100mm macro or 60mm

[Spookonthe8ball]

Ask the experts time.
I like both lens examples I have seen on the web. I have a Xti and would like to know your opinions of what would be best. I am aware the 60mm is a S lens, and the 100 is standard and could be used on my old film Rebel G. The sharpness seems to be great with both. The price difference doesn't equal enough to even fuss about. What I am wanting is a macro lens that will get a good 2 inches of depth of a photo in clear focus. Will both do this based on aperature? Is one lens better for portraits? What are my options here?
I really liked Michaels shots with the 60mm, but the 100's are out there and appear very good as well. Are there other brands that will work? Thanks in advance. Please enlighten me with points I am missing.
Spook

[coldrain]

No macro lens will provide 2 inches of depth of field at closest focus range.

The 60mm macro is more compact, is a nice focal range to also be used as portrait lens, and it has some light fall off towards the corners, especially wide open.

The 100mm macro has a nicer field of view in my opinion (for macro stuff), it doesn't extend, has very nice manual focus feel, and is all in all a great macro lens. It focusses fast for a macro lens.

The depth of field of the 60mm macro will be slighly bigger than that of the 100mm macro. Both are sharp and have good contrast.

[Spookonthe8ball]

Thanks for the quick response coldrain. Your description of each lens was precise and to the point. Your opinions are highly respected on this forum.
Thanks for sharing your knowledge of photography.
Spook

[DonSchap]

"Coldrain", there is a depth of field formula for this measurement, based on focusing distance, aperture and focal length. I believe for such a technical question, rather than saying, "Well, there just ain't nothin' out there." you could go one better and share the reason why.

Knowledge is power ... and there are those who believe keeping others slightly ignorant is a way to maintain power (I see it every single day, at work).

In fact ... click here for a DOF calculator (http://www.tucows.com/preview/238351.html) ... which will alleviate the need for using the formula and give you a quick on-line appreciation of "the why."

Anyway, good luck as you live and learn your photography. :D

[Spookonthe8ball]

Thank you Don for the calculator link. I learn a lot from your post too:)

[AdamW]

I've seen great work with the 60 mm.

I own the 100 mm and love it. I think it is a truly great lens. I chose it over the 60 because I wanted more working distance (and the 180 mm is too big and heavy.) I know that 160 mm (with the crop factor) isn't considered ideal for portraits, but I've taken some very nice people shots with it. I recommend it without reservation.

The 100 works well with my XTi--it doesn't feel unbalanced (especially now that I got a 430ex.)

[Spookonthe8ball]

Thanks Adam, Your input is appreciated. The 100mm is pulling ahead at this point. My birthday is in October, so this gives me another option to give my wife besides new socks:)

[Vich]

I have the 60mm and really love it. I've taken a lot of portrait stuff with it and it's nice for that too. I think the #1 reason it gets so much use (from me) is that it's so portable (small) - and because it doubles as a good people-lens.

So; I can take this (http://newportphotoworks.smugmug.com/photos/135237565-M-1.jpg),Then stand back and get a regular "normal" shot (http://newportphotoworks.smugmug.com/photos/186234497-M.jpg).

I had the 135mm prime for a while and, although it was amazing, didn't use that length much. A 100mm may begin to fit in that category (too long for most uses), but if you like detailed tightly cropped shots (and of course, macro), and you have other lenses to cover the "normal" range, then the 100 will do nicely. If you want more of an all-purpose "out with the family" lens that can focus from inches away, then get the 60.

As for 2 inches of DOF. Just take the shot from a greater distance (10 inches instead of 6 etc) and make sure you have a narrow aperture. Don's DOF calculator should work nicely for that - just crop it later if your distance / FL cause a FOV that's too wide.

[Spookonthe8ball]

Thanks Vich for the examples. Those were very good samples. I have the EFS 17-55mm IS USM for my walk around lens so that 60mm might fall into place better than the 100mm. I have the long end covered with a 70-300IS USM. It's nice to live in a country where we can worry about the choice of a macro lens.
Spook

[michaelb]

I have the 60mm and really love it. I've taken a lot of portrait stuff with it and it's nice for that too. I think the #1 reason it gets so much use (from me) is that it's so portable (small) - and because it doubles as a good people-lens.

