Canon EF-s 60mm f2.8 1:1 USM Macro vs. somthing else [Archive]

View Full Version : Canon EF-s 60mm f2.8 1:1 USM Macro vs. somthing else

twotwo

08-17-2007, 05:27 PM

<div>I was reading one of Jack's comments on efs lenses and he said the Canon 60mm Macro was one of the finest lenses he's ever used. Im going to be getting a macro pretty soon and was planning on the legendary Canon 100mm. I would get the 60mm but being an EF-s you can't use a Teleconverter with it. In the lab tests when pop tested this lens they said it was just a tad better(a tiny tad) then the 100mm in allmost every respect, and thats an accomplishment. I would like to be able to use a Teleconverter on my macro to get 2:1 mag but is there that much difference? Could I get an extension ring to be able to use a tc with it? Any thoughts on this would be appreciated.</div><div> </div><div> </div><div> </div><div>Thanks, 22</div><div> </div><div>2 wrongs dont make a right but 3 rights make a left!!!!</div>

JeffA

08-17-2007, 07:25 PM

<DIV>This lens scores pretty impressively, but I don't think it has Internal Focus.  Still....</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV><A href="http://www.popphoto.com/cameralenses/3407/test-sigma-70mm-f28-ex-dg-macro-af.html" target=_blank>http://www.popphoto.com/cameralenses/3407/test-sigma-70mm-f28-ex-dg-macro-af.html</A></DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>The trouble with using a TC with a macro (especially a 2X model) is the loss of sharpness you will easily see.</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>Jeff</DIV>

coppertop

08-17-2007, 07:33 PM

<DIV></DIV>
<DIV><BR></DIV>
<BLOCKQUOTE>
<DIV>
<HR>
twotwo wrote:<BR>
<DIV>I was reading one of Jack's comments on efs lenses and he said the Canon 60mm Macro was one of the finest lenses he's ever used.  Im going to be getting a macro pretty soon and was planning on the legendary Canon 100mm.  I would get the 60mm but being an EF-s you can't use a Teleconverter with it.  In the lab tests when pop tested this lens they said it was just a tad better(a tiny tad) then the 100mm in allmost every respect, and thats an accomplishment.  I would like to be able to use a Teleconverter on my macro to get 2:1 mag but is there that much difference?  Could I get an extension ring to be able to use a tc with it?  Any thoughts on this would be appreciated.</DIV><BR>
<HR>
</DIV></BLOCKQUOTE>
<DIV>I would imagine that you'd still have the vigentting problem with an extension tube and a TC.  THe 100mm is a remarkable lens, as is the 60mm, and I don't think you can go wrong with either.  My father takes more flower pictures so I got him the 60mm for his birthday to use on his 30D.  I like a little more elbow room when chasing hornets, spiders, and other things that carry a bit of a sting so the 100mm fits my shooting style better.  </DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>However, if the 60mm was an EF mount, I'd have one as well for the larger, more docile butterflies.</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>The boost in magnification ratio will be most noticeable when you go after the tinier things (say stuff smaller than 1/4 inch).  I've messed with the 1.4x TC and really enjoy the boost when shooting with my "bug studio".  I haven't used my 2x TC much but I believe Kristo enjoys that combo.  </DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>One surprising observation about TC's and macro work is that I've found it harder to shoot unsupported with a TC.  I can roam the garden all day long with my 100mm, shooting unsupported.  Add a TC and it seems harder to keep things steady.  I imagine that since the magnification ratio increases, the slightest move is amplified.</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>On a side note, Sigma's 50mm and 70mm are quality lenses and might be an alternative.  My only reservation about pursuing one of these lenses is fitting my ring light to them.</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>Good luck with it.<BR></DIV>
<DIV></DIV>

coppertop

08-17-2007, 07:38 PM

<DIV>Jeff... the 70mm isn't internal focus (only the 150mm and 180mm from Sigma has IF) but when you get around the 1:1 neighborhood your length doesn't vary that much (1/4 inch maybe).  It would take some getting used to but the change in length isn't that dramatic for the up close distances.  It's hard to beat the internal focus of the 60mm and 100mm from Canon though.</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>Here's a review with pictures of the lens extended.</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV><A href="http://www.photozone.de/8Reviews/lenses/sigma_70_28_canon/index.htm" target=_blank>http://www.photozone.de/8Reviews/lenses/sigma_70_28_canon/index.htm</A></DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>

