Canon Macro Lenses, considerations
Monday, September 19th, 2005
Richard: I have three canon lenses the 18-55 it comes with, a 75-300 and a 28-90. I was also looking into buying a macro lens, maybe the 100mm f2.8 do you have any preference for a macro lens.
- Stephen
Canon makes numerous macro lenses but the three most often considered are:
EF 100mm f/2.8 USM Macro Lens
I had one of these lenses and it’s a great one. My friend Dale, who does much more macro photography than I do recommended it and he was not wrong. The 100mm focal length allows you to fill the frame with a bug from a more comfortable working distance. It offers 1 to 1 magnification.
My issues with this lens were twofold: it is a bit heavy for everyday use and the 100mm focal length on a 1.6 crop body (20D, Rebel, XT) means it’s more like a 160mm lens which makes it less all around useful. All of the macros tend to hunt a bit in auto-focus mode when you’re using them for things other than macro work and this hunting bugged me in every day use.
EF 50mm f/2.5 Macro Lens
This lens is quite popular but alas, it does not magnify as much as the 100 or the 60 as it offers 1 to 2 magnification. F2.5 is faster than f2.8 but marginally so. Still, it’s one to consider as 50mm is a very useful focal range for things other than macro.
EF-S 60mm f/2.8 USM Macro Lens
The 60mm macro is what I got instead of the 100. It’s smaller, lighter, does 1 to 1 magnification like the 100 and at 60mm does not give one the same working distance but instead, is a more versatile focal length for non-macro work.
One very important downside of this lens that the other two do not share is that it is a newer EF-S mount which means it will only work on the Rebel, Rebel XT and 20D but not on the new 5D or the other higher end DSLRs. If one of those is in your future think twice about this lens and go for the 100mm. I realized that when I went this way as the 5D will be out of my price range for quite some time. This is one of my favorite lenses and makes spectacular images.
Here are my images at flickr taken (and tagged) with the 60mm macro.
Macro vs. close-up
The one thing I’ve noticed on flickr is how many people use the term “macro” when they mean close-up. There may or may not be a technical definition of macro (my guess, extreme magnification) but I can assure you that I’ve taken extreme close-ups with 135mm and 200mm telephoto lenses with no macro capabilities. As long as we’re using lens-tagging at flickr, here are my older 100mm macro shots. Notice some of them are landscapes from plane windows, some of them are close-ups and some are true macro shots.
You’re welcome to explore all of my flickr tags, lens and otherwise and I think you’ll notice that the difference between close-up and macro is marginal and it all depends on the kind of shooting you want to do and where you and the camera want to be relative to the subject.
This is a great question and I hope it elicits some interesting comment discussion.
Thanks for info richard
I think i will probably go for the 60mm, when i get my body sorted out that is, i dont think i will be upgrading to a full frame sensor in the neer future so i think this will be best value for me
Stephen: I think that’s a good move and there will be decent resale value on it in case you chance your mind.
Thanks Richard, you just made me a smarter man. Now all I need to do, is to sell a few of my kids and buy one of those lenses :-)
David, what a novel idea. Why didn’t I think of that? Problem is, my “kids” are really my wife’s kids (my step kids). However, I could sell my wife. Undoubedly she’s already got me up on eBay after buying all these lenses.
Glad my informal discussion helped. As I say to anyone on flickr who will listen: get yerself a fast 50mm lens (as in a Canon 50mm f1.4) and you will be able to shoot in the most amazing conditions, won’t kill your back doing it, and… well you get the idea.
If you want to shoot spiders make that a 60mm f2.8 macro as mentioned. One could do a heck of a lot with either a fast 50 or the 60 macro as one’s only lens. Thanks for the comment David… ah, a wordpress user who I already count as a flickr contact. Man, you’ve got a lot going for you already ;).
hehe well I know quality when I see it ;-)
I’ve also got the 100mm f2.8 macro lens, and I have to agree entirely with Richards assessment. It is a terrific lens, however the depth of field is so shallow that manual focus is impossible. As it is also a little slow, a tripod is highly recommended for any work using this lens.
