kodiac1062 Loc: Sarasota, Fl

Looking to photograph flowers out in nature on a Canon 80D. Which would be a better lens without going to an L lens?

Gifted One Loc: S. E. Idaho

I have used both the 60mm & the 100mm. I think that the 60 I used was a fluke. perhaps the sharpest lens of the type that I have shot with. Still trying to buy it. I also own the 100mm. I love it. Especially for the price. Look for used as people buy them thinking that they will Mac-people then sell them.

J. R.

rwilson1942 Loc: Houston, TX

Good advice from Gifted One. Generally speaking, in macro, longer is better because of the increased working distance. With 50-60mm macros you have to get really close to the subject to fill the frame, the 100mm would get you further away. I shoot a 180mm macro and can fill the frame with a 2' flower from 2-3 feet.

Peterff Loc: O'er The Hills and Far Away, in Themyscira.

The Canon EF-S 60mm Macro is an excellent lens - have one-, but the longer 100mm is thought by many to be more convenient as a result of the greater lens to subject distance, and also has the advantage of working with full-frame bodies.

Blurryeyed Loc: NC Mountains.

The longer the lens the better the quality of the blur in the background. But I would not recommend a 180mm for my first macro lens, they are difficult to shot with because of the long focal length motion blur can be difficult to overcome when not using flash.

Basil Loc: New Mexico

Where those blur comparisons shot on Full Frame?

kodiac1062 Loc: Sarasota, Fl

Thank you all for your responses, I believe the 100mm is the way to go.

Peterff Loc: O'er The Hills and Far Away, in Themyscira.

A 2' flower [24 inches - 24"] ;), that's one big flower. I hope it isn't a Triffid! I wouldn't want to be within 50 feet of one of those... :-D :-D

Blurryeyed Loc: NC Mountains.

Uncertain, those came from a review of the 180mm lens.

amfoto1 Loc: San Jose, Calif. USA

Both the EF-S 60/2.8 and EF 100/2.8 are excellent lenses. Both are full 1:1 macro lenses, both are Internal Focusing (IF), and both have USM focus drive that make them pretty fast focusing for a macro lens. However, do not expect either lens to focus as fast as non-macro USM lenses of similar focal lengths. By design, many or even most macro lenses are slower focusing... with an emphasis on accuracy, over speed.

The 100/2.8 USM lens has a two-step focus limiter that can help with AF performance a bit in some cases. The EF-S 60mm doesn't have a focus limiter. (Note: the EF 100L IS USM has a more advanced, three step focus limiter.)

The 60mm is a crop-only lens (EF-S), but that will work just fine on your 80D. The 100/2.8 is full frame capable (EF), but also will work just fine on your 80D.

The biggest difference is working distance. With the shorter focal length, you'll be a lot close to your subject, especially at maximum 1:1 magnification. Photographing flowers, you may not use full 1:1 a lot. Most flowers are large enough that you won't need that level of magnification, unless you're shooting smaller details of parts of the flowers.

The 60mm is more compact.

The 100mm is a lot larger. In fact, for a 100mm it's quite large, but that's because of the IF design. Plus, it is designed to optionally be fitted with a tripod mounting ring (unusual for a 100mm macro lens and one of the top reasons I use this lens, personally).

Longer is not necessarily better. In fact I do not recommend any longer focal length lenses for general purpose macro work. Yes, they give more working distance, which can be useful for shy or dangerous subjects. But there's not much to worry about with flowers! Longer focal length macro are a lot harder to get a steady shot... Plus at high magnifications they render extremely shallow depth of field, which can be challenging to work with and makes them rather more specialized.

I also don't recommend any shorter than 60mm... because that can put you too close even with flowers, perhaps casting unwanted shadows over your subject.

So, for a first macro lens and versatile, general purpose use I recommend a lens in the 60mm to 105mm range. And actually there are a lot of very good macro lenses within this range. Nearly all give excellent image quality, so it's mostly other features that differentiate them from one another. For example...

