upgrading to full frame + seeking suggestions on what to replace 60mm macro with

[tome223]

I am fairly new to Canon Rumors but wanted some guidance from those shooters who upgraded from APS-C to Full Frame and what full frame macro lens they went with if they were shooting with the 60mm APS-C macro. I have the 60d and used the 60mm macro for closeups the last 18 months. The type of closeups I shot with the 60mm are babies feet, flowers, engagement rings/wedding ring type shots, and documents.

I plan to upgrade from the 60d to the 6d (or whatever the entry level full frame is called when it comes out) so I'll likely be getting rid of the 60mm since it's an ef-s. I know the 100mm 2.8 is l macro would be best lens to go with on the full frame and that I've basically been shooting with a 100mm since the 60mm x 1.6 is 96mm equivalent. However, I think I'll get the 17-40l (one of the reasons I am upgrading to ff is to get true wide angle / noncropped wide angle shots) first so the 100mm l isnt in my budget. Therefore I'm considering the 50mm f2.5 macro (mainly because of it's great price of $279) or regular 100mm macro.

Questions:

1.) I've seen a few reviews that mention that the af on the 50mm macro is noisy...but is it so noisy/loud that it would disturb a quiet baby?

2.) What has been the experience of shooters using the 50mm on a APS-C body (just in case I end up keeping the 60d)? On an APS-C the 50mm could serve as an 80mm equivalent when needed.

3.) What full frame macro lens did you select for full frame when upgrading from APS-C to full frame and why?

4.) If you have both the 50mm macro and 100mm macro do you find that you use them equally and for what kinds of shooting? (I'm thinking that the only shot I would use the 50mm macro for is documents).

Thanks!

 

[RAKAMRAK]

If you can survive without the IS, then non-L 100mm macro is IQ wise similar to the L version and cheaper too. It also gives you 1:1 macro, while as far as I know for the 50mm you need a life size converter to get 1:1 (I might be wrong though) which will cost some more money.

 

[briansquibb]

Sounds like you are confusing close up and macro?

 

[tome223]

Maybe I shouldnt use macro and closeup interchangeably. I have the 50mm 1.8 and that is good for closeups (portraits, walk around, etc) but doesnt have a short enough minimum focusing distance to say photograph a 3"x5" index card "closeup". I can photograph an index card or piece of paper with the 60mm but find myself having to step back or hover at an akward angle sometimes - thus my pondering the 50mm on a ff. If that makes sense.....

 

[briansquibb]

Maybe I shouldnt use macro and closeup interchangeably. I have the 50mm 1.8 and that is good for closeups (portraits, walk around, etc) but doesnt have a short enough minimum focusing distance to say photograph a 3"x5" index card "closeup". I can photograph an index card or piece of paper with the 60mm but find myself having to step back or hover at an akward angle sometimes - thus my pondering the 50mm on a ff. If that makes sense.....

12mm/25mm extension tubes are the obvious answer for that situation

 

[Menace]

I've owned both 100 2.8 L and non L versions. The non L version is very good value for money for the results it can generate and that's the one I'd recommend for you as your budget it tight.

Do let's us know what you decide to get

 

[scottkinfw]

I had a 14 to 40L and was not happy with iq. IMHO, get a better quality lens.

 

[pwp]

+1 for 100 f/2.8 macro non-L.
This is a brilliant lens, it's great value and will deliver similar focal length to what you have been used to.
60mm X 1.6 (APS-C) = 96mm

PW

 

[briansquibb]

I had a 14 to 40L and was not happy with iq. IMHO, get a better quality lens.

Assume you mean 17-40.

Needs stopping down to f/8 where it dies give a good IQ

 

[Kernuak]

I had a 14 to 40L and was not happy with iq. IMHO, get a better quality lens.

Assume you mean 17-40.

Needs stopping down to f/8 where it dies give a good IQ

Except in the corners if you're shooting landscapes, where it can get pretty soft. I would also suggest the 100mm macro as a replacement for the 60mm macro, but also consider the Sigma 105mm macro and Tamron 90mm macro. However, neither of those lenses have full time manual focusing and use a clutch mechanism to switch between manual and AF. I think the front element also extands, unlike the Canon 100mm.

 

[zrz2005101]

I must say that Canon makes no good wide angle zooms and both 14LII and TSE17 does not support filters! I use the 16-35mm L II and its corner IQ is horrible makes me think of the Nikon 14-24 G everytime I zoom in. My friend purposefully has it on his Canon body even if it meant manual focus sigh....

Anyway, put that aside, I personally have the 100L marco and it works great, you won't find it disappointing but the ultimate macro lens in my opinion would go to the 180L marco, that lens is totally a macro killer. If you don't want to get a specific lens I guess close up filter on a telephoto zoom say 70-200mm II would work fine I guess. Or extension tubes on shorter focal length lenses...

 

[Mt Spokane Photography]

You will be pleased with any macro lens, all of them are sharp and excellent.
Since fast autofocus is not needed for macro, this is one area where a third party lens can save you money.
The Sigma 105mm Macro is excellent and available at a fair price.

 

[Razor2012]

I'd look at the 16-35 2.8II before buying the 17-40L.

 

[bdunbar79]

I must say that Canon makes no good wide angle zooms and both 14LII and TSE17 does not support filters! I use the 16-35mm L II and its corner IQ is horrible makes me think of the Nikon 14-24 G everytime I zoom in. My friend purposefully has it on his Canon body even if it meant manual focus sigh....

Anyway, put that aside, I personally have the 100L marco and it works great, you won't find it disappointing but the ultimate macro lens in my opinion would go to the 180L marco, that lens is totally a macro killer. If you don't want to get a specific lens I guess close up filter on a telephoto zoom say 70-200mm II would work fine I guess. Or extension tubes on shorter focal length lenses...

I agree, the 180L is very good.

 

[dickgrafixstop]

Given your parameters - used to a crop 60, budget restraints, etc. - the 100mm f2.8 macro - the version without the IS and the extra
$400 premium - would more than suffice for your requirement.

 

[HoneyBadger]

I have the 100mm 2.8l macro and I love it. It's my favorite lense. I hear the non-L has identical image quality when you don't have a need for th IS. With the 2.8L you still need a tripod for great macro shots so IS wont matter there. If you are on a budget, I would get the non-L version. I bought the L because I needed a portrait lens as well so I figured two birds with one badass stone. The non-L version is practically a steal in my eyes for macro!

 

[Plato the Wise]

I have both the 60mm macro used on a 50D and a 100mm L Macro that I use on the 5D Miii.

Both are really sharp. Obviously the 60 can't be used on the full frame, which is why I purchased the 100. I haven't used the non-L 100, but I can tell you that the L version is awesome and the stabilizer helps in a lot of situations were I would normally have used a tripod. If you can swing it, I would opt for the L version of the 100mm.

I also have the 17-40L and while I really like the versatility of the lens (and the price), you will not get the same results trying to shoot close-ups. 40 mm on full frame just doesn't cut it. I use the 17-40 mostly for landscape photos. If I were shooting weddings I would probably opt for the 16-35L for the extra stop in low light.