i currently have the cannon 60mm but would like to have more magnification ,i am looking at the canon 100mm,not being an expert by no means but if i stood off from the subject the same distance i would with the 60mm to get 1:1 with the 100mm would i not get more then 1:1 with the 100mm at the same distance ? any info from divers with the same lens would be appreciated:-)

scuba-1 - 16 April 2010 08:30 AM

i currently have the cannon 60mm but would like to have more magnification ,i am looking at the canon 100mm,not being an expert by no means but if i stood off from the subject the same distance i would with the 60mm to get 1:1 with the 100mm would i not get more then 1:1 with the 100mm at the same distance ? any info from divers with the same lens would be appreciated:-)

The answer is pretty obvious if you just take a minute to think about it.  If you set your camera up on a tripod at a fixed distance from your subject and shoot the same shot with both lens the 100mm macro lens will fill up a larger part of the frame.  So, of course you will get a larger magnification with the 100mm macro lens compared to the 60mm macro lens.  There is about a 3” difference in the closest focusing distance with the 60mm closest focus at 0.65” and the 100mm at 0.99”.

I assume you are shooting with one of Canon’s low end SLRs as you are using the 60mm “S” lens which is not compatible with the upper end canon SLRs.  So, that means you are shooting with a camera with less than a full frame.  So, you are already getting a higher magnification with your 60mm macro.  With the 100mm macro your magnification will be even greater, compared to shooting with full frame cameras.

@Wally2
Almost correct, he is asking if he can achieve a greater magnification with the 100mm and that is not true because both lenses go to 1:1. The big difference is that you can achieve the 1:1 magnification with the 100mm at a somewhat greater distance. (the minimum focus distance, this holds true for both lenses). As he is using an EF-S compatible body, he already has more magnification then he would have on a fullframe body but the absolute magnification will not change by switching to the 100mm .
If you do want larger magnifcation an extender or extension ring are probably the best options.
Extension ring limits the focus range and will allow you to focus closer (not really usefull with the 60mm as it already focusses quite close)
Extender does add magnification but has a hit on the amount of light reaching the sensor (this might prevent you from using the autofocus)
Canon extenders are only usable with certain L class lenses (EF lenses only), there are some other brands that might have an extender for EF-S lenses, Kenko, Soligor & Sigma are known for there extenders, but i do not know of any of them do carry an extender for EF-S lenses at the moment. This is because of the protruding rear lens element of EF-S lenses.

duikje - 09 June 2010 08:45 PM

@Wally2
Almost correct, he is asking if he can achieve a greater magnification with the 100mm and that is not true because both lenses go to 1:1. The big difference is that you can achieve the 1:1 magnification with the 100mm at a somewhat greater distance. (the minimum focus distance, this holds true for both lenses). As he is using an EF-S compatible body, he already has more magnification then he would have on a fullframe body but the absolute magnification will not change by switching to the 100mm .
If you do want larger magnifcation an extender or extension ring are probably the best options.
Extension ring limits the focus range and will allow you to focus closer (not really usefull with the 60mm as it already focusses quite close)
Extender does add magnification but has a hit on the amount of light reaching the sensor (this might prevent you from using the autofocus)
Canon extenders are only usable with certain L class lenses (EF lenses only), there are some other brands that might have an extender for EF-S lenses, Kenko, Soligor & Sigma are known for there extenders, but i do not know of any of them do carry an extender for EF-S lenses at the moment. This is because of the protruding rear lens element of EF-S lenses.

Excuse me, but regardless of the camera he is shooting with he will fill a larger portion of the frame with his subject if he is shooting at a fixed distance from the subject with a 100mm macro compared to his current 60mm macro.  To say otherwise is mis-leading and simply incorrect. 

You say “The big difference is that you can achieve the 1:1 magnification with the 100mm at a somewhat greater distance. (the minimum focus distance, this holds true for both lenses).”  While this is true, it is also accurate that you will fill a larger portion of the frame with a 100mm macro than with a 60mm macro shooting at the identical distance from the subject, assuming you are outside of the minimum focusing distance of the 100mm macro.  To do otherwise would defeat the purpose/logic of purchasing a much more expensive 100mm macro over the EF 50mm compact macro or the EF-S 60mm macro [EF-S lens compatible only with lower end canon SLR cameras].

Please i was not trying to burn you down, only trying to make things clearer for the question asker.

“i currently have the cannon 60mm but would like to have more magnification ,i am looking at the canon 100mm,not being an expert by no means but if i stood off from the subject the same distance i would with the 60mm to get 1:1 with the 100mm would i not get more then 1:1 with the 100mm at the same distance ?”

