/30 second. In addition, the narrow angle of view along with more of a background blur is noticeably better than using a shorter length lens. So if price is within range, I would highly recommend the 100L over the 60 macro. That said, the 60 is an extremely sharp lens and you would not go wrong with that lens. You could always buy a used 50 and see how that works. Recently, just for the heck of it, I've experimented using the 50 with the twin flash and notice a little bit of a shadow around the subject which makes the image 'pop' better, no doubt because I am closer to the subject and the flashes are at more of an angle. 

So, if the 100L is more affordable, you would not only have an excellent macro lens, but an excellent telephoto more portable because you can get away without using a tripod. Tripods are highly desirable for macro work when they are practical to use. That depends on your type of photography. For someone like myself that logs miles on the mountains looking for subjects, a tripod would be a handicap most of the time and the subject would be gone by the time I set one up. There would be no way I would consider the 100 non-IS since the IS is that useful. A lot of people will say you do not need IS on a macro lens. My thought are...it is not an absolute necessity, but it is highly desirable.


----------



## Hjalmarg1 (Mar 2, 2015)

sandymandy said:


> Hi,
> 
> im not sure if to buy the ef-s 60mm for my APS-C or the EF 100mm.
> 
> ...


With the 100mm you will benefit from longer working distance. Non-L 100mm and 60mm macros perform almost identical in terms of IQ and sharpness. 100L is way better hands down and sigma 105mm is an option I invite you to consider as it delivers excellent IQ and sharpness and it's just little more expensive than the non-L 100mm macro, AND very importantly it has OS (image stabilization)


----------



## danski0224 (Mar 2, 2015)

Taken with a Sigma 70mm f/2.8 macro, handheld at f/8, not 1:1.

This lens is out of production (new) for the Canon EOS mount. 

It extends while it is focusing, does not have a USM (so, it is noisy when focusing but still is quick) or OS (stabilisation) and it will not manually focus unless the switch is set to MF (the focus ring is locked and will not turn by hand in AF mode).

That said, it seems to work rather well and it can be had used for a relatively small amount of money. 

The extending design may be an advantage over some non-extending macro lenses if this Sigma does not "lose mm's" in macro mode.


----------



## NancyP (Mar 2, 2015)

Zeidora, you have quite the lens collection there. You are a little hard on the EF 180 f/3.5L macro - a little lens correction helps - the function of a longer telephoto macro is to deal with shy live subjects. In what way is the Zeiss 100 image quality better than the Canon 100L macro image quality? I have thought about getting a mid-length macro, and my macro focusing is manual (focus ring, moving stage, or "LordV method").

"LordV method": hold the camera and at the same time with the same hand hold a more-or-less vertically placed thin or medium-sized "stick" (hiking pole, even a collapsible fishing rod holder) either against the camera body or by hooking your little finger onto the stick. You now have a pivot point and can rock forward or back to get fine focus, using minor wrist action to adjust framing. I may try the string technique too - string attaches to the 1/4" tripod hole in the bottom of the camera, stand on string, pull upward. Our local botanical garden does not allow tripods or even purpose-built monopods in indoor spaces - worried about liability of people falling over the tripod, and the tripod obstructing traffic in a narrow space. The collapsible fishing rod holder fits inside my camera bag, and of course the string would fit in my pocket.


----------



## Marsu42 (Mar 2, 2015)

NancyP said:


> by hooking your little finger onto the stick.



I'd love to the a picture of *that* :->



NancyP said:


> I may try the string technique too - string attaches to the 1/4" tripod hole in the bottom of the camera, stand on string, pull upward.



This one is rather ingenious as the equipment needs zero packing space. I wonder how many stops this axes off the shutter on average vs controlled breathing alone?


----------



## NancyP (Mar 2, 2015)

The question is, can I set up one camera with radio remote release to photograph me using the stick or string technique? I may have to push the radio remote with my toe...


----------



## ScottyP (Mar 3, 2015)

A macro lens is one I would seriously consider buying pre-owned because so many seem to get very little use before they are unloaded. It seems like every one I see on Craigslist is a case of "_I really thought I would use this thing, but I shot it 4 times then put it away for 3 years....". _


----------



## privatebydesign (Mar 3, 2015)

NancyP said:


> The question is, can I set up one camera with radio remote release to photograph me using the stick or string technique? I may have to push the radio remote with my toe...



