Canon 30D - which macro?

Hi,

Sorry if this has been asked before - I have searched for the archive but not found the answer!

I have a Canon 30D which I am about to buy a housing for. I have a 10-22 EFS lens and plan to get an 8 inch dome port.

However, for Macro I need to get a macro lens - options I am considering are the Canon EF-S 60 macro or the Canon 100mm USM. Not considering the 50 compact macro as it won't do 1:1. I understand that both the 100 and the 60 will do 1:1, but the working distance will be greater with the 100mm. Sharpness wise they look about equal. Cost not really a factor - I just want to get it right.

I am about to go on a trip to Indonesia diving Bunaken and Lembeh, and from what I hear it is a macro paradise. Will the 100mm be easier to shoot at 1:1 for really small stuff due to the increased working distance, and as a result will lighting be easier with this lens compared to the E-FS 60 - more room to get the strobe angled in OK? I think the answer to this is YES.

However, I dive in the UK a great deal, and the viz is not always so great. In this case the reduced working distance of the 60mm would be an advantage as less chance of backscatter. And I'm guessing that the 60mm would be a better bet for capturing whole body shots of fish etc.

What I really want to know is what the working distance for these two lenses is underwater at 1:1 magnification? Anyone got both on a 1.6 crop body? How do they compare? Which would you choose?

Thanks all.

Dibbo.

It sound like you allready understand the pros and cons of each lens.

For shooting at or near 1:1 the 100mm is better. But for larger fish/creatures, the 60mm is better.

I find tiny creatures more interesting than medium sized ones so persionally I would(and did) go with the 100mm.

I have an older 10D and have a Sigma 50mm (which does 1:1, unlike the Canon, and is not EF-S so I can use it on the 10D) and the Canon 100mm. For what I do, I use the 100mm almost exclusively (I like little critters and even use an external diopter with the 100), though the 50mm is definitely better for larger fish and critters as you can get close enough to light them and there is definitely less chance of backscatter. The 100mm can take some getting used to on a 1.6x crop camera as you will need to get used to finding things in the viewfinder and holding the camera steady. It is a tough call, but it sounds like at least you know the pros and cons.

All of the non-wide angle shots in this gallery were taken with the 100mm on a crop-sensor camera. Some required adding the external diopter, some are of reasonable sized things (like the ghost pipefish):

http://mikeoelrich.net/Indo0507

Mike

I have an older 10D and have a Sigma 50mm (which does 1:1, unlike the Canon, and is not EF-S so I can use it on the 10D) and the Canon 100mm. For what I do, I use the 100mm almost exclusively (I like little critters and even use an external diopter with the 100), though the 50mm is definitely better for larger fish and critters as you can get close enough to light them and there is definitely less chance of backscatter. The 100mm can take some getting used to on a 1.6x crop camera as you will need to get used to finding things in the viewfinder and holding the camera steady. It is a tough call, but it sounds like at least you know the pros and cons.

 

All of the non-wide angle shots in this gallery were taken with the 100mm on a crop-sensor camera. Some required adding the external diopter, some are of reasonable sized things (like the ghost pipefish):

 

http://mikeoelrich.net/Indo0507

 

Mike

Thanks Mike. Can you tell me the approximate distance from the front of the port to the subject when shooting with each lens please? interested to konw how much more working distance the 100mm gives over the Sigma 50mm. Cheers. Dibbo.

PS - enjoyed your gallery.

Dibbo,

I would expect the 50mm to be much more useful in the UK than the 100mm. I also much prefer the 50mm range in Lembeh, although being a macro heaven that area benefits both the 50mm and 100mm.

Alex

Using the Specs from Canon USA and Sigma USA I compled this chart.

Lens => Minimum focus distance. => lens length => MFD-LL( working distance at 1:1)

Sigma 150mm => 15 inch => 5.4 inch => 9.6 inch

Sigma 105mm => 12.3 => 3.8 inch => 8.5 inch

Canon 100mm => 12 inch => 4.7 inch => 7.3 inch

Sigma 70mm => 10.1 inch => 3.7 inch => 6.4 inch

Canon 50mm+LSC => 9.6 inch => 2.5+1.4 => 5.7 inch

Canon 60mm => 7.8 inch => 2.8 inch => 5 inch

Sigma 50mm => 7.4 inch => 2.6 inch => 4.8 inch

There is one possible hole/inaccuracy. Some lenses grow when focused, are the listed specs fully extended or fully compacted?

I have used the Sigma 150, Canon 100, and Canon 60 and none of them change length when focused. So the lens length of thouse lenses should be accurate. But I beileve all the others (the Sigma 105, Sigma 70, Sigma 50, and Canon 50) grow when focused.

Can anyone with these growing macro lenses measure them at maximum extension?

Using the Specs from Canon USA and Sigma USA I compled this chart.

 

Lens => Minimum focus distance. => lens length => MFD-LL( working distance at 1:1)

Also have to take into account the flat port -- not sure what the whole effect is, but assuming the lens doesn't touch the end of the port there is some distance to subtract. This was a problem for me when I tried to use the Sigma 50mm in the S&S custom flat port. The lens didn't get nearly to the end of the port so, though I didn't have vignetting, the end of the port had to be so close to small things that it was all but unusable for 1:1. S&S makes a compact macro port that solves the issue . . .

Mike

Dibbo,

 

I would expect the 50mm to be much more useful in the UK than the 100mm. I also much prefer the 50mm range in Lembeh, although being a macro heaven that area benefits both the 50mm and 100mm.

 

Alex

Hi Alex,

Given that the difference in working distance between the 60mm and 100mm is only 61.2mm (if I have calculated correctly - thanks to acroporas for his table), why is that? Does 2 inches odd really make that much difference when shooting at 1:1?

Or do you mean that the 60mm, being a shorter focul length, is more versatile for typical (non 1:1 macro) subject matter in the UK because of the wider angle of view? This would mean you don't have to be so far away from that cuckoo wrasse, for example, in order to get it all in the frame? I can see that this would have the advantage of reducing the chances of backscatter....

Your advice is appreciated.

Cheers,

Dibbo.