I agree with all of the above.

It depends on what you want to photograph, though. If you want to shoot macros of bugs then you might want the working distance of the 100mm macro, but I photograph mainly flowers, etc, so I don't need the working distance.

Why I like the 60mm macro:
1. It's light and easy to carry around; I sometimes even use it as a "walk around" lens.
2. It doubles as a decent portrait lens.
3. Its really sharp.
4. 60mm is "hand-holdable" at lower shutter speeds than 100mm.

I don't think you can go wrong though - the 60mm and 100mm are both great lenses.




A few of my favorites with the 60mm....

http://farm1.static.flickr.com/234/518909168_a55c0f0a47.jpg





http://farm2.static.flickr.com/1191/553565217_0637cbbd54.jpg




http://farm1.static.flickr.com/239/518933458_e9fa688c20.jpg

[noyjimi]

you can't go wrong with either one as a macro or portrait lens. the iq is superb. (on a 1.6x crop body, the 100mm is a lil long for indoors portrait.)

as you pointed out, it is not an EF-S mount which works for your other body. for that, i'd probably pick the 100mm if macro is the primary purpose.

[Spookonthe8ball]

Michael B, Your shots are of artistic origin. Very very good. I like that style, but my motivation was by NoobS3 in a insect thread. I have no macro subject in mind, but I'd like the capability if the opportunity comes by to do flowers or insects. In NoobS3 it was a spider. I like the clear shot he got of it.
Check it out.http://www.dcresource.com:80/forums/showthread.php?t=7296&page=115
Look for Peucetia Viridans:)

[andrewbw]

Spook --

Thanks for asking your question, as I'm in the same boat, trying to decide between the 60 and the 100. I've appreciated everyone's replies. A friend of mine has the 60 and I borrowed it for a weekend. Everyone's superlatives about it are true: It's light, focuses reasonably fast, and takes excellent pictures. But I found myself limited somewhat by how close I had to be to my subjects for it to really shine. This created some issues with light/unwanted shadows, and with staging pictures in inconvenient locations. The few extra inches the 100 would buy me in staging-distance would be a nice benefit.

That being said, it was hard enough to hand-hold most macro shots with the 60; hand-held shots with the 100 would be even harder without using high ISOs and/or additional lighting. If you're comfortable with a tri- or monopod, however, this is a moot issue.

Good luck. If I make my own decision soon, I'll let you know what I chose. ;)

Sample Image taken with the EF-S 60mm Macro: Bumblebee on oregano plant flower. Rebel XTi, ISO200, f/8.0, 1/200. Hand-held, available outdoor light.

http://members.arstechnica.com/x/cateye/bumblebee.jpg

[Spookonthe8ball]

Andrewbw - Wow,that was another great example of what the 60mm can do.
Your points about using a tripod or not are very relative to the subject.
Now I am thinking the 60mm would be the better investment at this point. It seems to be a little more versatile with every day photography like I do. One thing is certain, the help on this board is second to none. I'd like to see the combined photography experience of those who replied expressed in years of experience. We could buy both lens if that amount was expressed in dollars:D
Spook

[timmciglobal]

http://pictures.divergentservices.com/knights.jpg

From 60 EF-S too. Really amazingly sharp lens. It's got very few negatives outside of working distance and reduced background blur vs longer focal lengths. It really is a great lens, especially at 300>350$ used on forums.

Tim

[coldrain]

On sunny days it really is not that hard to make hand held macro shots with the 100mm lens. I have a 90mm Tamron myself, and I know that usually you will have enough light at ISO 200 and a not too deep depth of field.

What I like about the longer focal lengths is that the field of view is more narrow, which makes the back ground a low more appealing most of the time (less distracting, nicer bokeh).
And especially for insects, the 100mm will provide a better working distance.

It depends on what you find important, really. If you find the composition more important with macro shots, I would go for the 100mm. If you find versitality more important, the 60mm can double as portrait lens.
What would really be an even better insect macro lens is of course the 180mm f3.5 L USM. But that one costs quite a bit more.

Here an example of what the more tele focal length does. The background remains very easy on the eye, which add to the macro photos. Taken in the rain, at 90mm, ISO 400, f4, 1/200 sec, handheld.