EF-S 60mm f/2.8 Macro USM

Discussion in 'Canon EOS' started by ky2, Feb 16, 2005.

  1. ky2

    ky2

    Hidden within the DRebel XT announcement is the EF-S 60mm f/2.8 Macro USM... Another EF-S is here :) isn't it getting interesting?

    -Yaron
     
  2. One question: Are they NUTS?

    Why would anyone pick such lens?

    The current 50/2.5 Macro is $225. I guess it lacks USM?

    Why EF-S mount for the new lens? What would this lens sell for? Lower than $225? (shakes head)

    The existing 50/1.8 is $70. Unless you are a Macro type of guy. .. .you certainly would not pick a 60/2.8 . . unless it was really cheaper. . .. under $70? .. . .doubtful.

    I hope they will announce something more interesting in the lens department. I have money burning a hole in my pocket.
     
  3. I'd wager this IS for the macro guys.

    I bet it's positioned to be an alternative to the excellent 100mm f2.8 macro. On a 1.6 crop camera, 60mm becomes 96mm, which is almost spot on for those macro shooters who want to use digital and are accustomed to that FOV. Yes there is the compact macro 50mm f2.5, so you'd wonder if there'd really be a market for it. Because of that, I expect to see this one come in under the $200 mark.. but we'll have wait for more details.
     
  4. At least it's good for me. The 50 Macro goes to 1:2, and the life-size convertor is quite expensive. However, I don't think that the new lens will be equiped with IS. I would sell my 100 macro, and even the 50/1.4, to have the new lens to go with the 17~40.
     
  5. Enough with the EF-S lenses! I'm being left out with my 1.3x sensor!
     
  6. Please. I have a 10D, and I don't lust after any of the EF-S lenses. With a 1D-II, I would resent the effort on the high end and the lack of new, quality lenses.
     
  7. I'm with Jim on this one. Why would I get an EF-s macro that will not be interchangable with my film camera, especially since there are some excellent macro lenses that are reasonably priced that will have enough coverage for full frame and APS.

    The only EF-s lens I gave any serious consideration to was the 10-22, but I have decided to just keep my 24mm on my film body and scan the negative or slide. We'll see if I cave in and buy the 10-22 just to avoid the pita of film scanning.
     
  8. Geeez a Tamron 28-75 Xr Di min focus is 13 inches, a EF 50 f/2.8 Macro is 9.6. So zoom a little...

    What a waste of engineering talent. Where are the new wideand normal angle primes for ALL Canon SLR bodies? My vote is for a replaced EF50, and introduce a wicked 28L f/1.4
     
  9. It's not in DPR or in any Canon site. Where are the data sheets? What is the price? Does it have IF? Anybody knows?

    Happy shooting,
    Yakim.
     
  10. Ditto to Eric, I'd rather keep getting lenses that I can use on my DSLR and SLR. JMHO, but I think I get less distortion with standard EF lenses than with my EF-S.
     
  11. Whats the point of buying this ?

    There are plently of FF macro lenses out there, so why bother buying an ef-s one with a limited life / used value, and one you cant use on a digital full frame or Film body.

    A 90mm or 100mm gives you more working distance than a 60mm. If with a 90mm macro, the subject is too big in the frame, move back !

    Is there any reason why a shorter working distance would be a +ve ? I cant think of any. If you want a shorter lens to use for non macro work, whats wrong with the cheapo 50/1.8 ?

    I think Canon have lost focus on their ef-s lenses. I agree with ef-s when it alows you to do something that wasn't before possible (eg 10-22mm), or will mean large cost savings. But judging by the fact that ef-s lenses are more expensive than their ef equiv.s, I bet this one isn't that much cheaper than the 100/2.8
     
  12. How about a decent EF20mm f2.0L?!?

    C`mon Canon!
     
  13. All info is here now:
    http://www.dpreview.com/news/0502/05021703canon_efs60mmmacro.asp
     
  14. bb

    bb

    DPReview just posted some info on this lens at
    http://www.dpreview.com/news/0502/05021703canon_efs60mmmacro.asp

    On the plus side, this would be a great alternative to the 50 1.4 or 85 1.8 lens.

    Although compact, I'm keeping my 100mm Macro. There's no point in buying a lens if it only fits on EF-S compatible cameras.
     
  15. Product announcement from EOS magazine in the UK ... that'll make the US price about $500 if I remember my exchange rates correctly.

    - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

    New macro lens for EOS digital cameras

    Also new is the EF-S 60mm f2.8 Macro USM lens. When attached to the EOS 20D, 300D or 350D, the lens gives a similar field-of-view to the EF 100mm macro lens used on a 35mm camera. The UK suggested retail price is ?349.99. Availability is expected to be April 2005.
     
  16. ... and the question mark in the price should be a UK pound sign ...
     
  17. If its ?349 pounds, My guess is it will be about $400-$450 in the US.
     
  18. This is Canon's first f/2.8 lens since 2002, IIRC. I think the key elements are that it has ring USM (the first non telephoto prime to do so) and FTM, together with a new AF algorithm designed to avoid hunting; distance encoding for E-TTL II (again a first in a shorter focal length prime); internal focussing, and it goes to lifesize as it stands. I think that Canon expect many will buy it as a portrait lens as much as for its macro capabilities.
     
