Tuesday, September 27, 2011

How do Canon EF 100mm f/2.8 and EF-S 60mm f/2.8 macro lenses compare?

Question

I've read over a few of the macro posts on this site, and I'm very new to digital photography, so I have a few questions, and some may be overlapping. I have a Canon EOS Rebel T3, and I want to buy a macro lens. I want a 1:1 ratio, and so apparently my cheapest option for such lens is $574? Or actually there's this one for $449. My question is what's the difference between these 2? Is it only the 100mm and 60 mm difference? And what does that really mean? Does that mean that with the 100mm I can be farther away and take the macro shot?

This is a pretty big purchase, so I want to make sure if there's anything I should know about macro lenses before purchasing one. Honestly I dont know much about what aperture or ISO or about different lenses, I just like taking nice pictures, and I do plan on learning all the advanced stuff, but I really want to take macro shots.

Answer

It looks like the big difference between those two lenses is mainly the focal length. (Although the 100mm is a EF lens instead of an EF-S lens, which means if you ever went full frame, it would still work.) Yes, longer length gives you more working distance to the subject. For flower and stationary subjects, it may not matter. But if you're planning on doing insects or other skittish things, longer working distance is almost always better. You'll also get a bit different perspective between the two lenses, which may or may not be what you want.

There's also third party brands like the Sigma 105mm and the Tamron 90mm that are also options.

In terms of exposure stuff, here's a good place to start.

No comments:

Post a Comment