EF-S 60mm f/2.8 Macro USM

Hidden within the <a

href="http://www.pma-show.com/review/canon/001_EOS_digital_rebel_xt.html

">DRebel XT</a> announcement is the EF-S 60mm f/2.8 Macro USM...

Another EF-S is here :) isn't it getting interesting?

<br><br>

-Yaron

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.

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.

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.

Enough with the EF-S lenses! I'm being left out with my 1.3x sensor!

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.

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.

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

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.

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.

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

How about a decent EF20mm f2.0L?!?

 

C`mon Canon!

All info is here now:

http://www.dpreview.com/news/0502/05021703canon_efs60mmmacro.asp

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.

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.

... and the question mark in the price should be a UK pound sign ...

If its ?349 pounds, My guess is it will be about $400-$450 in the US.

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.

Hmm, just wondering how long before someone wants to know where to hacksaw it for use on a non efs body.

<p> <a href="http://www.dpreview.com/news/0502/05021703canon_efs60mmmacro.asp">http://www.dpreview.com/news/0502/05021703canon_efs60mmmacro.asp</a> </p>

<p> 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.</p>

<p> <b>BUT WHY MAKE IT EF-S? </b> </p>

<p> 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.</p>

<p>Happy shooting, <br>

Yakim.</p>

"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.

At first I was really excited about this lens, for these reasons:</p>

<p>Much, Much, smaller and lighter than 100/2.8 Macro: This matters, as a walkabout

macro lens, weight does matter.</p>

<p>52mm filter, better to match my other small light primes.</p>

<p>Better autofocus.</p>

<p>Full 1:1 without adapters (compared to 50/2.5)</p>

<p>I see this a great walkabout lens for those who like to do some macro, along with

portrait, and other.</p>

<p>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.</p>

<p>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.</p>

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.

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.

12-24/2.8-4 L not 12-14