If you have some RT flash system gear then yes, easily. I have set up my 1Ds MkIII and 600EX so it triggers my EOS-M whenever I take a shot with the 1Ds MkIII, the flashes only sync to the main camera but the triggering works great, the M will AF and either auto expose or shoot at whatever manual settings were set in it.

The mode is called Linked Shot, and is good fun.


----------



## sandymandy (Mar 8, 2015)

i imagine handholding a 60mm on APS-C is quite hard already. not sure if 100mm is possible for getting an okay rate of in focus shots. chep good monopod recommendations? im afraid tripod will be too annoying to carry around for me since it feels so big (the one i got now is a cheap, light one) and im a slim person too. but some kind of stability would be good...
i know there are really tiny tripods out their or this gorilla (?) things. are they useful or just gimmicks...


----------



## danski0224 (Mar 9, 2015)

sandymandy said:


> i imagine handholding a 60mm on APS-C is quite hard already. not sure if 100mm is possible for getting an okay rate of in focus shots. chep good monopod recommendations? im afraid tripod will be too annoying to carry around for me since it feels so big (the one i got now is a cheap, light one) and im a slim person too. but some kind of stability would be good...
> i know there are really tiny tripods out their or this gorilla (?) things. are they useful or just gimmicks...



I think you are overthinking it.

Handholding the 60mm is not an issue.

There are many levels of macro photgraphy. There are many excellent images done with a minimal investment in equipment just as there are many excellent images done with a large investment in equipment.

Is a tripod useful? Yes. Will you want to bring it out every time (don't forget the remote shutter release)? Probably not. After you get the tripod, then you need some sort of tripod head and I can tell you that making adjustments for macro pictures with a ball head is a pain.

A monopod is quite useful for that extra little bit of stability and it can be adjusted for height quickly. 

There are many threads about tripods, monopods and heads... so spend some time searching here and elsewhere. It is quite uncommon to get "cheap and good" in the same product.

One thing that the 100L macro has over the non-L 100 or the EF-S 60 is a lens collar. That lens collar allows you to rotate the camera. That is a big help compared to attaching the tripod to the single screw on the bottom of the camera. Of note, the OEM Canon lens collar does NOT come with the lens and it is rather expensive for what it is- 3rd party versions are available. There is no way to attach a lens collar to the non-L 100 or EF-S 60. The 100L also has image stabilization tailored for macro shooting, which can help with handheld shots if you can't keep the shutter speed with the 100L at 1/200s or better on the APS-C sensor. 

Once you decide to get a tripod or monopod, you will see the added utility in Arca-Swiss style camera plates, camera L plates and lens plates.

If you haven't spent time checking out the "Post Your Setup" or "Shooting with Tubes" threads in the "Macro World" forum over at Fred Miranda, it is well worth the visit.


----------



## Zeidora (Mar 11, 2015)

NancyP said:


> Zeidora, you have quite the lens collection there. You are a little hard on the EF 180 f/3.5L macro - a little lens correction helps - the function of a longer telephoto macro is to deal with shy live subjects. In what way is the Zeiss 100 image quality better than the Canon 100L macro image quality? I have thought about getting a mid-length macro, and my macro focusing is manual (focus ring, moving stage, or "LordV method").
> 
> "LordV method": hold the camera and at the same time with the same hand hold a more-or-less vertically placed thin or medium-sized "stick" (hiking pole, even a collapsible fishing rod holder) either against the camera body or by hooking your little finger onto the stick. You now have a pivot point and can rock forward or back to get fine focus, using minor wrist action to adjust framing. I may try the string technique too - string attaches to the 1/4" tripod hole in the bottom of the camera, stand on string, pull upward. Our local botanical garden does not allow tripods or even purpose-built monopods in indoor spaces - worried about liability of people falling over the tripod, and the tripod obstructing traffic in a narrow space. The collapsible fishing rod holder fits inside my camera bag, and of course the string would fit in my pocket.



Hi Nancy, 

You are right, I like my glass. I do understand the purpose of the 180 to bridge longer distances, and that is why I got it. Where I need even more distance, I use a 300/2.8 IS with extension rings. 

