I thought i was set on the 60mm as it would come in handy for macro and portraits thus saving me the need to pic up the 50/1.4 that I was also thinking about since its so close in FL.
Today I noticed some great deals on the 100mm f/2.8 USM macro and did a little research on that. I am now torn and need your help.
I already have an 85mm f/1.8 so I wouldn't need the 100mm for portraits plus I read the AF is kinda slow anyway. On the other hand I read the AF for the 60mm is blisteringly fast and accurate.
Can anyone who has experience with these 2 lenses please unload your information and opinion on me. This would be my first macro lens, I have no experience at all with it.
One factor consider is working distance. This'll depend on what your shooting, of course, but I chose the 100 for working on a full-frame body in part because the 180 often left me too far away to easily manipulate my subject (brush dust off a flower petal, attach a Plamp, that sort of thing) If you're considering the 60, you're on a 1.6x crop body, so for my money I'd prefer the working distance of the 60, the 100 would put me too far from my subjects.
On your 40D the 60mm is going to shine!!! I used one shortly with my 30D and wish I'd have kept it. I now have the 100mm for my 5D, and it'll be one that I keep forever unless I get the urge to move to the "L" IS. The 100mm might be a touch long on the 40D, but the 60mm is right at perfect. Good Luck...
I plan on shooting anything I want really...bugs, flowers, nick nacks...little things. The AF was important becuase I wanted to get a 2 for 1 as a portrait lens and skip the 50mm FL all together.
What got me confused and torn was the great prices on the 100mm in the B&S now in comparison to their $595 price tag brand new. One guy bought his 3 years ago for $470 and is selling it now for jus about the same. I figured thats a good deal. So then I go to the review section and people are RAVING about this lens. So..here I am. Of course...the lens right under the 100mm in terms of most popular/rating is the 60mm...so I just wanted more peoples opinion between the 2.
Edit- Ur post came in as I was typing mine reno, thanks for your opinion, makes total sense
Here's a "snapshot" of my daughter with the 60mm, and it I knew what I was doing with it back then, I'd have rarely gone over f/2.8 with it for my portraits. This one shows 5.6 and still looks nice (purely accidental then though). Worked out to be a great portrait lens, and like I said, wish I'd have kept it. I still have a 40D, so I'd still get some use out of it. Having the 5D and the 100mm USM Macro though, maybe not. But the 60mm is a very versatile lens on the 1.6x cameras. I'd say go for it...
I got the 100mm and I am happy with it. Purchased mine for $490.00 this summer but Newegg has them on sale for $479.99 right now. The AF is decent and you can always use it on a FF when or if you ever upgrade. Good luck.
I love my 60 macro but I probably dont use it enough for actual macro. the 100 will give you a bit more working distance on a crop body or a bit more magnification as at 1-1 you would be filling more than the crop sensor so when printed to the same size youve magnified the thing a bit more
Joe Decker wrote:
One factor consider is working distance. This'll depend on what your shooting, of course, but I chose the 100 for working on a full-frame body in part because the 180 often left me too far away to easily manipulate my subject (brush dust off a flower petal, attach a Plamp, that sort of thing) If you're considering the 60, you're on a 1.6x crop body, so for my money I'd prefer the working distance of the 60, the 100 would put me too far from my subjects.
I personally have never found myself wishing I had less working distance. I want more, on the other hand, very often.
I had the choice between the 60mm and the 100mm as well. I chose the 60mm and I am glad I did. I've shot weddings, nature, portraits, and NCAA Basketball with it (I love the length when sitting in the corner of the court)
You have a good amount invested in EF-s glass and a camera that will serve you well for quite sometime. You've already got a few of the Crop Camera "L" (we all know the implications here, I do know they do not cary the "L" designation, but are STELLAR performers) lenses in the 10-22 and the 17-55 IS F/2.8. There any indication that you are just going to abandon the 1.6x anytime soon, so the move to FF argument doesn't really factor in here right now. With the 60mm you get the effective FOV of 96mm, versus 160mm with the 100mm (Suggested Retail Price: $599.99). EF-s 60mm (Suggested Retail Price: $469.99) also saves you $130.00 if you buy new, and more than that if you can find a nice used one from CL or the B&S boards here, $280-325.00...
I have had all the Canon macro lenses in my 45+ years of Canon. I currently have the EF-S 60mm, 50mm Compact Macro, 100mm "IS" and 180mm. I have had all the rest of the macros. Each is excellant under its own confines(subject matter, bokeh, stability, use other than macro..so on) BUT IMHO and from my "keepers", the 60 outshines all in OVERALL use! The 50 is a close second. For my butterflies, flowers, hummingbirds..up close and personal, the new 100 IS and 180 are A#1!!
The 60mm macro on my 20D and 50D is O_U_T_S_T_A_N_D_I_N_G!!!!! The AF is super fast and usually "dead on"!! I rarely use MF with my 60. and results are ultra sharp! I firmly belive that is is the best all around macro.
The new 100 is excellant for me because of the "IS". I had to use MF 95% of the time though on both, which can be expected. Against eachother Only you can determine that for your uses. But I keep an APS-C body all the time because of the 60mm.
The EF-S60 can be had for a very fine low price!
Good luck and good decision!
Dan
I loved the 60 on my 40D. After going to full frame, I bought a 100 at newegg (great price) and sold the 60. Both are excellent. Assuming a crop body, I would get the 100 if you only plan to use it for macro to get more working distance;otherwise the 60 is excellent on crop for portraits as well assuming f2.8 is fast enough for you. You can't go wrong with either, but there are some good deals on the 100 right now, and it will work on all bodies.
The 60mm macro is a very sharp lens, one of the best, outshines many of my L's.
I shoot flowers so the working distance isn't an issue for me, but if you plan to shoot alot of bugs then you may want the greater working distance of the 100mm.
The 60mm macro is also very fast focusing, compact and light. Makes a nice portrait lens also, although your 85 1.8 is better for portraits (nicer bokeh).
I went with a Sigma 150mm. It is my only Sigma lens, but it is amazingly sharp even at F2.8. The focal length allows me to be a comfortable distance away from skittish critters, but still get a decent depth of field. Of course I usually shoot at F9-F15. 150 is also sufficiently different from your 85 (as opposed to the 60 and 100). Having said that, the new Macro 100 IS sounds intriguing.
Only you can determine that for your uses. But I keep an APS-C body all the time because of the 60mm.