Canon EF-S 60mm Macro - first experiences

[derek_linney]

Just got delivery of my Canon EF-S 60mm f2.8 USM Macro lens to use

with my 20D and I am delighted. It is every bit as sharp as my EF

100mm f2.8 USM Macro and my EF 50mm f2.5 Macro; and this is high praise.

<p>

Construction is on a par with the 100mm USM Macro - i.e. very good.

<p>

AF is pretty good - obviously better than the 50mm and similar to the

100mm USM Macro. It cannot touch the 85mm f1.8 but I didn't expect it

to. It is very like the 100mm USM Macro: smooth and quiet but it has a

much longer internal focus movement than non-macro lenses so focussing

is never going to be as swift.

<p>

Working distance is obviously closer than the 100mm but is better than

the 50mm. Although both the 50mm and 60mm have about the same minimum

distance (3.5 - 4 inches) they have different magnifications at the

this distance and generally the 60mm gives more working distance. For

example:

<p> To fill the frame with an object 2 in. wide the working

distances are:- 50mm : approx 5 in, 60mm : approx 7 in.

<p> To fill the frame with an object 3 in. wide the working

distances are:- 50mm : approx 7 in, 60mm : approx 9.5 in.

<p>

So why did I buy the EF-S 60mm? Well since moving to 1.6 factor DSLR's

I have found the 100mm Macro lens is just too long for many of my

needs and I have been using the 50mm 10 times as often as the 100mm. I

like many aspects of the 50mm but wanted:

<p> - More magnification without using the lifesize convertor

<p> - USM

<p> - A fixed length lens (no extension under focusing)

<p> so the 60mm fits my needs. On the rare occasion I shoot film I

have the 100mm to use so will sell the 50mm.

<p>

A sample image is shown at the following URL:

<p>

<a

href="http://www.gallery1.co.uk/canonimages.htm">http://www.gallery1.co.uk/canonimages.htm</a>

<p>

[jon_austin]

I'm very happy to read that the EF-S 60mm macro lives up to the 50mm and 100mm versions; still it's a shame that it's EF-S, when it clearly didn't have to be. (Chalk up another victory for Marketing over Product Development.)

 

I might have agonized over the EF 50mm AFD vs. EF-S 60mm USM macro decision, if I hadn't already purchased the 50mm version. I'm so happy with it that my kit will remain blissfully EF-S-free.

[guido_gazzino]

This lens has a very good sharpness and background blur, and I'd like to purchase it soon, jointly with the new 350D. I'm undecided because it is a portrait/macro lens and I don't think it is usefull for any other application.

[wakeforce]

If you have a 50mm macro and a 100mm macro, then *why* did you need a 60mm macro?!

 

 

I am confused.

[david_kieltyka]

>> I'm very happy to read that the EF-S 60mm macro lives up to the 50mm and 100mm versions; still it's a shame that it's EF-S, when it clearly didn't have to be. (Chalk up another victory for Marketing over Product Development.) <<

 

How can you be so confident that the smaller image circle and shorter rear-element-to-sensor-plane distance contribute nothing to the 60mm's performance? Perhaps they don't and thus your cynicism is warranted. But you don't know this.

 

-Dave-

[jon_austin]

"How can you be so confident that the smaller image circle and shorter rear-element-to-sensor-plane distance contribute nothing to the 60mm's performance? Perhaps they don't and thus your cynicism is warranted. But you don't know this."

 

Let's see: the 50mm macro is an outstanding lens. The 100mm macro is an outstanding lens. Both are EF designs. The focal length of the 60 falls between these two, yet it costs as much as the 100mm version, and it's an EF-S design.

 

What was your question again?

[yakim_peled1]

I wonder about the possibility of EFing this lens.

 

Suppose that you remove the EF-S mount and make it an EF lens like Bob did. Now you look at the mount side (lens not attached to the camera) and manually focus it from minimum to maximum. Does it ever pass the mount? If not, it will mount on any EOS body without any physical damage.

 

The thing is that I shoot film and consider another lens between my 35/2 and 85/1.8. Any 50mm prime can do that but I'd really like to get ring-USM and IF/RF.

The vignetting is not a consideration as I know I'll have it and will crop the picture.

 

BTW, does it have RF or IF? If it is IF (like the 85/1.8) then you don't even need to focus to test this. If it is RF (like the 24/2.8) then you do.

 

 

 

Can it be done?

 

Happy shooting,

Yakim.

 

P.S. Apart from the 3 primes from Canon and the macro one from Sigma, is there another 50mm prime to the EF mount?

[derek_linney]

"If you have a 50mm macro and a 100mm macro, then *why* did you need a 60mm macro?!"

<p>

As I explained I like the 50mm focal length but wanted a lens with the modern features of USM / FTM / IF and achieving 1:1 without using convertor: thats why I choose the 60mm to replace my 50mm.

<p>

Some comments on the design:

<p>

It is technically RF rather than IF (but the rear elements move in a complex manner during focusing so is not a simple extension) and the rear element is quite a long way back, so its not clear if it could be EF'd to fit a 10D/D60.

<p>

The rear element is actually quite small and the lens is compact for what it achieves (Ring USM, IF, 1:1) so I can well believe that the design is intrinsically related to the smaller image circle of 1.6 factor DSLR's hence the EF-S mount; its not just a Marketing decision.

