Save 69% on inPixio Photo Studio 11 Ultimate (discount applied at checkout)

Canon EFS 60mm f/2.8 Macro

lloydy 16 18 Wales
4 Mar 2005 12:13AM
I'm about to buy a new macro lens for my 20D and was going to get the Canon EF 100 mm f/2.8 but I thought I'd ask about the EFS 60mm before deciding what to get.
I know the 100mm is highly recommended, has anyone any cooments on the 60mm?
User_Removed 19 7.3k 6 United Kingdom
4 Mar 2005 12:22AM
Hi Pete

I love macro photography but don't seem to get as much time these days to do it (note to self....stop earning money and start taking photos for yourself!).

Back to the point.. what is to be recommended really does depend upon what you wish to do.

The quality of the lenses is not in doubt (saying that, the only non-Canon lenses in my comprehensive range of kit are SIGMA macro lenses) but exactly which to choose is subject dependent.

If you are looking to photograph insects, then the longer the focal length the better (greater lens to subject distance is less likely to spook them), however the depth of field narrows which makes focusing critical (it is still going to be very very short on a 100mm).

A 60mm lens is going to put you right on top of your subject and even if it is a static one (flowers for instance), you may well start getting issues with your own shadow being cast onto the subject.

For general macro work then, I would recommend the 100mm but for insects, the 180mm.

Do take a look at the Sigma 105 and 180 though - I think you will find you could get both for the price of the Canon 100mm and I personally rate the Sigma macros extremely highly

Barrie Smile
Ewan 18 383 Scotland
4 Mar 2005 12:37AM
I've not used the 180mm but I have also used the Sigma 105mm for a few years and can't fault it.
kit-monster 17 3.7k 2 Singapore
4 Mar 2005 1:04AM
I have the Sigma 180 and Canon 100. Don't know where Barrie shops, but I think you'll find you can get the Canon 100 and 60 for the price of the Sigma 180!

As mentioned, it really depends on what you want to shoot. The Canon 100mm Macro is a very highly regarded lens as you mentioned. AF is fast if required, contrast is excellent and it makes a lovely portrait lens - see my profile for both uses.

With true Macro - as these are, the size of the subject in the final image will be the same. The 180 will have a very narrow dof, the 100 less so and the 60 a relatively large dof. As already stated, you can be a fair distance with the 180 but very close with the 60. The shadow cast by the lens is also a factor and shorter Macros can be tricky to use with flash.

Personally, more than half my work is now Macro and 100 serves me well and I have the same crop factor as you. A 50 / 60 mm macro isn't even on my wish list.

Just to add to the list . . . Sigma have brought out a 150 f2.8 Macro. A serious bit of kit and worth considering.
User_Removed 19 7.3k 6 United Kingdom
4 Mar 2005 1:12AM
Ooops - I thought the Canon 100mm was much more expensive than it is.

Oh well - I still rate the Sigma's though (even though mine were freebies having won 3 different Sigma lenses in a PP competition!).

I had fotgotten about the 150mm Sigma but haven't any personal experience of one of those

Barrie Smile
kevan 19 447
4 Mar 2005 1:20AM
Just to point out that the DOF will be the same with all lenses at 1:1 (assuming the same aperture). Sorry to keep harping on about this but it's a common misconception.

The only difference will be working distance.

BradUK 16 553 3 England
4 Mar 2005 1:29AM
The lens was discussed here when it first was announced and there was at least one person who'd had a 'hands on' with it.

Personally had planned on getting a macro lens for my birthday just gone but hearing the announcement decided to wait for the EFS 60mm. Whilst the 50mm(80mm) and 100mm(160mm) Macro lenses can both produce good results with the Canon DSLRs, the EFS60mm gives 'true' 100mm macro film performance.
kit-monster 17 3.7k 2 Singapore
4 Mar 2005 1:37AM
Kevan - could you please supply proof of your statement? This is different from my personal experience. I've also checked the dof tables for 50mm and 100m and come up with the following:

50mm f4 true Macro:
near = 22.72mm far = 22.88mm
diff = 0.16mm

100mm f4 true Macro:
near = 30.69mm far = 30.71mm
diff = 0.02mm

50mm f8 true Macro:
near = 22.64mm far =22.97mm
diff = 0.33mm

100mm f8 true Macro:
near = 30.67mm far 30.73mm
diff = 0.06mm

I'm not disputing your statement as you clearly believe what you have written, I would just like to know some more.
strawman 17 22.2k 16 United Kingdom
4 Mar 2005 1:46AM
For dSLR users I hear the 50mm f1.8 plus tubes make an interesting macro kit. You also get a low cost low light lens. I am getting on of those lenses next week so I will let you know how I get on.
cambirder 17 7.2k England
4 Mar 2005 2:21AM
I have the Canon 100mm, and it is a superb piece of kit. It makes a good all round macro lens for plants and insects. The 60mm is a bit on the short side for insects, you just have to get too close.

The 60mm only works with 1.6 cropped sensor cameras, so if you fancy getting a series 1 dslr in the future, this is not the lens for you. On the plus side it's smaller, and much lighter, so is a much more go anywhere lens than it's bigger brothers, and is a much better focal length for portraits (macros are pretty good for this) on a 20D

I'm also looking at the new 150mm Sigma as sometimes a bit of extra working distance would be nice, but the 100mm will remain my main macro lens.

duncan clarke 16 350 United Kingdom
4 Mar 2005 3:23AM
Found a very useful and interesting article deriving and explaining the formulae used to calculate the charateristics of a lens.

Quote:Hence, at close focus the depth of field depends only on the image magnification, the F-number, and the pupil magnification, regardless of the focal length.

As such, both may be right. It is not the focal length that may be effecting these, but the lens geometry between 2 different lenses. It may simply be that pupil magnification in that particular 50mm lens is much greater than that particular 100mm lens.
kevan 19 447
4 Mar 2005 5:06AM

I don't have a mathematical proof, it's just something I've read somewhere in the dim and distant past. The article Duncan references bears this out:

Quote:...situations where CN/f is much smaller than M. Then and only then the focal length can be completely eliminated from the DOF equation:

S ≈ 2NC(1+M/P)/M2 (13)

Since M = b/v = f/(v-f), it is readily verified that the condition CN/f M corresponds to v H. Hence, at close focus the depth of field depends only on the image magnification, the F-number, and the pupil magnification, regardless of the focal length. The prerequisite v H is clearly met for the macro regime...

I take Duncan's point about the pupil magnification. When using extension as a means to magnification, the effective aperture size is decreased so this must affect the pupil magnification. This would give the illusion of greater depth of field at the same aperture as a set-up that uses optical magnification.

Thanks for the article reference Duncan.

User_Removed 19 7.3k 6 United Kingdom
4 Mar 2005 5:10AM
..and there was me thinking photography was a creative subject. If I'd known it all came down to maths I wouldn't have started! Smile

The depth of field with true macro lenses is so small it's hardly woth thinking about it! For all practical purposes, if the subject matter is not on the plane of focus, it will not be tack sharp. That is all you really have to consider.

The benefit of the longer focal length is to retain lens - subject distance which may be of prime importance depending on the subject matter

Carabosse 18 41.5k 270 England
4 Mar 2005 6:06AM

Quote:A 60mm lens is going to put you right on top of your subject

But will it? A 60mm lens on a 1.6 crop cam will give you almost the same view as a 100mm lens on a 35mm (or FF digi) cam.

And the DoF should be better.

Sign In

You must be a member to leave a comment.

ePHOTOzine, the web's friendliest photography community.

Join For Free

Upload photos, chat with photographers, win prizes and much more.