First part of the question is “i would like to have more magnification”
Second part was “if i stood off from the subject the same distance i would with the 60mm to get 1:1 with the 100mm would i not get more then 1:1 with the 100mm at the same distance ?

So yes you are right you are able to fill a bigger part of the frame with the 100mm if you are not at the minimum focusdistance but for both lenses 1:1 is the maximum so he will never get more then 1:1 with either of the setups without other means of magnification, makes me kind of right as well

One of the things I hate about this message board is the ego of some of the posters.  I think it is the reason there is almost no traffic here.  No matter what answer you give someone there is always someone who wants to follow you around and correct what you say.  I was simply trying to give a non-technical answer to a person who said he wasn’t technically inclined.

The basic issue is that he is looking for a greater magnification compared to his existing 60mm macro lens, he will get that under 99.99% of all circumstances with the 100mm lens.  In all of my underwater photography experiences there are very few times that I have felt the need to get within 12 inches of my subjects.

In your effort to correct what I said [which was at the heart of his issue and factual] you have to get technical which he said he wasn’t.

The reality is that any idiot would understand that a 100mm macro is going to fill a larger part of his sensor compared to a 50/60mm macro.  Besides we are only talking about an exception that involves something like 3 - 4 inches, assuming a photographer needs to get within 6 - 8 inches from his subject.

Don’t bother trying to respond to this post as I am done with this board.

scuba-1 - 16 April 2010 08:30 AM

i currently have the cannon 60mm but would like to have more magnification ,i am looking at the canon 100mm,not being an expert by no means but if i stood off from the subject the same distance i would with the 60mm to get 1:1 with the 100mm would i not get more then 1:1 with the 100mm at the same distance ? any info from divers with the same lens would be appreciated:-)

Bottom line is that both lens offer 1:1 magnification, the working distance between you and your subject increase with the lenght of the lens, in essence, you are further away to get the same size image with a 100mm than the 60mm so:

A) the 100mm will give you a more relaxed distance for working with your subject and provided you have good clear water to work with, it will be a splendid tool.

B) the 60mm having to be closer will reduce the water column (the amount of water between you and the subject) and possibly reduce backscatter in low (read crappy up north kind od condition) visibillity, also given that it is a wider field of view, it might be useful for grouper, turtles and portraits shots whereas the 100mm with its narrower field of view is more of a totally commited macro lens.

Both have their pros and cons, If I know that I will be head deep in the small stuff, then for sure the 100mm (in my case 105mm) will be on, if I am exploring a new site without expectation, then I feel more comfortable using my 60mm.

Down the road if you want to increase magnification beyond 1:1 you should invest in the 100mm and look at “wet diopter” since working distance decrease dramatically with theses, the longer working distance to begin with will be apreciated, teleconverter are also another approach, this will double your magnification while keeping the same working distance.

I might sound like I have a bias for the 60mm, in reality I use the 105mm much more than the 60mm, moral of the story, don’t sell the 60mm if you get the 100mm, you would regret it in the long run.

Cheers

Vizart - 16 June 2010 03:13 PM

scuba-1 - 16 April 2010 08:30 AM

i currently have the cannon 60mm but would like to have more magnification ,i am looking at the canon 100mm,not being an expert by no means but if i stood off from the subject the same distance i would with the 60mm to get 1:1 with the 100mm would i not get more then 1:1 with the 100mm at the same distance ? any info from divers with the same lens would be appreciated:-)

Bottom line is that both lens offer 1:1 magnification, the working distance between you and your subject increase with the lenght of the lens, in essence, you are further away to get the same size image with a 100mm than the 60mm so:

A) the 100mm will give you a more relaxed distance for working with your subject and provided you have good clear water to work with, it will be a splendid tool.

B) the 60mm having to be closer will reduce the water column (the amount of water between you and the subject) and possibly reduce backscatter in low (read crappy up north kind od condition) visibillity, also given that it is a wider field of view, it might be useful for grouper, turtles and portraits shots whereas the 100mm with its narrower field of view is more of a totally commited macro lens.

Both have their pros and cons, If I know that I will be head deep in the small stuff, then for sure the 100mm (in my case 105mm) will be on, if I am exploring a new site without expectation, then I feel more comfortable using my 60mm.

Down the road if you want to increase magnification beyond 1:1 you should invest in the 100mm and look at “wet diopter” since working distance decrease dramatically with theses, the longer working distance to begin with will be apreciated, teleconverter are also another approach, this will double your magnification while keeping the same working distance.

