Posted by Clayton Block on February 17, 2010 at 5:40 PM
Hi,
This spring I'm looking at buying a macro lens for butterflies, insects, and flowers. I have a Rebel Xsi camera so my question is what would be better for my setup, the Canon EF-S 60mm f2.8(which is made for the crop sensor) or the Canon EF 100mm f2.8. Thanks for any input.
Clayton
Posted by James Hersey on February 17, 2010 at 6:10 PM
I like the 100mm 2.8 haven't tried the 60mm. I think you would like the distance you gain. I have often used a 200 or 300 with extension tubes to give me more working distance. I did use a shorter macro for small fixed things but usually like the extra working distance for nature.
Posted by Mike Moats on February 17, 2010 at 6:14 PM
Hey Clayton, the longer focal length the better for B-flies, D-flies, insects. For flowers either lens will work. If you're shooting in a botanical garden where the B-fly are tame and you can get really close you may be able to pull it off handholding with the 60mm, but in the wild the longer focal lengths will serve you better as you won't be able to approuch the subjects as close.
Posted by David Chauvin on February 17, 2010 at 6:20 PM
Clayton,
If butterflies and other flying insects are your main interest, the longer the lens the better. Flowers can't fly off so approaching them is less of an issue and the shorter lenses work just fine.
I also shoot Canon crop sensor cameras and use a Sigma 180mm or the Canon 300mmf4 with Kenko extension tubes for insect close ups. I started with the 300mmf4 for the versatility. Coupled with a 1.4x it is also a very nice starter birding combo. The 180mmf3.5 gives the ability to get true macro magnifications but it is not a good performer for general photography as the AF is very slow compared to other lenses.
David
Regards,
David
Posted by Dan Borzynski on February 17, 2010 at 6:27 PM
The longer, the better. For insects, you would be far better off getting a used 100 than the shorter 60.
There are a couple of reasons why. First, when working with insects, wokring distance is everything. With the 60, to get to 1:1, you will be way too close to the subject. Scaring it is an issue. Additionally, with a lens that short, you will almost invariably be casting a shadow over you subject. Getting to 1:1 means one stop of light lost (physics, not equipment) and small aperatures (f16 is depressing common to get any DOF) means slow shutter speeds with active subject or really cranking the ISO. Also, you have far less control over the background. A longer lens does a much better job of isolating the subject from the background.
By the way, having a cropped camera does not really help if you goal is 1:1. You can get the framed filled with about 1.6 times as much working distance, but technically, you still won't be at 1:1.
The 100 offers more working distance, especially with a cropped sensor, better background control and is still reasonably hand-holdable if you stay away from being near 1:1. The disadvantage is that Canon's 100 does not come with a tripod collar. For macro work, you really need one to efficiently change from vertical to horizonal. Tilting the camera from vertical to horizontal does not mean all that much change in perspective with a landscape. On the other hand, if you are anywhere near 1:2 and especially near 1:1, you camera and lens will not be pointed at the subject. You will be taking a completely different picture and there is plenty of time for your subject to escape. The Canon 100 also is not directly compatible with their teleconvertors, but for macro work, you can get around this by placing an extension tube between the lens and the convertor.
If you can swing it and if insects are your primary focus, I'd even consider looking at a longer macro, in the 150-200 mm range. Sigma's 150 f2.8 macro is a very good lens and possibly sharper than the Canon 180, which I use and will never give up. I think it also comes with a tripod collar.
The downside to a longer macro can also be working distance. I'll work frequently indoors, especially in conservatories, and sometimes you just can't back up enough. A lot of my butterfly headshots were composed specifically because of this reason. It can also be an issue if you do studio shots in a small apartment. The 100 is a good compromise if this is an issue.
For whatever it may be worth, there are no bad macro lenses from a major manufacturer currently out on the market. Nikon, Canon, Minolta/Sony, Pentax, etc, and the three third party companies Sigma, Tamron and Tokina. You are choosing between levels of excellent rather than excellent and very, very good.
Don't consider the Canon 65 mm 1x - 5x. You will need to buy and additional macro flash to get the most use out of it. It is also a lens that if you have to ask, it is not the right choice. It is a fantastic lens which I greatly recommend but NOT if you are starting macro work.
