Canon 60mm Macro

rgiller

I'm thinking of getting one of these lenses for my 30D and am just wondering if anybody has experience with one. Reviews seem to suggest it is a very capable macro lens, which can double as a sharp portrait also. I have a 50mm 1.8, which honestly I haven't used much since I got it, and I don't know if that would be rendered obsolete by this 60mm macro. If so, I could sell it and make buying the 60mm an easy decision.

I've also looked at the 100mm macro, but it's an extra €100 and would probably require an external flash, which the 60mm might not since it's smaller and doesn't obscure the onboard flash as much. I'm not sure if the extra working distance would make the 100mm worthwhile, although it would give more isolation of the object in focus.

I'm not too bothered about moving to FF later on, mostly because if I got the 60mm and then got a 5D, I'd just sell the 60mm. Any help is appreciated

helios

the built-in flash isnt normally used with a macro lens, so i wouldnt make that a deciding factor.

bravo

Hi Guys,

I have the 60mm Macro and while its a great portrait lens, its has its macro limitations. I'm an amateur and this is a personal view, using it on a Canon 400D.
Its fine for flowers fruit and medium sized items but if its bugs your after, it won't do the trick. DOF seems very small.....or maybe its my settings.
If you can afford it I would go for the 100mm.

Hope this helps.

TelePaul

Am I right in saying an off cam flash is essential? Or not?

helios

not specifically. If you have enough light, you dont need a flash. I rarely use a flash with mine, but on the odd occasion i use the off-shoe cord

TelePaul

helios wrote: »

not specifically. If you have enough light, you dont need a flash. I rarely use a flash with mine, but on the odd occasion i use the off-shoe cord

Cool cool. I just figured, being so close to a subject and with a propensity for it to move, there wouldn't be much to work with.

5uspect

I find an external flash useful with the nifty fifty and tubes, but I'd imagine the 100mm f2.8 doesn't waste as much light.

helios

The off-camera flash can be good if you want to create some good lighting effects, but you don't specifically need a flash per se.

The 100mm also works as a good portrait lens given its DoF. You can use it for good head shots as well as the obvious macro side of it.

Borderfox

The 100mm macro is a fantastic lens and very sharp, it also gives a good distance between yourself and the subject.

rgiller

bravo wrote: »

Hi Guys,

I have the 60mm Macro and while its a great portrait lens, its has its macro limitations. I'm an amateur and this is a personal view, using it on a Canon 400D.
Its fine for flowers fruit and medium sized items but if its bugs your after, it won't do the trick. DOF seems very small.....or maybe its my settings.
If you can afford it I would go for the 100mm.

Hope this helps.

I would have thought DOF would be smaller still with the 100mm, or at least it would appear to be smaller because of the extra zoom. The 100mm is ~€370 online, which is a lot to spend on something I'm not sure how much I'll use. I was thinking €270 for the 60mm isn't bad, and I could maybe get €70 for the 50mm 1.8, bringing it down to €200.

Reviews for the macro capabilities of this lens are very good, with the caveat that the working distance is quite small. Is this a real pain when trying to shoot moving subjects? I think you get 1:1 at about 4" distance, while the 100mm is more like 6". How important are those two extra inches? No smutty jokes allowed

helios

The inches only matter depending on what you're shooting. If you're shooting still-life then it doesn't matter, but if you're shooting something moving or something that spooks easily, then the extra distance may make the difference between getting the shot or not.

Setun

Recently purchased the 100mm Macro and have to say am absolutely delighted with it. I'd recommend it, it's an extra €100 and we won't need to upgrade it.

ttcomet

I got the 100mm a few weeks ago and I would recomend it as well. It is an amazing macro lens. The 50mm can be got for about 60-70 new off ebay so I doubt you will get that much if you sell it.

oshead

I've got the 60mm and I have to say, that unless I'm shooting greater than 1:1 macro work. It's always on the camera. It is tack sharp. Contrast is exceptional and light weight too boot. I've also got two L lenses in the similar ranges. 70-200 f4 L IS and 24-70 L and the EF 50mm 1.4. All very good lenses but the I have to say the 60mm beats them in IQ.

Dave OS

rgiller

oshead wrote: »

I've got the 60mm and I have to say, that unless I'm shooting greater than 1:1 macro work. It's always on the camera. It is tack sharp. Contrast is exceptional and light weight too boot. I've also got two L lenses in the similar ranges. 70-200 f4 L IS and 24-70 L and the EF 50mm 1.4. All very good lenses but the I have to say the 60mm beats them in IQ.

Dave OS

And the ring light fits onto the 60mm? I think I might try some extension tubes first maybe, I've more or less bought a 2nd hand 70-300mm lens for the same price as this macro would be new, so no money now for the 60mm. Extension tubes on the nifty fifty might work...