New Canon EF-S 60 Macro

A forum to ask questions, post setups, and generally discuss anything having to do with photomacrography and photomicroscopy.

Moderators: MacroMike, nzmacro, Ken Ramos, twebster, S. Alden

Locked
gunn.

New Canon EF-S 60 Macro

Post by gunn. »

Hi there

Just need your valued opinions. I've finally decided to get the 20D and am wondering if I should also get the new EF-S 60 Macro lens instead of the 100mm as I had initially planned to.

I know the 60mm is very new, but has anyone here used it before? I did review the literature and gathered that it has a working distance (front element to subject) of four inches as opposed to the 100mm's six inches. Assuming, as I now do, that the image qualities of both the lenses are about the same, is it worth paying the premium for the 100mm to get a two-inch advantage, and not to mention the obvious weight disadvantage the 100mm has over the 60mm. I am also aware of the background-blur issue vis-a-vis focal length. But, Canon does claim that the 60mm has some kind of mechanism that aids background-blur.

What do you guys think? Thanks.

Best wishes
Gunn

User avatar
MikeBinOKlahoma
Posts: 1491
Joined: Sat Nov 20, 2004 4:30 pm
Location: Umm....Could it be Oklahoma?

Post by MikeBinOKlahoma »

Truth in advertising here--I've never even seen a 60mm macro, and I've never owned or used the Canon 100mm macro (I do own a Vivitar 100mm macro). But you asked for it, so here are the random observations of someone who has never used either lens.

I'm going to list a number of small points here, but the short answer is that I would go for the 100mm without a second thought. But you may have different priorities than I do, so here is my thought process for your consideration:

In the USA, the price difference is only $20. Assuming that the difference is similar in Australia, I wouldn't let that amount enter into my calculations. Advantage--Neither lens.

The 100mm is designed to accept an optional (admittedly overpriced) tripod collar. This is a BIG advantage when shooting from a tripod. Makes it much easier to shift from landscape to portrait orientation. Sounds like you won't be getting it now, but it would be nice to have the option in the future.

The 60mm has a wider field of view than the 100mm. Undesireable junk is more likely to find it's way into the background of your pictures with the 60. Definite advantage for the 100mm.

The Canon 100mm has a heck of a reputation for sharpness. The 60mm would be hard-pressed to match that. Advantage--100mm. But the 60mm may be close enough not to matter. I doubt very much the 60mm will be sharper than the 100mm. Unless initial reviews indicate the 60mm is a blurry mess (in which case you surely wouldn't buy it!) I doubt this will carry much weight.

As you pointed out, 100mm weighs about 80% more than the 60mm. Advantage--60mm. Is this important to you? Do you plan to hike with the lens, or do a lot of air travel? If you're going to put the lens on a 350D or D20, I don't think the nine or so ounces will make a large difference in handholdability. If you will do a lot of shooting from a tripod, this may not matter at all.

The 60mm uses 52mm filters, the 100mm uses 58mm filters. You may want to give an edge to one lens or the other if you will buy or plan to buy lenses that use those sizes. There's a good chance you'll want a polarizing filter eventually, even if you don't use any other filters.

Presumably you plan to use the lenses for things other than macro. If you want lenses that will cover both the 100mm and 60mm range, it's cheaper to buy a Canon 50/1.8 than to buy a Canon 100/2 to cover the other option. If you're going to buy a "standard zoom" like the 24-85 or 28-105, this may not matter much. They will cover both macro focal lengths (or nearly so) in any case.

Six inches is pretty close to a wary bug, if that's what you plan to photograph. Four inches is VERY close to a wary bug. Big advantage for the 100mm here. Assuming you want to photograph insects, which I think you do.

Down the road, you may want to get a full-frame camera. Conceivably Canon could stop making 1.6 crop factor cameras (though I doubt it for many years). The 100mm will go on any EOS camera, current or future. 60mm fits two models now (admittedly that will grow). Advantage to the 100mm, though that may not matter to you much.

