EF 100mm f/2.8 Macro vs. EF-S 60 f/2.8 Macro ?

[Marsu42]

The 100mm makes a good casual portrait / subject isolation lens for me too. The fast USM focus (especially on my 7D) is great. Some people say it focusses slow, but not mine!

I think the speed of the 100mm non-L is ok, too - but it takes about two seconds to focus completely from macro to infinity and back. In comparison to modern lenses (try the 17-55, 15-85, ...) this is slow like molasses.

[arioch82]

That's absolutely not true. I've got the 100L a while ago and I love it (and I'm not rich), the IS helps A LOT, you can take handled macro shots without problems.

Admittedly, "rich" is a relative defintion.  But anyway: Of course everybody loves their expensive lenses. But I've got many shots like yours and better with my non-L lens, handheld too. Which t did you do this shot with? Of course, without a tripod the dof is too thin in any case, you cannot see the see the tiny insect eyes on the eye facing the lens.

But this isn't a picture contest - the question is: did you try to shoot the same object with IS, then with IS disabled? If so, you propably would come to the same conclusion as comparison tests on the usual websites: IS does not help macro distances.

i've tried (not on the same object) with both IS and without, that's why i'm saying that handled macro is immensely better with the IS, but again as I said it depends on what kind of use of that lens he will do... I haven't posted that picture to say "look at my big expensive lens shots quality", "i'm amazing", "bow down" etc., I'm only an amateur and i do it as an hobby, it was only to show what kind of shot you can take with an IS without any effort (i really took that as a point & shoot picture)...

Of course when you want to take some pro macro shots a tripod is mandatory but for people like me that does it as an (expensive) hobby and doesn't always walk around with a tripod, flashes etc. the IS is incredibly helpful, I haven't even bought a flash yet, you get 3 stops improvements.

I also like to use it as a portrait lens and in any case the IS is always a good addition.

ps. sorry i don't know what you mean with "Which t did you do this shot with"...

[unfocused]

Ask a simple question and get a lot of conflicting answers.

Let's try a simple answer (maybe).

You are renting. The difference between the 100 "L", the 60mm and 100 non-L is less than a dollar a day at Lens Rentals. It sounds like the work you are doing will be using a tripod, inside. I like the working distance of the 100 on my 7D. It just feels less crowded to have a bit of distance between me and subject. But that's personal preference.

My suggestion: do you think you will ever want to buy one of these lenses? If so, I'd rent the one that you might want to eventually buy. That way, you can use it for your project and test it out for a future purchase.

I love my 100 "L"  But, I use it for short telephoto work, portraits and close-ups (non macro) as much or more than for macro. I love the IS for those purposes, but if I were doing a project like you describe, it would be mounted on a tripod, so the IS wouldn't make any difference.

Rent the one that you are most interested in. Any of them will work for your project.

[arioch82]

if he only has to rent it once for a job I would go with the 180L f/3.5 honestly if the price difference isn't too much...

[Marsu42]

ps. sorry i don't know what you mean with "Which t did you do this shot with"...

Well, what t (time) did you use? The images on Flickr don't have the exif data.

I'm usually shooting macro subjects w/ 1/250 second (fastest flash sync), very seldom 1/60 second if I really need the background lighter. My experience is: with 1/250 there is no shake, and I can use the lens' sharpest f (both L and non-L: 6.3 and 7.1) aperture. This is the reason I said I doubt IS would help. On the other hand, with a large aperture like f20+ or focus stacking, you need a tripod anyway, so again no use for IS.

But of course, since the IS version is as light as the non-IS version, the L is the one to get if one can afford it. But I would be hesitant to buy a used IS lens, e.g. I heard about the 17-55 "weak is" that the motor does wear down more over time then the aperture.

[arioch82]

ps. sorry i don't know what you mean with "Which t did you do this shot with"...

Well, what t (time) did you use? The images on Flickr don't have the exif data.

I'm usually shooting macro subjects w/ 1/250 second (fastest flash sync), very seldom 1/60 second if I really need the background lighter. My experience is: with 1/250 there is no shake, and I can use the lens' sharpest f (both L and non-L: 6.3 and 7.1) aperture. This is the reason I said I doubt IS would help. On the other hand, with a large aperture like f20+ or focus stacking, you need a tripod anyway, so again no use for IS.

