EF-S 60mm f2.8 Macro USM

[itakeimages]

<p>hi<br>

I was after a macro lens, and its not difficult to find lots of praise for this lens.<br>

I only have two lenses at the moment for my Canon 450D, the kits lens and a 300mm zoom lens</p>

<p>1. Both have IS on the lens, will i miss IS on the EF-S 60mm f2.8 Macro USM</p>

<p>2. I dont quite get the ratio thing, i know this lens is 1:1 ie full size, but is there a lens that does larger than full size, is it call 0.5x or something, and are they any good?</p>

<p>thanks if you know</p>

 

[bueh]

<blockquote>

<p>will i miss IS on the EF-S 60mm f2.8 Macro USM</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Yes.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>i know this lens is 1:1 ie full size, but is there a lens that does larger than full size, is it call 0.5x or something, and are they any good?</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Usually you use extension tubes or even a bellows unit if you want magnification larger than 1:1. Then again, there is also the special Canon MP-E 65mm 1-5x lens that allows up to 5:1.</p>

[mendel_leisk]

<p>Here is The-Digital-Picture's review of this macro, with discussion, comparison and links to the other Canon macro lens as well:</p>

<p><a href="http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/Canon-EF-S-60mm-f-2.8-Macro-USM-Lens-Review.aspx">http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/Canon-EF-S-60mm-f-2.8-Macro-USM-Lens-Review.aspx</a></p>

[robin_sibson1]

<p>I have used many macro lenses over the years, and currently have the 50/2.5, 100/2.8USM (both used on FF and 1.6-factor) and the EF-S 60/2.8. The EF-S is outstanding optically, handles very well, and will be an excellent combination with your 450D as a general-purpose macro lens. The only reasons for not buying it are (a) you are sure you will be moving from 1.6-factor to FF in the near future, or (b) you are sure you will need a lens with more working distance in order to photograph insects that will take fright, in which case buy the 100/2.8USM or an even longer lens, or © you will spend all your time photographing at higher magnifications than x1 (x0.5 is a lower magnification covered by the 60/2.8) in which case save up for a very long time and buy the MP-E 65.</p>

[Charles_Webster]

<p>Remember that 1:1 on a crop camera is larger than 1:1 on a FF camera, in terms of how much of the frame you are filling.</p>

<p>IS is generally not useful for macro work, because you are often on a tripod, where IS should be turned off anyway.</p>

<p>I use an EF-s 60mm f/2.8 macro for most of my product and instrument work in my studio and find it to be fast and very sharp. If you are not planning to move to a full-frame camera soon, I highly recommend it.</p>

<p><Chas></p>

[gabriel_l1]

<p>1) IS is nice, but if your primary interest is macro, IS wouldn't really work well at macro magnifications anyway. Usually you either use enough light for handholding or a rock-steady tripod. If you are interested in low-light work with its decent f/2.8 aperture, then yes, sometimes you will miss IS. But it's not a dealbreaker, especially not when there aren't really other macro lenses with IS to my (limited) knowledge.</p>

<p>2) The ratio is how large the lens projects the scene onto the sensor, defined by (image size : actual size). 1:1 means something 1cm long will appear 1cm long on the sensor. 1:2 (or 0.5X) means a 1cm bug is projected at 0.5cm onto the sensor. 5:1 would mean a 1cm bug is 5cm on the sensor (bigger than the sensor itself!). After that, how it gets turned into an image is up to the sensor's resolving power, resolution, noise, etc. Keep in mind that since your sensor is only a couple cm on the diagonal, and has millions of pixels, that means 1:1 yields a LOT of magnification and detail. But for some macro enthusiasts, 1:1 is just the beginning; extension tubes, reversed lenses, specialized lenses (like the MP-E), etc. can all go higher than 1:1, up to 5:1 for the MP-E. Most dedicated macro lenses are 1:1, and can be increased with measures listed above, but the MP-E is basically like a macro lens with built-in very-long zoomable extension tubes, which is how it goes so high.</p>

<p>Realize however that macro is a special kind of photography. 5:1 magnification leads to a huge amount of lost light and a gigantic amount of blur from even the smallest vibrations. Mirror-lockup, super-steady support system, cable release, and flash start becoming almost rules (although I have seen good handheld results from people who know what they are doing). You are much better off starting out with the EF 100mm macro or the EF-S 60mm, or even more simply, with some extension tubes or a reversing ring, and learning the ropes on lower magnifications. 1:1 is plenty fun for most people.</p>

[gabriel_l1]

