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.
Hi Richard,
Thanks for all the useful info on this website. I discovered you via flickr. I’ve been trying to decide on what first lens to get too, initially I really wanted the 100mm macro, but now I’m thinking maybe the 60mm or 50mm 1.4 should be my first buy.
I have a 50d and my only lens is 17-85mm. I’m quite a beginner in photography so I’m trying to work out what would be a best first lens to get. I like to take candid people shots, still life products, macros of flowers & water droplets.. but not really bugs so from your review, 60mm sounds more suitable? Also, if I got the 60mm, is it still worth getting the 50mm?… or the other way around? (I’m a big fan of bokeh and shallow dof too). Thanks!
YXL: Thanks for checking in here, I’m always glad to help a fellow photographer in any way that I can.
What you will learn as you get more experience is that any of the lenses you mention will be fine for what you want to do, it’s just a matter of learning how to use them to get the desired effect.
One thing you need to learn about before deciding on a lens is something called “crop factor” which is the idea that the Canon 50D has a smaller sensor than, for instance, the Canon 5D. The Canon 5D’s sensor is the same size as a 35mm film frame and we call this “full frame.”
All lenses are built to work with full frame sensors. Of course, the same lenses will work on cameras with smaller sensors but some of the image, projected onto the sensor by the lens is cut off or “cropped” and this is where the term “crop factor” comes from.
So, a 50mm lens on a 5D has the same angle of view that it would on a film camera but on the 50D the angle of view will be 1.6 times longer or about 80mm. So, if you think of 50mm as a “normal” focal length (normal = approximating what a human eye sees) in order to get that angle of view on a Canon 50D you’d need something like a 35mm lens.
However, for portraits and flowers and closeups a slightly longer lens is useful so a 50mm lens might be just right and you already have the 17 end of your zoom to get wider. Of course, it’s not really a 17mm angle of view on your Canon 50D, it’s more like a 27mm angle of view.
If you’re careful with your gear, the Canon 50mm f/1.8 is an inexpensive and excellent lens. It’s not built tough and it doesn’t focus fast but it will produce decent bokeh if you shoot in Av mode relatively wide open (f/1.8 – f/4) and you can make decent portraits and closeups with it.
Or, you could spend a bit more and get the Canon 50mm f/1.4 which is a much better lens and faster too.
If you want a very high quality lens that’s a bit wider and so, would feel more like a 50mm angle of view on your 50D, consider the Canon 35mm f/1.4L. It is one of Canon’s best lenses and is sharp and fast and built like a tank. If you look through the gear list on this page you can read about it:
http://www.richardsnotes.org/archives/2007/11/12/my-camera-gear/
Or, you could get a zoom lens that covers the range you’re interested in and there are many fine ones to choose from. I like to recommend that beginners get at least one, fast prime lens because it can make a very large impact on one’s photography and the three I’ve listed, while different in price and build quality can each do the trick well.
Let me know if you’ve got more questions. I’m happy to answer them.
Hi Richard,
Thanks for your reply, thats really helpful. I read what’s in your bag already, as well as some other brilliant articles you have written! I’ve read so many reviews and info from user forums my head hurts!! LOL! I just gonna buy a lens now and get shooting!! I decided to go with the 50m 1.4 as my first lens. I was very tempted by your 35mm suggestion, but I feel like such a novice I can’t justify spending so much at the moment.. and besides, I really want the 100mm L lense first! :) All the best!
XYL: That’s a fine choice as it’s an excellent lens and it makes great images. Just remember that it’s giving you a longer angle of view so if you’re shooting whole body shots with it you’ll need to move back.
You’ll really enjoy it at night: wide open with an ISO setting of 1000 or so you’ll get some great night light bokeh.
The Canon 100mm macros (both lenses) are excellent and there’s not a lot of optical difference between them. What you’re getting in the L version is better build quality and image stabilization. I didn’t care so much about the IS but wanted better build since I broke my older non IS 100mm lens and didn’t want it happening again. I’m happy with the new lens but don’t notice a huge difference in image quality; they both produce excellent images.
Have fun, let me know if you have more questions.
Hi Richard,
Thanks so much for your reply.. but after more research and surfing, I’m going with the 60mm macro now! I see it is your favourite lens above! btw, that link to your flickr tags doesnt work. I’m not going to upgrade to full frame anytime soon, jus got my 50d last year and I think the light weight of the 60 will actually work better for me. I prefer to handhold when outside and the close working distance means that my tripod wont let me get closer enough for ‘overhead’ shots!
My question is do you think its still wort getting the 50mm 1.4…as the focal length is quite close to the 60? (Eventually I would like to get a longer zoom and perhaps a 10-22 lens to complement my set!)
Thanks again! :)
YXL: Thanks for the heads up, I fixed the links in case you want to check them out.
The 60mm f/2.8 macro is a fine lens, very sharp and fast focusing but it’s not as fast as the 50mm f/1.4 and this will be meaningful for shooting in low light. It’s a great lens and you’ll do fine with it. One thing it has over the various 50mm lenses from Canon is the ability, as a macro lens, to focus very close: you can get closer to your subject than with the other lenses. This will allow you to blur the background with smaller apertures than would be needed if you couldn’t get so close.
I’d skip the 50mm f/1.4 until you find that you need a larger aperture lens. Just shoot with this one for a while and see how you like it.
Have fun.
Hi Richard, just wanted to say that I got the the 60mm and I think I’m in love!! hehe!! I’m so glad I got this instead of the 100mm as I have to back up quite a bit for non macro work indoors so I probably wouldn’t be able to use the 100mm at home! This is my very first prime so I’m having to train my feet to move more!!
Anyway, just thought I’d share my very first pic with you! Thanks for all your advice! :) http://www.flickr.com/photos/yxluu/4666042783/
Great work YXL, glad to help.