But of course, since the IS version is as light as the non-IS version, the L is the one to get if one can afford it. But I would be hesitant to buy a used IS lens, e.g. I heard about the 17-55 "weak is" that the motor does wear down more over time then the aperture.

uhm it's weird i can visualize the exif on that picture...
anyway on that specific one is 1/800, is not a really good sample of the IS, was an outdoor shot in a really sunny day...

the IS on this lens is really good, you can easily go down to 1/50 and lower (in reviews you can read of photographers shooting macro at 1/8 with that lens... my hands are not that still unluckly), that let you use smaller ISO values on handled shooting (on my camera i rarely shoot @ iso >= 800) and I have to say that i'm really happy with my handled shots and I'm not looking into spending other $500 on a macro flash.

But then again, if you plan (like in this case) to shoot some specific macros for a specific job you'll have all your gear with you (tripod flashes etc.) and the IS will be useless, but if you like me enjoy walking around with that lens in your bag and just want to take it out for a quick macro shoot on a subject that you just noticed without spending time setting up tripod, flash etc... well the IS is really helpful.

My advice to the OP is:

if you are looking to buy a macro in future rent the 100L and play with it handled too otherwise get the 180 if the price difference with the 100 Non-L isn't too big / you can afford it; I haven't tried the 60 but it just sounds too short, but this depends of course on your subjects

[iaind]

Using FF the 60mm is a non starter.
Got the 100L for1.5x price of old 100. Its a great performer and would recommend it.

Always buy the best you can afford. 

[kennykodak]

i spent a week in Cleveland photographing small products for a catalog.  afterwards they ask to stay another day and do head shots.  i used the 100L for both.  beautiful results

[Marsu42]

Always buy the best you can afford.

Maybe, but what is the best? The heaviest, hightest iq lens? Personally, I think "the best" is the lens that feels best to you and "just works" - whatever the price. If its cheaper, then get an additional ultrawide for special shots, another flash and filters - that'll give you better pictures than the most expensive lens in the neighbourhood.

[pj1974]

The 100mm makes a good casual portrait / subject isolation lens for me too. The fast USM focus (especially on my 7D) is great. Some people say it focusses slow, but not mine!

I think the speed of the 100mm non-L is ok, too - but it takes about two seconds to focus completely from macro to infinity and back. In comparison to modern lenses (try the 17-55, 15-85, ...) this is slow like molasses.

Thanks Marsu42 for your reply to my comments above. 

You're right that it might take two seconds if the focus is at the MFD (1:1) focus setting and the (portrait) subject is eg 3 metres away (in a poor contrast setting) and it cycles from macro to infinity and back.  But what I mean is the focus is much much faster under 'normal focus composition' for portrait.

That is, if the lens' focus is set at 1 metre, and my (portrait) subject is 3 metres away, it will jump there in about a third to half a second (or less time in good contrast).  That's why I also find the minimal focal distance (MFD) focus limiting switch on the 100mm macro handy.

Some people have reported that even in situations like the above, the Canon 100mm macro USM nonL is slow and their 100mm L is much quicker... but certainly mine isn't slow.  My experience is that my 100mm USM lens's focus speed is very close to other Canon USM lenses when the focus is 'already in non macro settings'.

I have the Canon 15-85mm and the Canon 70-300mm L (perhaps my fastest focusing lenses) - and I also had the Canon 28-135mm and Canon 100-300mm (sold both these recently), and I'm very happy with the focussing speed and accuracy of all my Canon USM lenses.

On the other hand, I sold my Canon 50mm f/1.8 lens a few months ago - the main reason being the focus speed, accuracy and consistency were not up to my standards. I'm waiting for a true (full ring) USM prime from Canon in the 50mm - 60mm range, between f/1.4 - f2.

Cheers all, and thanks again Marsu42. 

Paul

[Marsu42]

On the other hand, I sold my Canon 50mm f/1.8 lens a few months ago - the main reason being the focus speed, accuracy and consistency were not up to my standards. I'm waiting for a true (full ring) USM prime from Canon in the 50mm - 60mm range, between f/1.4 - f2.

Cheers all, and thanks again Marsu42. 

You're welcome - while I think the author of this site couldn't confirm the rumor that his own pants he was wearing had just been stolen, the people and standard in the forum seem to be quite nice.

And I feel sorry for the poor soul who bought the 50/1.8 - I've got a broken one (fell down, of course the plastic lens split), but even before I wouldn't dare to give it to anyone else :-) ... the bokeh and af is so crappy in comparison to today's standards (not to speak of the bad quality @1. that the only application is "shoot moving objects in the complete dark" :-p