  19. Hmm, just wondering how long before someone wants to know where to hacksaw it for use on a non efs body.
     
  20. http://www.dpreview.com/news/0502/05021703canon_efs60mmmacro.asp
    Small, light, IF, 1:1, ring-USM, E-TTL II, seems like the perfect successor of the 50/2.5 macro just like the 100/2.8 macro USM was to the 100/2.8 macro non-USM.
    BUT WHY MAKE IT EF-S?
    Don't tell me. Smaller bla bla bla lighter bla bla bla cheaper bla bla bla...... I still think they should have made it an EF one.
    Happy shooting,
    Yakim.
     
  21. "If its ?349 pounds, My guess is it will be about $400-$450 in the US."

    And the reason anyone would chose this over the fine 50/2.5 Macro?

    They want to spend twice as much to get distance feed back for ETTL-II? (Note that anyone spending this much on a lens probably will be using a flash in bounce mode. . .which disables lens feedback input to ETTL-II calcs)

    Where is my 24-70/4L?

    Do a search. I dare anyone to find a post pining for 60mm EF-S lens -> especially at a price higher than any comparable prime.

    What a waste.
     
  22. At first I was really excited about this lens, for these reasons:
    Much, Much, smaller and lighter than 100/2.8 Macro: This matters, as a walkabout macro lens, weight does matter.
    52mm filter, better to match my other small light primes.
    Better autofocus.
    Full 1:1 without adapters (compared to 50/2.5)
    I see this a great walkabout lens for those who like to do some macro, along with portrait, and other.
    However, I was thinking about this as a walkabout lens for macro and portaits, and canon markets it as a portrait lens (as many people use the 100/2.8 as a portrait lens), but I realized the depth-of-field would be rather huge. A lot of nice portrait work would be hard, in comparison to the 50/1.8 or 100/2.8, from a depth of field perspective.
    As for why it is EF-S, those who argue why not make it EF, seem to not understand how this lens works, and why it exists. This lens is a DSLR version of the 100/2.8. Film users would use that. What it is, is 9 oz lighter, narrower, and shorter. It could not be so if it were EF. Also, macro is hard to keep field flatness at wide sizes, that is why the Life-Size converter for the 50mm is also a TC. This lens, if not EF-S, would be heavier, larger, and not go to 1:1. Knowing Canon, it would also cost less, as I do think the rip us off by charging more for less.
     
  23. It's nice to have more choices, and it is also nice to see that Canon is catering more "serious" photographic tastes/techniques in their 1.6x DSLR range.

    If they had made it a EF-mount lens, it would be bigger and heavier, especially by going to 1:1. I would be happy with a revamp of the 50 f/2.5 compact macro for film cameras though; the 50 macro is getting pretty old now, about time a new one comes out. Like they did with the 100 macro.
     
  24. Even if they had made it EF, I would still get the 100/2.8 over the 60, because for macro photography, I want a greater working distance. I'd like a 180mm f3.5 L but its a bit expensive. 60mm *ef-s* ? I wouldn't have a use for it if I was given one for free. (And I have a 20D).

    The only other thing not mentioned is the perspective of a 60 v 100 is going to be different. But I've never heard anyone wanting a wider angle macro lens for perspective reasons. I've heard lots of people ask for a 70-200/4L IS, or updated USM versions of 24/2.8, 28/2.8, 35/2, a 24-70/4L, a sharper 20/2.8, a 100-300/5.6 L USM IS, a 12-14/2.8-4L etc etc etc.
     
  25. 12-24/2.8-4 L not 12-14
     
  26. This looks like a waste of development effort to me, as well. Sure, it goes to 100% on 1.6x bodies, but the 50 f/2.5 CM goes to 80% on the same cameras. Why not just redesign the 50mm CM to feature ring USM, and make it work on all EOS bodies? The 50mm CM ain't big or heavy by any definition, and the 10mm FL difference is virtually meaningless.

    To me, this is a clear and blatant effort to stimulate demand for dRebels and the 20D. Well, I have a 20D, and I'm not buying (*any EF-S lenses).
     
  27. If it is really priced at $400 I doubt canon will sell many. They are really gouging the DSLR market with the EF-S lenses, which in theory should be cheaper to make.
     
  28. DO NOT BUY ONE ! unless we want to forget from a 1.3 crop factor DSLR under 2k. If it were wide (under 20mm) - OK. BUT ....
     
  29. DISAPPOINTED! Well, I may be one of the few who was actually hoping for this lens. Almost. I have been looking at getting the 50 2.5 Macro. My problem with it is basically no ring USM. I can live without 1:1. I think it would make a nice portrait lens on a 1.6 crop camera. And encourage me to fill the frame with faces (one of my failings in portraits). I didn't think I had much reason to hope that Canon would upgrade this fine lens with one only slightly better. Sigh. So against all hope, I get a 60mm macro with USM. Yippee! EF-S? for something longer than normal? why? oh well, I can live with that I guess. They want HOW MUCH? I do hope that is a mistake.
     