I might sound like I have a bias for the 60mm, in reality I use the 105mm much more than the 60mm, moral of the story, don’t sell the 60mm if you get the 100mm, you would regret it in the long run.

Cheers

Good answer and I totally agree with you.

But, he is still wanting to fill a larger percentage of the frame with the subject .  Read his question.

Again, we are talking about roughly a 3” difference in minimum focus length.  So in normal circumstances he will be happier with the 100mm. 

If you are working under limited light situations using diopters will only exacerbate the situation as he will lose an f-stop or so in the process.

Like you, I use a 50mm macro in lots of situations.  The 50mm macro offers some options the 100mm macro doesn’t in that it is great for larger subjects.  But, when doing truly macro photography there is no circumstance where the 50mm macro will out-do the 100mm macro.  I would never consider using diopters on my 50mm macro as that would simply be counter-productive, assuming I am wanting to accomplish what the original poster says he wants to accomplish.

If you are working under limited light situations using diopters will only exacerbate the situation as he will lose an f-stop or so in the process.

Wally for your information: diopters are lenses that are put in front of the lens and as such very similar to your (dome) port of your underwaterhousing, hence they do not lose light (at least not noticeable, if it does you have a crappy one

Again, we are talking about roughly a 3” difference in minimum focus length.  So in normal circumstances he will be happier with the 100mm.

Not if his normal circumstances are similar to mine (most of the time kind of crappy visibillity, 7 meters is considered excellent or even exceptional visibility over here), even with the 60mm it is sometimes already kind of hard to prevent suspended particles to show up as a christmas tree on your photo’s when shooting anything tennisbal size or larger.

I like the idea of the wetdiopter Vizart suggested as with most wet diopters you are able to take them of underwater, so you are able to change your workingdistance if needed.

Wally, happy to see you back, it seems we are both happy to share our experience with others and learn from it our selves as well.

duikje - 21 June 2010 09:23 AM

If you are working under limited light situations using diopters will only exacerbate the situation as he will lose an f-stop or so in the process.

Wally for your information: diopters are lenses that are put in front of the lens and as such very similar to your (dome) port of your underwaterhousing, hence they do not lose light (at least not noticeable, if it does you have a crappy one

Again, we are talking about roughly a 3” difference in minimum focus length.  So in normal circumstances he will be happier with the 100mm.

Not if his normal circumstances are similar to mine (most of the time kind of crappy visibillity, 7 meters is considered excellent or even exceptional visibility over here), even with the 60mm it is sometimes already kind of hard to prevent suspended particles to show up as a christmas tree on your photo’s when shooting anything tennisbal size or larger.

I like the idea of the wetdiopter Vizart suggested as with most wet diopters you are able to take them of underwater, so you are able to change your workingdistance if needed.

Wally, happy to see you back, it seems we are both happy to share our experience with others and learn from it our selves as well.

Any diopter will cause you to lose light.  Oh and thanks for telling me you put a diopter in front of your lens, that was cute.  Oh and the correct spelling for visibillity is visibility and tennisbal is tennis ball.  And, once you start using diopters you begin to limit your depth of field as well.  I have used diopters and I simply don’t get any real advantages and find the limitations a disadvantage.  But, to each his own.

I would seriously like to know what you are shooting and the conditions that warrant the use of a diopter on a good 100mm macro lens.

I don’t care what your visibility might be.  You are still making this very difficult.  Beyond about 11” both lens will focus, so, it isn’t much of an issue.  I normally won’t be in crappy water with visibility less then 20 feet, so I don’t have the same concerns you might.  I don’t think I have ever taken a macro shot closer than about 15 inches from my subject, nor more than about 36 inches from my subject.

Unless you are shooting with a very crappy camera and/or a very crappy lens there is simply no need to be at the minimum focusing distance for either lens.  And, once again, just read his question.  The right answer for what he is wanting to know is that if he is shooting at a distance beyond 12 inches from his subject he will fill a larger portion of the frame using the 100mm macro, end of story.

Now, go ahead and try to confuse the issue as much as you want.

Wow Wally, you need to get in the water more often and tone it down, for the record I shoot with diopters quite frequently at distance much closer than 12 inches and find I can get some cool facial expression on blenny by doing so, because one does not do it does not mean it’s not a good thing.

If you find me a light meter that can measure the light loss induced by a diopter i’ll get one on the spot, you do loose field of view with diopter but no, and I mean no diopter that I know off will tip my lightmeter needle.

Passing on information mean passing practical fact, we need more info and less attitude!