If I were considering this lens, I'd want to know how easy the 60mm is to manual focus--Just from the diagrams, the manual focus ring on the 60mm looks narrower than the 100mm. Not a big thing, but I find that the narrow ring on my 50mm macro is noticeably harder to focus than the larger ring on my 180mm macro. Believe me, in insect shots (and most other macro) you'll be manually focusing a lot. Advantage isn't certain, though I am inclined towards the 100mm on this issue.

Have you been able to hold a 100mm macro on a camera body in your hands in a shop? How does the weight (and general handling) feel to you? In a pinch, you could try it with another lens of similar weight, and see how the weight felt (but not handling, of course). It will seem huge compared to your G6, but is it genuinely gawky or hard to hold? If it is, you will justifiably lean towards the 60mm.

Unless weight is critical to you for some reason, I'd go with the Canon 100mm without hesitation.

Incidentally, by all accounts, the 20D is an awesome camera, I'll bet you love it to pieces! :-)
Last edited by MikeBinOKlahoma on Sat Apr 02, 2005 10:19 am, edited 1 time in total.
Mike Broderick
_____________________________________________________________
"I must obey the inscrutable exhortations of my soul.....My mandate includes weird bugs."--Calvin

(reposts on this site of my images for critique or instruction are welcome)

gunn
Posts: 393
Joined: Tue Jan 04, 2005 2:59 am
Location: Adelaide/KL

Post by gunn »

hi mike

thank you so much for taking me through the considerations. i was leaning towards the 60mm but now you've tipped the balance in the opposite direction for me. you don't use the 100mm? i know you do shoot with the mpe65. do you use the 180mm then? it (the 180mm) is awfully expensive here in south australia.

thanks for confirming that the 20D is a good camera. i had wanted to get the cheaper 350D but when i tested it i felt that it was harder to focus manually than the 20D. it didn't snap into and out of focus as convincingly as did the 20D. i think its the focusing screen that made the difference. why don't they put the split-circle on cameras screens anymore.

thanks again mike for responding; much appreciated.

regards
gunn

User avatar
MikeBinOKlahoma
Posts: 1491
Joined: Sat Nov 20, 2004 4:30 pm
Location: Umm....Could it be Oklahoma?

Post by MikeBinOKlahoma »

Gunn, glad it helped. It was kind of interesting to sit down and think all that stuff out.

For macro lenses, I have the Canon 50mm, 180mm, and MP-E-65 (you should see my credit card bill--Better yet, please PAY my credit card bill!). Plus a Vivitar 100mm that I don't use as much now, but was my first macro lens. The 180mm is even better than the 100mm for insect photography in many ways, but the Canon version is hideously expensive. The Sigma 180mm lens is extremely good (I know personally several people who shoot with the Sigma 180 and love it). It's not impossibly more expensive than the Canon 100 here (probably 1/3 more than the Canon 100). But Sigma lenses sometimes have compatability problems with new Canon cameras. I have a friend who had a Sigma 400/5.6 lens that focused very close, and was his workhorse lens. When he got a Canon 10D, the lens wouldn't work with the new camera. Sometimes new electronic chips can be installed in old lenses to bring them up to date, but Sigma told him that his lens was out of production, it couldn't be re-chipped, and he should buzz off! This could happen to you down the road when/if you replace your 20D. As a result, I'm suspicious of buying or recommending Sigma lenses anymore--That's why I shelled out more to buy the Canon 180. The Sigma 180 also won't accept Canon teleconverters, and sometimes I do want to use teleconverters with my 180.

If you're willing to take those risks, the Sigma 180mm would probably be an excellent performer, but it is a LOT heavier than any 100mm. I don't hand hold it unless I have absolutely no option.

I do include the disclaimer that I've never shot with one, but I believe the Canon 100mm macro would be a good choice as a SLR macro lens, especially on a 1.6 crop factor camera like the 20D.
Mike Broderick
_____________________________________________________________
"I must obey the inscrutable exhortations of my soul.....My mandate includes weird bugs."--Calvin

(reposts on this site of my images for critique or instruction are welcome)

Locked