- Tamron SP 60mm f2.0 has an unusually large aperture, making it better than most as a dual purpose lens... for portraiture, too. Like the Canon 60mm, it's fairly compact, crop-only, an IF design, and doesn't have a focus limiter. It uses a rather slow micro motor for focusing, not as fast as the Canon USM lenses, nowhere near fast enough for sports/action, but quite adequate for most macro/portrait purposes. (I use one as a compact, dual-purpose alternative).

- Tokina AT-X 100/2.8 is full frame capable and one of the least expensive. It is not an IF design, can't be fitted with a tripod ring, uses a micro motor and lacks a focus limiter.

- Tamron makes two different 90/2.8 macro that carry on a 20+ year tradition of excellent and versatile macro lenses. Both are full frame capable. The cheaper is not an IF lens, uses a micro motor and doesn't have a focus limiter. Tamron also offers a newer, more expensive version that's is an IF design, has a focus limiter added, uses faster USD focus drive system and adds VC image stabilization, as well as more weather resistant sealing.

- Sigma 105/2.8 OS HSM is also an IF lens, with fairly fast ultrasonic type focus drive and a fairly advanced three-step focus limiter. It also has OS image stabilization.

The Tamron 90/2.8 VC USD, Sigma 105/2.8 OS HSM and Canon EF 100/2.8L IS USM are the three most expensive macro lenses in this range.

All the above lenses are fully capable of making excellent images. So compare their other features and prices to choose which is best for you.

I mention "IF" lenses several times.... That stands for "internal focusing", which means the lens remains the same size all the time, and all adjustments are done internally. Many macro lenses are non-IF, which means they increase in length a great deal when focused closer. This reduces your working distance significantly. IF lenses, on the other hand, remain the same size, though they typically are a bit larger to start with.

Roughly speaking, at full 1:1 a 60mm lens gives you 8 inches minimum focus distance. A 90 to 105mm gives closer to 12 inches. These dimensions are measured from the film/sensor plane of the camera, so part of the camera, the lens and any accessories such as a lens hood will occupy part of that distance, too. In other word, distance from the front element of the lens to the subject is considerably less (but varies depending upon lens length at it's highest magnification).

Personally, macro lenses I use:
- Tamron SP 60/2.0 Macro/Portrait (crop only)
- Canon MP-E 65mm f2.8 (ultra high magnification, manual focus, tripod ring)
- Tamron 90mm f2.5 (vintage, interchangeable mount, manual focus & aperture)
- Canon 100/2.8 USM (with optional tripod ring)
- Canon 180/3.5L USM (incl. tripod ring)

From time to time I also use a lot of non-macro lenses for close-ups and near macro shooting, often with macro extension rings to increase their close-focusing and magnification capabilities. Probably the most notable are:
- Canon TS-E 45mm f2.8 Tilt Shift (manual focus)
- Canon TS-E 90mm f2.8 Tilt Shift (manual focus)
- Canon EF 24-70/2.8L
- Canon EF 70-200/2.8L IS and 70-200/4L IS
- Canon EF 300/4L IS USM

I also just got the Canon 100-400L Mark II, which is very close focusing and I'll no doubt be using it for some near macro shots, too. I am also considering getting a Venus Laowa 15mm f/4 Macro lens.... a very unusual and somewhat specialized design... but able to render images that are pretty much impossible with anything else.

Basil Loc: New Mexico

Correct me if I'm wrong, but wouldn't a 60mm EF-S on a crop frame give equivalent FOV as about a 96mm EF lens of a Full Frame?

Peterff Loc: O'er The Hills and Far Away, in Themyscira.

Yes it would. The objection most people seem have is the lens to subject distance with the 60mm lens.

kodiac1062 Loc: Sarasota, Fl

Wow! That was quite the response. Thank you so much for all that information, I am very impressed.