Another note: Although Canon also bills this as a portrait lens, it is not terribly useful for this task when you want a shot of more than one person at a time. Even slight differences in distance between people and the camera has a huge effect on the quality of the shot.
Scott: thanks for the report on your use of lenses.
I didn’t mean to imply that the 100mm f2.8 has a shallow depth of field (any lens wide open will), just that the 100mm makes for a narrower view of the subject, which is good and bad, depending on what you want to do.
Also, manual focus is fine on the lens, its autofocus that hunts a bit. Manual is fine on any macro and highly recommended when the lens is on a tripod.
As far as using it as a portrait lens, I’d say it’s great at it (not as good as the 135 f/2 L but that’s a higher end lens) and to get good depth between people at unequal distances you simply stop down to something smaller than wide open to increat depth of field. All lenses work this way, the 60mm included.
All of that said, on a 1.6 crop camera like a Rebel or a 20D, 100 can seem like a fairly long focal length for everyday shooting.
And, to underscore an important point (thanks Scott, now I know someone read the post), the EF-S 60mm f2.8 will not work on the new 5D or any of the high end full frame cameras while the EF 100mm f2.8 will. So, let’s not dump on that old 100 too much, it may be just right for some folks.
I’m glad to learn that the 60mm lens won’t upgrade if I decide to! I was also looking at the 100mm f/2.8, so I think this settles it.
Thanks Richard!
Melinda,
Don’t rule out the Tamron 90mm. It may also be a contender.
I went with the 60 as I like that focal length a bit more in my macro work although I agree, the 100 gives one more room to manuver.
Also, don’t forget that on both Amazon and eBay there is excellent resale value in almost any Canon lens in good shape. I’ve sold many on Amazon and have lost little money from my initial investment.
Hi Richard, I have been spending this 2 days considering the macro lens to purchase for my canon 350D. I have tried out tamron 90mm, cannon 60mm and 100mm. I like 60mm for its size, being a new upgrader from P&S. I saw your pics, and like what I see. Do u think that using the 60mm requires less use of tripods? I really find it a challenge to have to run around chasing the insects with tripods.
Ya Ya: Hey, great to see your comment here.
Yes, the Canon 60mm is much smaller and lighter than the Canon 100mm and smaller and somewhat lighter than the Tamron 90mm.
In weight and size it is close to the 50mm f/1.4, which is small and light.
That said, it has one important liability as stated above: it will not work on a 5D or any other Canon full-frame camera.
The other thing to keep in mind is this: it is possible that the slightly heavier lenses are more stable than the lighter ones. I have no proof of this but it’s a thought. And, if you use it for macro work sans-tripod that may be a bigger issue (I do both, with and without tripod but soon I hope to get a smaller and lighter tripod so I use it more).
Hey, I’m not trying to talk you out of the 60mm, I love mine and have no regrets and have no plans to get a 5D any time soon so even if I could do it again I’d do the same thing.
The 60mm will be a better every day lens as well, on your 1.6 crop 350D it will be a wider focal length than the 90 or 100. It’s sharp enough so I’ll bet you use it quite often.
I’ll look forward to hearing your thinking and what you end up getting.
Richard, I decided to go with the Tamron 90mm.
I went to the store yesterday deciding on the 100mm over the 60mm focal length. (60mm is too near to my 18-55mm kit lens) Then, I tried both the canon 100mm and the tamron 90mm and chose the 90mm. Simple reasons:
- it is less than 60% of the canon’s price, and comes with hood and lens bag.
- it focuses reasonably fast when I tried it.
- it is lighter and smaller.
As for pic quality, I am sure the canon one is better. But for now the tamron one will just do for me.
I’ll try out the lens and let you know. :)
Ya Ya: I think you did great. I doubt picture quality will be better with either Canon. Rosemary on flickr uses the Tamron so you’re in good company and she makes fabulous photographs with it. I’ll be very interested in what you think.
Thanks for letting us know how it went.