Last bit of infomation. There is NO, I repeat NO difference in depth of field between the 60 and the 100 mm lenses. At the same magnification and f-stop, evey lens from 12 mm to 1200 mm has exactly the same DOF of field. What really changes is how much of the background you take in. With longer lenses, you take in far less of the background. That lesser amount of the background has to get smeared over the entire frame and that gives the illusion of less DOF, which goes back to my comment about background control. Looked at another way, a tree in the background which is 1mm in the frame in a 30 mm lens, with the foreground subject reshot with a 300 mm lens at the same magnification and fstop, is now going to be 10 mm across. You've gone from a reasonably well defined twig, if blurry, to a patch of color covering half of your sensor's frame.
Posted by Clayton Block on February 17, 2010 at 6:28 PM
Thanks for the helpful input. I was leaning towards the 100mm and now am pretty sure that's the route I will go.
When shooting flying insects/butterflies do you typically handhold shoot or do you try to set up a tripod for best results? If handholding would it be best to save a little more money and get the 100mm 2.8L IS or is the image stabilization not really necessary?
Clayton
Posted by Dan Borzynski on February 17, 2010 at 6:48 PM
There really is not a good answer to this question. Ideally, you should always be using a tripod. The absolute vast majority of my macro images are shot on a tripod and it shows in sharpness. Yes, you will lose some images because you can't get set up in time but you are far more likely to keep what you do take. It really makes that much of a difference, especially near 1:2 and beyond. There is so little DOF at those magnifications that even breathing will throw your image out of sharp focus. IS won't solve that problem.
But having said that, there are a fair amount of situations where handholding a 100 mm with IS can be useful.
For me personally, the longer macro lens rather than the 100 and IS would be the choice to make.
Posted by Clayton Block on February 17, 2010 at 6:56 PM
Thanks for the help Dan. You explained a lot of my concerns really well and I appreciate that you took the time to do so.
Posted by freda kraus on February 18, 2010 at 6:47 AM
for Butterflies and other insects I agree longer is better. The 300mm F4 is a fantastic lens, sharp, lightweight with a nice MFD. paired with a 1.4x TC ( kenko works just as well as the more expensive Canon and will work with nearly all canon lenses) . A big plus is the built in lens hood. I have both the 300mmf4 IS and the 100mm 2.8 macro lens I'll grab the 300mm when i want to capture flying insects especially dragonflies. The 100mm 2.8 is great for flowers and tiny insects that you can get close to. These two are my main lenses and I find that other than an occasional landscape they are all I need.
Posted by Steve Kennedy on February 18, 2010 at 11:02 AM
Clayton,
I just went through the same process deciding on the best macro for me. I spent a lot of time reading the reviews on several sites and narrowed my choices to the Sigma 150mm f2.8 and the Tamron 60mm f2. I bought the Sigma (just got it yesterday and can't wait for the weekend!) but I'm still planning to get the Tamron. One thing not mentioned in the comments above - the 60mm is a great portrait lens on an APS-C sensor camera.
Posted by Clayton Block on February 18, 2010 at 5:41 PM
Does anybody use filters for macro photography? I have a circular polarizer that would fit on the Canon 100mm so I'm just wondering if I should take that into account?
Posted by Dan Borzynski on February 18, 2010 at 6:21 PM
For nature color photography, the only filters that are of use are ND (grads) filters and polarizers. The ND grads are probably more useful for landscapes and larger subjects. The polarizers can be useful for macro, especially for shiny leaves and shiny beetles. It is a tough call, though, because you are tossing away two stops of light even before setting up your shot. That can make the difference between pin-sharp and soft. I generally don't use one on my macro but I'll let the situation be the judge.
There is also a technique called cross-polarization, where you polarize the light from a flash and the light reflecting from the subject. It is a pretty advanced technique and immediately kills 6-10 stops of light but also kills almost all reflections. I wouldn't worry about this until you have a season of macro under your belt because it is a major pain to work with in the field.
Discussion
11 repliesThis spring I'm looking at buying a macro lens for butterflies, insects, and flowers. I have a Rebel Xsi camera so my question is what would be better for my setup, the Canon EF-S 60mm f2.8(which is made for the crop sensor) or the Canon EF 100mm f2.8. Thanks for any input.
Clayton
If butterflies and other flying insects are your main interest, the longer the lens the better. Flowers can't fly off so approaching them is less of an issue and the shorter lenses work just fine.