I try to attach a couple of images (first time attempt, so will see).
First is an image of an orchid (_Diena polybulbon_), same framing (more or less) with details blown up to show distinct lateral color in 180 macro, while the Zeiss has zero. The two blow up areas are highlighted with some squares on the main picture. Note, that the highlighted areas are by far not in the corner, so corner LC will be much more pronounced. Some here may consider the LC as negligible, but I want to show that there are lenses free of those defects. This was shot on a 5dmkii, so the effect will also be more pronounced on bodies with smaller pixels; I have a 5dsr on order.

I have not used the Canon 100 macro, so cannot comment on it. However, I have not seen any reviews that suggest it is on par with the Zeiss. Whenever I have compared Zeiss vs. others, Zeiss has come out on top. Zeiss vs. Leica stereomicroscopes, Zeiss vs. Swarovski birding binoculars, Zeiss vs. Hitachi/JEOL scanning electron microscopes. If you have a chance, try the Zeiss. It costs about the same as the Canon 180 macro.

My focusing is also manual (duh), also use focusing stages (manual and motorized Stackshot). In zoos etc. where I cannot use a tripod, I have used flashes. If you hold a rubber hood agains the glass, you can eliminate reflections. Some places don't like flashes either. Haven't done that in a while, rather go outside and shoot in the wild.

I have had 50 macros before, but then quickly "graduated" to the longer ones. First OM 90, then Nikkor 105, Pentax 100 (for underwater), Zeiss 100 CY, now Zeiss 100 ZE. For botanical work, I very much prefer the longer focal length as you can frame more freely and are less prone of introducing shadows with your gear/body. If you want the plant-in-environment shot, then rather go with WA. I used the 21 for that quite a bit, but that was occasionally too wide, so recently got the 24/2 and like it quite a bit for that. May workhorse lens is the 100 mm MP.

I have not used stick or string. I rather brace myself against wall, arms against chest. Or just enjoy without pictures. Last but not least, if you are really into it, contact the place before hand, and offer to make the images available. Some may then let you set up a tripod in off-peak periods. I work at a museum, and although I don't think we had such a request, I think we could find common grounds.

Second is a shot of a rattler (_Crotalus oregonensis_) in the wild chaparral with 300/2.8 IS @ f/13 1/60s MF and extension ring, a 4' reflector brightening up the shadow on the rock. I don't see rattlers that often; I don't like the grass over the head, but was not about to remove it. The shot just gives an idea that this works pretty well. 

Enjoy your botanical shooting.


----------



## danski0224 (Mar 11, 2015)

Zeidora said:


> I have not used the Canon 100 macro, so cannot comment on it. However, I have not seen any reviews that suggest it is on par with the Zeiss. Whenever I have compared Zeiss vs. others, Zeiss has come out on top. Zeiss vs. Leica stereomicroscopes, Zeiss vs. Swarovski birding binoculars, Zeiss vs. Hitachi/JEOL scanning electron microscopes. If you have a chance, try the Zeiss. It costs about the same as the Canon 180 macro.
> 
> My focusing is also manual (duh), also use focusing stages (manual and motorized Stackshot). In zoos etc. where I cannot use a tripod, I have used flashes. If you hold a rubber hood agains the glass, you can eliminate reflections. Some places don't like flashes either. Haven't done that in a while, rather go outside and shoot in the wild.



Nancy-

For manual focusing, I'd thow out a suggestion for trying the Mamiya 645 120mm f/4 macro "version A" (there is a later version that works with the AF models of Mamiya cameras and it costs more- not the one you want).

With a relatively inexpensive Fotodiox adapter, you can have focus confirmation.

Because this lens is designed for medium format, you have no viginetting wide open.

This is also a true manual focus lens with about 270 degrees of rotation on the focus ring, maybe a little more. This compares favorably with the Zeiss and far exceeds the manual focus range obtained while using a Canon EF lens in Manual mode. I have tried using Canon EF lenses in Manual mode and fail miserably but I can use lenses that are truly manual focus- there is a big difference.

This Mamiya lens also does 1:1 (life size) where the 100mm Zeiss does 2:1 (1/2 of life size).

There are numerous favorable reviews of this Mamiya lens out there on the web. 