  30. I think I have to agree with others that I can see no reason other than marketing for not making this an EF lens.
     
  31. Huh. Yahoo article quotes a $450 street price. Right inline with the 100/2.8 Macro.

    Makes perfect sense, until you realize that this is a 60mm lens (real easy to make -> with much less glass than a 100/2.8). Total ripoff.

    Question: How does "1:1 Macro" work when you are dealing with a FOV crop? Is the 50/2.5 (which is a 2:1 Macro) become a 1.25:1 Macro or so on a cropped dSLR?
     
  32. Topher: Don't hesitate to buy the 50mm f/2.5 CM over this new EF-S 60mm macro! My only concern when I bought mine over a year ago was the lack of USM, too. Guess what? I rarely miss it!

    Jim: "Is the 50/2.5 (which is a 2:1 Macro) ... a 1.25:1 Macro or so on a [1.6x] cropped dSLR?" Yes!
     
  33. No, it's still a 1:2 macro. Magnification ratio, like true focal length, is irrespective of sensor size/fov crop. On a 1.6x reduced frame, the 50 macro retains a maximum 1:2 magnification, but with the same field of view as an 80 mm 1:2 on a full frame.
    -Christian
     
  34. Christian: technically accurate, but not informing. (I love pedantics!) Jim asked his question and I replied, both with full knowledge and appreciation of the crop-not-magnification phenomenon.
     
  35. OK: You guys have me confused. I admit I never shoot Macro.

    But after posting this thread, I now understand: http://www.robgalbraith.com/ubbthreads/showflat.php?Cat=&Number=311902&page=0&view=collapsed&sb=5&o=&fpart=1#Post311925

    So, the big deal is:

    50/1.8: Minimum focusing distance = 18"

    50/2.5 Macro: Minimum focusing distance = 9.6"

    60/2.8 EF-S Macro: Minimum focusing distance = about 4"

    And just for giggles:

    100/2: Minimum focusing distance = 36"

    85/1.8: Miniumum focusing distance = 33.6"

    28-105: Minimum focusing distance = 19.2"

    100/2.8 Macro: Minimum focusing distance = 5.9"

    Hmmm. I think for this work I would still go with the 100/2.8 -> same price and full size EF mount. And someone would still have to convince me that the 50/2.5 would not be a better buy :)

    But I still want the 24-70/4L. :)
     
  36. Looking at the press release, I am struck by two things:

    1) "An EMD (electromagnetic diaphragm) barrel aperture helps to create attractive, even background blur when the photographer minimises depth of field to isolate a subject."

    Anyone have any idea what this means? Some high tech diaphragm might explain the price.

    2) "In keeping with Canon's stringent environmental policy, only lead free glass is used in the lens' optics."

    Whose twisted idea of environmental policy is it to make silicon wafers but not put lead in glass? I mean glassifying is a current plan for disposing of RADIOACTIVE waste. Putting existing stores of lead into glass would be a BENEFIT to the environment. Making silicon wafers is a hugely toxic process. Not to mention, aluminum, magnesium, plastics, and on and on...

    Thank You Kindly.
     
  37. very interesting lens, IMHO.

    APS-C sensors are here to stay. One of the main issues with FF or 1.3x is that the body gets large and heavy. The only reason that I want a FF body is because I want a 50/1.4 to be a 50/1.4, a 85/1.2 to be a 85/1.2 etc. But is the start producing high quality prime lenses in APS-C bucket, there is little need to go to a larger sensor-sized body.

    Why should 36x24 continue to be the standard? Why not standardize and bring out really nice lenses in for the APS-C?

    Sigma has noticed this market and are introducing a very interesting 30/1.4.

    I say more APS-C prime lenes!
     
  38. Your assumption is that the 60/EF-S will be a high quality lens. That is an assumption that should not be granted without evidence. While the 10-22/EF-S is a good lens from what I have seen, the 17-85/EF-S is *not* the equal of a 28-135/IS.
     
  39. I'm with you Topher, I've been waiting for this lens for years. I've had the 50mm macro, and I've constantly wished Canon would come out with a more ruggedly built, USM motor, 1:1 macro.
    Now its announced, ands it's a !*@%#$^ EF-S?
    It does me no good. Won't work on 1D's. I'm very P****D with Canon on this one.
     
  40. Boycott the overpriced EF-S. the only EF-S worth buying is the 18-55. If you need 1:1 on 50mm, there's still the Sigma 50/2.8 which as far as I know is very sharp and priced much less
     
  41. The Canon 50mm F2.5 macro is the equivalent of a 80mm 1:0.8 lifesize lens on a APS-C DSLR... I would rather get the 50 in this price range. Boo to Canon for another lackluster EF-S lens entry.

    All DSLR owners that want the "low cost and light weight" of EF-S lenses should just get the Vivitar macro lens. Super low cost and light weight, high image quality.
     

Share This Page