[dmanthree]

Jon,

 

Do all three lenses have identical capabilities? Can the 50 and 100 go life size without extension tubes or filters? If there's no functional difference, then users can simply choose the 50 over the 60, couldn't they? Then again, maybe there's a reason for the EF-S design.

[nello]

I haven't been following the prices on these things, but if the 60 costs as much as the 100, then I believe that's becuase the starting price of new lenses always starts high and then drops. The price of the 60 will drop eventually to settle in at a lower price point. This is how companies are able to "drain" the most amount of money from the market.

 

I agree that the 60 should have been EF. But a 60 EF would RUIN the market for the 50 EF. Thusly, by making a 60 EF-s Canon has maintained an opportunity to sell a photographer 3 lenses instead of 2.

[phule]

<< Can the 50 and 100 go life size >>

 

The 50mm is 1:2 the 100mm is 1:1

[dmanthree]

Since there are differences between the three lenses, does anyone know for a fact if the 60 could have been built EF, or was EF-S a requirement due to the smaller image circle and rear element placement? I've read a few "shoudas" but who can say for sure?

[graham_binns]

Interested thread, I am thinking of investing in a macro lens for my D20.

 

Thing is I rearly am uncomfortable investing in EF-S lens's when Canon has made NO comitment for how long this mount will be supported.

 

They are also asking a CONSIDERABLE premium for what are very simlar lenses.

 

Why should the 60 EF-S be any different in price to the 50mm or indeed the a 28-135 IS is loads cheaper than the EF-S 18 - 80 IS come on canon stop trying to rip us off these are not 'L' glass lens's

 

I attended a recent show in the UK and quized the canon rep i.e. whats better quality a 17 - 35 F4L or a EFS 18 - 80 IS and guess which one was a no brianer, yep the 'L' glass and its not mutch more expensive and you can use it on your film camera and you can use it on a ID mark II or IDs ect...

 

Bottom line is the 50mm is an old lens and the 100mm is prob a bit too mutch pull but I think I would rather suffer that and know I will be able to use the lens for the forseeable future

[dmanthree]

Graham,

 

Purely subjective on my part, but I think the EF-S lens mount is here for a while. The 1.6 size sensor provides the ability to build small and light SLRs at a much lower cost than FF. I think the 1.3 sensor is a dead end, though.

[david_kieltyka]

>> What was your question again? <<

 

Try actually answering it. Again, you claim to *know* the 60mm gains nothing from the EF-S design parameters. Exactly how do you know this?

 

I don't think anyone disputes the 50 & 100mm macros are both excellent lenses. But this has nothing to do with the particular design & performance of the new 60mm. When I see unequivocal statements made with no supporting evidence my scepticism meter tends to start jumping.

 

-Dave-

[david_kieltyka]

>> I attended a recent show in the UK and quized the canon rep i.e. whats better quality a 17 - 35 F4L or a EFS 18 - 80 IS and guess which one was a no brianer, yep the 'L' glass and its not mutch more expensive and you can use it on your film camera and you can use it on a ID mark II or IDs ect... <<

 

Big surprise that the Canon rep would claim the more expensive L lens is better than the less expensive non-L. :-) I own both these lenses and find little difference in quality between my particular copies. Since I expect the APS-like format to stick around for awhile I'll probably sell my 17-40 later this year.

 

-Dave-

[yakim_peled1]

Thank you Derek. I guess I'll have to forget this idea.

 

Happy shooting,

Yakim.

[jack_rabin]

Why all the hoopla? It's just a special purpose macro. I've had it two weeks, on

two jobs, and it's every bit as sharp and contrasty with cool neutral color as my

Canon 100mm USM macro. The output is like slide film, without the warm

tone of my 70-200 f/2.8

 

For years I have waited for Canon to make an equal to Nikon's 60mm Micro

Nikkor for light travel field trips. They've done it. This 60mm is not a substitute

for a 100 or 180mm. It's not a substitute for a low light prime. It is a compact

macro used as part of a field kit when you will be shooting handhelp off a

tripod, frequently at less than 1:1 in the field.

 

I can tell this lens is already a keeper, so is my 100mm macro, and my

colleague's 180mm macro

Here's my way to view these, based on working distance at 1:1.

Canon 60mm EF-S gets 10 cm working distance for $450

Canon 100mm gets 15 cm working distance for $480

Sigma 150mm f/2.8 macro gets 20 cm WD for $600

Canon 180 macro gets whopping 25 cm WD for $1,200

 

The first 5cm only costs you $30. If you only own one macro, this Canon

100mm is the one to get. Going to the next 5 cm with Sigma costs added

$120. Going the last 5cm to Canon 180 costs $600 for that 5cm. The Sigma is

calling out to me for a test drive.

 

All good lenses. All sharp. All special purpose. The Canon 180 can be used

stopped way down to f/32 with little diffraction loss. The Canon 100mm, due to

it floating elements is probably more like 70mm FL when focused 1:1. That's

why the field of view between this two is similar when you look through them.

 

Stop carping. Start shooting. Have fun carrying a very portable 1:1 on field

trips. Enjoy it, if you have an EF-S mount.

[david_kieltyka1]

I ended up getting a copy of the new 60mm this past Friday. The focal length makes for a nice 24/60/135mm travel set with my 20D. And, unlike the 50mm macro, it focuses down to 1:1 without the need of an extension tube. Image quality is very high even at f/2.8, as good as anything I've seen from a Canon lens. I'm impressed.

 

-Dave-