The Zeiss is f/2 and the Mamiya is f/4. The bokeh from the Mamiya is very, very good and you get an extra 20mm plus the 1:1 ratio.

The other significant difference is cost. The Mamiya in excellent condition and the adapter can be had for less than 1/2 of new Zeiss lens cost. Truly a bargain for the performance.


----------



## Zeidora (Mar 12, 2015)

danski0224 said:


> For manual focusing, I'd thow out a suggestion for trying the Mamiya 645 120mm f/4 macro "version A" (there is a later version that works with the AF models of Mamiya cameras and it costs more- not the one you want).
> 
> With a relatively inexpensive Fotodiox adapter, you can have focus confirmation.
> 
> ...



Danski: Interesting! Does the Mamiya lens have auto-aperture on a Canon body, or do you have to use working aperture with dark view finder? Working aperture is OK for tripod work, but is a non-starter for hand-held. I had a Zeiss MP 100 C/Y (going to 1:1), but replaced it with the ZE version for automatic aperture, which is critical for me. Overall, I'd prefer a lens that goes straight to 1:1, so now have to use extension tubes. The f/2 of the MP ZE is not that useful; I hardly ever shoot that open. 

I somewhat doubt that a Mamyia lens on a Canon body will have auto-aperture. There are also Zeiss 100 mm C/Y lenses on the market, and those are also about half of a new ZE, and I bet they are smaller/lighter, if you are willing to accept working aperture plus adapter.

Not sure I agree with your vignetting point. It is reduced by closing aperture, so an f/4 lens will have less wide open compared to a f/2 all open of same collecting angle or focal length. The vignetting/light fall-off/relative illuminance[Zeiss term on their datasheets] of an f/2 lens at f/4 will the very similar to a f/4 lens at f/4 of same focal length. [that's the reason you use center filters on LF WA, and those are usually optimized for an intermediate apertures]. The 20 mm more on the Mamyia will reduce it by a hair, but once you close f-stop to f/8 or more, as is common in macro, you won't notice any difference any more.


----------



## danski0224 (Mar 13, 2015)

Zeidora said:


> Danski: Interesting! Does the Mamiya lens have auto-aperture on a Canon body, or do you have to use working aperture with dark view finder? Working aperture is OK for tripod work, but is a non-starter for hand-held. I had a Zeiss MP 100 C/Y (going to 1:1), but replaced it with the ZE version for automatic aperture, which is critical for me. Overall, I'd prefer a lens that goes straight to 1:1, so now have to use extension tubes. The f/2 of the MP ZE is not that useful; I hardly ever shoot that open.
> 
> I somewhat doubt that a Mamyia lens on a Canon body will have auto-aperture. There are also Zeiss 100 mm C/Y lenses on the market, and those are also about half of a new ZE, and I bet they are smaller/lighter, if you are willing to accept working aperture plus adapter.
> 
> Not sure I agree with your vignetting point. It is reduced by closing aperture, so an f/4 lens will have less wide open compared to a f/2 all open of same collecting angle or focal length. The vignetting/light fall-off/relative illuminance[Zeiss term on their datasheets] of an f/2 lens at f/4 will the very similar to a f/4 lens at f/4 of same focal length. [that's the reason you use center filters on LF WA, and those are usually optimized for an intermediate apertures]. The 20 mm more on the Mamyia will reduce it by a hair, but once you close f-stop to f/8 or more, as is common in macro, you won't notice any difference any more.



Zeidora-

The Mamiya 120 "A" is 100% manual on a Canon camera.

I have used it mostly in live view. I now have a Fotodiox adapter with focus confirmation, so that should help with eyeballing things. 

The focus throw is quite generous and I have found it relatively easy to dial in through the viewfinder. 

The Mamiya lens is made for medium format, so it has a larger image circle than a 35mm lens, with the possible exception of the Canon tilt-shift lenses. Any viginetting apparent on the 645 camera should be mostly cut off on a 35mm sensor.

There are numerous anecdotes about "medium format lens rendering" compared to "35mm format lens rendering". This Mamiya 120 lens has very good reviews/feedback wherever you choose to search about it.

The price is quite reasonable, depending on how long you want to look for one.

I suppose that the one drawback is the lack of a tripod collar. Some have used 3rd party collars and spacers (tape) to take up the slack.


----------

