I have seen a bit of discussion on macro photography. I have done a limited amount topside. For UW convensional wisdom seems to be that when starting out that one should lean towards the wider 50/60mm before jumping to the longer 100mm. Though a few have started out with the 100mm. So my question is does this wisdom hold irregardless of the sensor? Given that the crop sensors are going give 1.3 to 1.6 magnification a 60mm lens on some sensors is going to be pretty close to a 100mm.
So what makes the wider 60mm more forgiving than the longer 100mm? The 100mm gives you a bit more working distance. But what are it difficulties when compared to the wider 60mm?
Cheers,
Allen
Actually, the focal length of the lens is the same, regardless of whether it's used on a digital or analog system, or whether it's used on a FF or smaller sensor.
Hence, although you'll get the ANGLE OF VIEW of a 100mm lens with a 60mm lens used with a sensor with a 1.6 field-of-view crop, the depth-of-field will still be the same as that of a 60mm, i.e. greater than for a 100mm lens. That's the reason why you'll here people say that smaller sensors are great for macro shots, and will also recommend shorter lenses...
The longer the focal length, the more difficult it is to focus. The 50mm(the 60 will not work on ff) will still be easier than the 100 on a ff camera.
Which lens is best for you depends on what kind of macro you like. Do you like shots of average sized fish - angelfish, butterflyfish, ect (50mm is best for these). Or are you interested in shots of tiny critters - gobies shrimps and such (50 on FF is practically useless for such shots so you are better off with the harder to use 100).