I also shoot Canon crop sensor cameras and use a Sigma 180mm or the Canon 300mmf4 with Kenko extension tubes for insect close ups. I started with the 300mmf4 for the versatility. Coupled with a 1.4x it is also a very nice starter birding combo. The 180mmf3.5 gives the ability to get true macro magnifications but it is not a good performer for general photography as the AF is very slow compared to other lenses.
David
Regards,
David
There are a couple of reasons why. First, when working with insects, wokring distance is everything. With the 60, to get to 1:1, you will be way too close to the subject. Scaring it is an issue. Additionally, with a lens that short, you will almost invariably be casting a shadow over you subject. Getting to 1:1 means one stop of light lost (physics, not equipment) and small aperatures (f16 is depressing common to get any DOF) means slow shutter speeds with active subject or really cranking the ISO. Also, you have far less control over the background. A longer lens does a much better job of isolating the subject from the background.
By the way, having a cropped camera does not really help if you goal is 1:1. You can get the framed filled with about 1.6 times as much working distance, but technically, you still won't be at 1:1.
The 100 offers more working distance, especially with a cropped sensor, better background control and is still reasonably hand-holdable if you stay away from being near 1:1. The disadvantage is that Canon's 100 does not come with a tripod collar. For macro work, you really need one to efficiently change from vertical to horizonal. Tilting the camera from vertical to horizontal does not mean all that much change in perspective with a landscape. On the other hand, if you are anywhere near 1:2 and especially near 1:1, you camera and lens will not be pointed at the subject. You will be taking a completely different picture and there is plenty of time for your subject to escape. The Canon 100 also is not directly compatible with their teleconvertors, but for macro work, you can get around this by placing an extension tube between the lens and the convertor.
If you can swing it and if insects are your primary focus, I'd even consider looking at a longer macro, in the 150-200 mm range. Sigma's 150 f2.8 macro is a very good lens and possibly sharper than the Canon 180, which I use and will never give up. I think it also comes with a tripod collar.
The downside to a longer macro can also be working distance. I'll work frequently indoors, especially in conservatories, and sometimes you just can't back up enough. A lot of my butterfly headshots were composed specifically because of this reason. It can also be an issue if you do studio shots in a small apartment. The 100 is a good compromise if this is an issue.
For whatever it may be worth, there are no bad macro lenses from a major manufacturer currently out on the market. Nikon, Canon, Minolta/Sony, Pentax, etc, and the three third party companies Sigma, Tamron and Tokina. You are choosing between levels of excellent rather than excellent and very, very good.
Don't consider the Canon 65 mm 1x - 5x. You will need to buy and additional macro flash to get the most use out of it. It is also a lens that if you have to ask, it is not the right choice. It is a fantastic lens which I greatly recommend but NOT if you are starting macro work.
Last bit of infomation. There is NO, I repeat NO difference in depth of field between the 60 and the 100 mm lenses. At the same magnification and f-stop, evey lens from 12 mm to 1200 mm has exactly the same DOF of field. What really changes is how much of the background you take in. With longer lenses, you take in far less of the background. That lesser amount of the background has to get smeared over the entire frame and that gives the illusion of less DOF, which goes back to my comment about background control. Looked at another way, a tree in the background which is 1mm in the frame in a 30 mm lens, with the foreground subject reshot with a 300 mm lens at the same magnification and fstop, is now going to be 10 mm across. You've gone from a reasonably well defined twig, if blurry, to a patch of color covering half of your sensor's frame.
When shooting flying insects/butterflies do you typically handhold shoot or do you try to set up a tripod for best results? If handholding would it be best to save a little more money and get the 100mm 2.8L IS or is the image stabilization not really necessary?
Clayton
But having said that, there are a fair amount of situations where handholding a 100 mm with IS can be useful.
For me personally, the longer macro lens rather than the 100 and IS would be the choice to make.
I just went through the same process deciding on the best macro for me. I spent a lot of time reading the reviews on several sites and narrowed my choices to the Sigma 150mm f2.8 and the Tamron 60mm f2. I bought the Sigma (just got it yesterday and can't wait for the weekend!) but I'm still planning to get the Tamron. One thing not mentioned in the comments above - the 60mm is a great portrait lens on an APS-C sensor camera.
There is also a technique called cross-polarization, where you polarize the light from a flash and the light reflecting from the subject. It is a pretty advanced technique and immediately kills 6-10 stops of light but also kills almost all reflections. I wouldn't worry about this until you have a season of macro under your belt because it is a major pain to work with in the field.