LynnP

08-17-2007, 09:57 PM

<div>Unless you are going to make 6x9 feet wall hangings I doubt that you would be able to tell the difference between a 60mm or the 100mm Canon macro lenses in real world taking of pictures. Coppertop likes a little more elbow room when working around bees and spiders and prefers the 100mm. That is not the only time the extral length comes in handy. There are times that you can take further away to keep your subject from being in your shadow.</div><div>The 100 makes a great moderate telephoto with the best contrast you could ask for. It is tack sharp at long distances and picks up as much detail as physics allows. If I go back to Canon that lens will be the second one I'll purchase.</div><div> </div><div> </div><div>Lynn</div>

peirceman

08-18-2007, 04:59 AM

<div>The idea behind Macro lenses is to allow you to close focus. If you have a 60mm lens that allows 1:1 magnification and a 100mm lens that allow 1:1 magnification, the size of the image on the sensor or film will be the same. The only difference will be your working distance to subject, and therefore your depth of field.</div>

coppertop

08-18-2007, 09:23 AM

<DIV>Scott...</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>That's what I've been told before but wouldn't the lens magnification factor in somewhere.  Then again, lifesize is lifesize.</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>I'll be around my dad today and will shoot something with my 100mm and his 60mm to make heads or tails of this.  </DIV>

coppertop

08-18-2007, 03:23 PM

<DIV></DIV>
<DIV>O.k.  </DIV>
<DIV>This is a very, very unscientific comparison of the 100mm f2.8 and 60mm f2.8 Macro lenses from Canon.  I grabbed a 1" wide tape measure and focused both lenses on the 3 inch mark at the minimum focusing distance (1:1 magnification).  The images are full frame from the 20D.  I adjusted them for web use (72dpi and I believe the dimensions ended up being 5.3x8) and applied the USM filter.</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>The results were surprising to me but confirmed what Scott mentioned.  Personally, I would have expected the results to be the opposite.</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>The image was recorded at virtually the same size with both lenses.  However, the 60mm cropped the image tighter and slightly larger because you have to get closer to the subject to achieve the 1:1 magnification (from the sensor plane 7.9" compared to 12").  So in a way, if you want to shoot tighter, you opt for the wider angled lens?  A 150mm at 1:1 would have a wider field of view than the 100mm?  I should have done a similar comparison when I tested the 180mm (hindsight being 50/50).</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>http://www.pbase.com/coppertop/image/84091518.jpg</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>60mm shot taken at 1:1 Magnification.</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>http://www.pbase.com/coppertop/image/84091520.jpg</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>100mm shot at 1:1 Magnification.</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>Here's the number from both images overlayed.  The 100mm is the darker.  </DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>http://www.pbase.com/image/84093181.jpg</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>I think in using these two lenses for macro purposes, it boils down to your working distance preference.  While many use the 60mm for macro work, I would find it challenging to get used to the extremely short working distance (about 3 inches) compared to the working distance of the 100mm (about 6 inches).  Keep in mind, I'm considering working distances as the distance from your subject to the front element.  I think for studio work, I'd like the 60mm and for field work the 100mm.</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>Seeing how close you get to achieve the 1:1 ratio makes Kristo's work all the more impressive (I think he shoots with a 50mm).  Again, this is a very unscientific test so please be gentle as you poke holes in my methodology.</DIV><br><br>Message Edited by coppertop on <span class=date_text>08-18-2007</span> <span class=time_text>03:23 PM</span>

twotwo

08-18-2007, 03:46 PM

<div>So, you're saying that I'll achieve more magnification with the 60mm? Is the 60mm more than 1:1?</div>

coppertop

08-18-2007, 03:53 PM

<DIV>It's not more magnification.  You're simply closer to your subject.  To acheive the lifesize magnification of 1:1 with the 60mm you have to move about four inches closer to your subject than you do with the 100mm.  The subject appears larger because you're moving closer, not because the lens magnifies it.</DIV>
<DIV><BR>It's just as if you were looking at something a foot away and moved six inches closer.  The object doesn't get physically bigger but because you move closer it appears larger.  I hope that make sense.  </DIV>