@Wally2

Any diopter will cause you to lose light.  Oh and thanks for telling me you put a diopter in front of your lens, that was cute.  Oh and the correct spelling for visibillity is visibility and tennisbal is tennis ball.  And, once you start using diopters you begin to limit your depth of field as well.  I have used diopters and I simply don’t get any real advantages and find the limitations a disadvantage.  But, to each his own.

I would seriously like to know what you are shooting and the conditions that warrant the use of a diopter on a good 100mm macro lens.

I don’t care what your visibility might be.  You are still making this very difficult.  Beyond about 11” both lens will focus, so, it isn’t much of an issue.  I normally won’t be in crappy water with visibility less then 20 feet, so I don’t have the same concerns you might.  I don’t think I have ever taken a macro shot closer than about 15 inches from my subject, nor more than about 36 inches from my subject.

Unless you are shooting with a very crappy camera and/or a very crappy lens there is simply no need to be at the minimum focusing distance for either lens.  And, once again, just read his question.  The right answer for what he is wanting to know is that if he is shooting at a distance beyond 12 inches from his subject he will fill a larger portion of the frame using the 100mm macro, end of story.

Now, go ahead and try to confuse the issue as much as you want.

I was not trying to be cute but trying to point out that a diopter is just another lens and as such does not lose a stop of light as you are claiming ! (neither does your dome port which is similar to a diopter !)

Furthermore my native language is not English ! I do my best to spell and write grammatically as correct as possible but i am likely to make mistakes (no excuse) and for your information in my native tongue the spelling for tennis ball is tennisbal, sorry if these small mistakes do offend you.
But i feel you only bring them up because you are a sore loser who if someone makes a valid point is not able to recognize and admit there might be some truth in there, DIOPTERS DO NOT LOSE LIGHT PERIOD !
Unless of course you are using a stack of them with a conversion ring because the diopters size is considerable smaller as the lens you are putting it on. DUHHHH

Then it is quite funny to point out that you do not care about the visibility, the person originally making the request might think otherwise if he does shoot in similar conditions, because the amount of water in between your lens and the subject is critical. If like yourself you are so lucky that you do always have excellent conditions all the time and have a “pro” camera and lens bravo ! I only have a EOS 7D with an EF-S 60mm macro lens in a Nauticam 7d housing.
Still the 100mm macro lens might be the better option for him, i do not know i am only stating what i have found out so far which might make things more complicated but at least he has all information which i know holds true, not only for me but for some of the best UW photographers.

Here is an example of a photo taken at the absolute minimum focus distance at that time with my Canon EOS 450D and EF-S 60mm macro, the front of the camera was about 10cm from the little (juvenile) “Taurulus bubalis”
http://www.roffel.biz/2009_08 Grevelingen Panda weekend/slides/IMG_4090.html

If you never use the minimum distance of your Macro lens, its your loss as this will give you the maximum magnification and i just love to see all the tiny details of the little critters, with my Canon EF-S 60mm macro lens if i move away 2 inches
(20 cm to 26 cm) from the subject the magnification factor goes from 1:1 to 1:2 meaning the subject has already dropped to 1/2 the size on your sensor ! For your 100mm this might be a little better but have a look at your distance scale on your 100mm and see for yourself how quickly this drops i guess with 15 inches (considering your minimum focus distance is about 12”) you are probably also not getting much more then 1:2 which to some purists is not even considered macro but close-up photography. (by the way this distance is not measured from the front of your lens but from the focal plane of the camera, otherwise it would not be the minimum focus distance but the working distance)
Yes you can crop the image with your “pro” camera but it will just not show the same amount of detail.
What i would normally do is see if i have photographed this kind of subject before, if so i probably know if it is likely to flee after i fire of a shot with flash, if it is likely to flee i move in slowly for the “kill” and try to fill the frame as much as i can before firing a shot. If it is not likely to flee or is something new for me i will “stand off” first and fire a couple of shots in different compositions and decide what looks best and then move in, if it is a really small critter i will use my focus ring to focus at minimum focus distance and swim slowly toward the critter untill i hit my composition or hit the minimum focus distance, if i hit the minimum focusdistance i will rock the camera back and forth a little to get the part sharp the focus should be on and then shoot. At the moment i really mis the focusgear for the combination i have it is in backorder with Nauticam and i can tell the difference in my photo’s

Maybe you should consider buying “The underwater photographer” by Martin Edge, maybe that book can take away some of the misconceptions you clearly seem to have, i know i loved every letter in it, quite a bit i already knew or learned the hard way, but also quite a bit was an eyeopener.

Do not drop the attitude thing on me again as you are clearly the one with the attitude, and yes if you are posting clearly incorrect or otherwise lacking information on the forum and i do notice i will feel free to post in that thread as well.