IMO EF-S 60 is one of the sharpest, if not the sharpest lens Canon has made.
It is my main walk around prime, in addition to 35L and 50L.
One reason to own at least one 1.6 camera is to be able to use EF-S 60.
60mm is an EF-S lens. For the price, I'd rather pick up a 100/2.8 that I can use on my 5D too. On the other hand, if the 60 macro cost 1/3 as much, I'd probably get it for the smaller size.
I had a 50CM and 100 USM Macro... for classic macro uses I much prefered the 100mm FL for stand off distance... for *my* uses, normal to near macro, *I* prefered the 50mm FL.
The focusing on the 100 is perfectly fine for portraiture work as long as you set the limiter.
wow gobs of info here, thanks everyone! I am just upgrading from my 400D. I actually havnt even got the used 40D yet, it is still in transit. With that said I plan to be on a crop for atleast another 3-4 years.
There is a great deal on a 50 macro now for $215 in the B&S forum however based on what you guys said the 60mm is a more refined modern version and thus the decision remains between the 60 and 100.
As for the Sigma, Ive owned one 3rd party and didnt like it at all so I will be staying within canon's lineup. Thanks for the suggestion though, its good to think outside the box sometimes
To be honest I am a little scared of the fact that the 100 (non IS i cant afford an L right now) will need to be used on a tripod. Numerous people have said the 60 can be handheld and that sounds more like me at this point in time. Also as mentioned, I want to use this for portraits around the 50 range instead of buying the 50/1.4 like I had planned on (sold my 50/1.8 today with the intent of upgrading to the 1.4). So essentially I kill 2 birds with one stone and have some money saved for my final 2 lenses (35/2 and a telephoto)
I really appreciate what everyone has had to say so far, by all means please continue, this has been a very informative thread for me
I am running a special today, if you buy the 50mm compact macro I'll throw the dog in as special bonus....just kidding, no dog with sale. Shot wide open.
I was debating about this myself a few months back. I went w/ the 60 macro. I do more indoor shooting and the 100 would be too long at the time. I had the 85 f1.8 also and didn't use it much indoors around the house.
This is my 2nd most used lens behind my sigma 30.
This has more to do with the degree of magnification that you are using than the FL. For "closeup" work you can get away with handholding, for 1:1 macro work you will need to be on a tripod or at least be propped up on something no matter what the FL IMO. the reason you need a tripod for macro has more to do with holding precise focus than combatting camera shake.
>>To be honest I am a little scared of the fact that the 100 (non IS i cant afford an L right now) will need to be used on a tripod. Numerous people have said the 60 can be handheld and that sounds more like me at this point in time.
I had the shorter macro at first and had a much harder time getting the dragonfly pictures I wanted. I then jumped to the 100mm and its much easier to get the shot I want without scaring off the subject.
mh2000 wrote:
This has more to do with the degree of magnification that you are using than the FL. For "closeup" work you can get away with handholding, for 1:1 macro work you will need to be on a tripod or at least be propped up on something no matter what the FL IMO. the reason you need a tripod for macro has more to do with holding precise focus than combatting camera shake.
>> To be honest I am a little scared of the fact that the 100 (non IS i cant afford an L right now) will need to be used on a tripod. Numerous people have said the 60 can be handheld and that sounds more like me at this point in time. ...Show more →
Dont be scared of HH the 100 at very close distances. I used my non-IS 95% HH. The keeper rate of course was less than the 60 but I could live with it!!
I still endorse the 60 as the sharpest macro and one of the sharpest lenses Canon makes. It is VERY versitile!!! The 60mm HH is almost 99,9%HH. Go to my Pbase acct for some 60-180 macro shots.
Good hunting! And watch your prices on the 50mm Macro. I got one with warranty,shipping,fees for around $200. But the one I believe advertised on B&S has a warranty and looks nice. I do still have issues, but not many, with the focus ring on the 50mm CM. It is not a deal breaker though.
Dan
for a cropper; I love the 60 macro from Canon
if you are gonna go ff; you might want to p/u the 100, price is right; if not the 60 will do it well......
Just received the 60 macro and it is a wonderful lens....Not sure but the compact macro may be a tad bit sharper. Not sure which one I will end up keeping.
Looks to me like the 50 was focussed on the eye and the 60 was focussed on the dog's nose.
The 60 appear to be sharper to me.
treaks wrote:
Just received the 60 macro and it is a wonderful lens....Not sure but the compact macro may be a tad bit sharper. Not sure which one I will end up keeping.
Ran a bunch of non scientific tests...they are both wonderful, really can't go wrong with either. On my Mac they are both very similar in sharpness. Trying to take a dog photo gets to be tricky...even he runs away when the camera comes out!
you are responding to the difference in lighting and contrast of the in-focus area... I think the 60 is said to be a bit sharper though... don't know, but the 50CM is sharp and excellent too.
bobbytan wrote:
Looks to me like the 50 was focussed on the eye and the 60 was focussed on the dog's nose.
You rock Mr. Nikko. I knew there was a reason I had to tell you to take a walk from my 50 f/1.4 on the B&S Boards...(Figuratively speaking) You won't be sorry...
I've owned both the 100 and the 60. Most of the time, my use of a macro lens is restricted to plant and flower close-ups. The 100 macro is a great lens, but I really like the small size of the 60 - even with the hood on, it's very compact and fits in my favorite camera bag. The 100 (attached to the camera) never fit well in my smaller bags, even with the hood removed. (Obviously, the length increases with the hood on, and I think the the hood is necessary as the front element is not very recessed). I also found the 100mm a bit clumsy to use when attached to my tripod, especially in the tight garden spaces that I typically shoot for macros. The small size is a strength of the 60 (for my purposes).
I have never owned the 100 and the 60 at the same time, but from my indirect comparisons, I don't notice much of a difference in image quality (bokeh, sharpness, etc.). For me, the biggest difference between lies in the focal length difference, and the 60mm works just fine for me.