<p>PS - I have the 60 and it is a very nice, small, light, super-sharp, affordable, versatile lens. But for more macro work, I would rather use the 100; the 60 gives barely any working distance at 1:1, resulting in scared bugs, lost light, things hitting the camera lens, etc. It is a very hard decision between these two lenses, but my recommendation would be the 100mm.</p>

[fmueller]

<p>I strongly disagree with comments that IS would be useless on a macro lens. I have a 100/2.8 macro and use it mostly for aquarium photography. I need to seek out fish in tanks as large as 8' in length, so putting the camera on a tripod isn't really feasible. I guess from the magnification involved it's more close-up work than real macro, but the lens is ideal for this sort of work, except for the fact that it lacks IS. A lot of people taking close up photos of things like insects and flowers also don't use a tripod, and I am sure they also miss IS. IMHO a macro lens with IS would be extremely useful and could be a top seller for Canon, but alas, there is none at this point in time.</p><div></div>

[gabriel_l1]

<p>Frank, the argument <em>as I understand it </em> isn't that IS wouldn't be *very* nice IF it worked on a macro lens, but rather that the current systems used in IS actually *wouldn't work* for a macro lens (in a mechanical-optical sense). A combination of the extremely-close-focusing, working-distance-needing, very-high-resolution, and very-high-magnitude-image-movement factors present in macro lens designs allegedly makes incorporation of a usably working IS system difficult at best. One way or another (image quality, working distance, etc.) the macro capability would have to be compromised, and probably for not much functional gain (i.e. the IS elements couldn't actually dampen the image movement strongly enough at high mags).</p>

<p>Now, anyone with better knowledge of lens design is more than welcome to set me straight on the above, but those were the concepts behind my original statement re: IS in a macro lens. Of course, if a good macro lens CAN be made with IS that actually worked well, that could be pretty exciting for certain applications, and I would wonder why one of the big companies hadn't at least attempted it yet.</p>

[itakeimages]

<p>great replies thanks for contributing.<br>

i dont think i will be moving to FF any time soon, as its just a hobby, i cant really justify the costs.<br>

id be happy to consider the 100mm macro instead of the 60mm, as the extra working distance woulds seem useful. Couple of things im not sure about though....<br>

1) is the 100mm lens as good optically as the 60mm. Ive read some great reviews on the 60mm USM, and im partically keen on the crisp sharpness the images it should produce.<br>

As ive got the kit lens, im a bit dissapointed with the lack of sharpness i can get, even with a tripod, IS off and a rock steady subject.<br>

2) Will the 100mm macro lens loose some light over the 60mm macro lens?<br>

3) Will the lack of IS on the 100mm lens be more noticable than on the 60mm lens<br>

4) what is the physical distance from the end of the lens's to the subject to get a 1:1 macro image?</p>

<p>thanks again</p>

[jack_nordine]

<p>I have both. They are both very sharp lenses. If I had to choose I'd say the 60mm is slightly sharper, but its very close. I also believe IS is needed more on a longer focal length. I get a few more keepers on my 60mm just because its a shorter focal length, also lighter and easier to hold.</p>

[peter_rowe]

<p>I use the 60mm marco and I agree with the comments above. I would also add though that price had an influence on me. The 60mm macro is about $380, while the 100mm is about $500.</p>

[naturetrek]

<p>I also have both 60mm and 100mm. I like the 60mm better because is so much lighter. Optically they are indistinguishable. I wouldn't worry about the closest distance, there's plenty of it.</p>

<p>* EF-S 60mm F2.8 sample: http://www.photo.net/photo/9047994&size=lg</p>

<p> </p>

[dogbert]

<p>I also disagree that IS is not that useful for macro. It may not be that useful near 1:1 macro but near macro it would be useful. Some of my near macro I shoot with the 24-105 f4L instead of the 100 f2.8 precisely because the IS is very helpful.</p>

[itakeimages]

<p>i might not 'need' to worry about the physical working distance, but i would still like to find out. Ive no idea if to get a 1:1 image the lens is 20mm from the subject or 200mm. Is it 60mm? is the hint in the lens name?<br>

and on the same note is the 100mm lens, is the physical working distance 100mm to create a 1:1 image?</p>

[ds_meador]

<p>Simon, The focal length of the 60 macro is 60mm and the focal lenth of the 100 macro is 100mm. The numbers do not indicate working distance to subject. The working distance to the subject is the distance from the film or sensor to the subject, not the distance from the end of the lens to the subject. This review of the 60 macro <a href="http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/Canon-EF-S-60mm-f-2.8-Macro-USM-Lens-Review.aspx">http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/Canon-EF-S-60mm-f-2.8-Macro-USM-Lens-Review.aspx</a> talks about the minimum working distance of the 60, 100, and 180 macros by canon. It says 60 has about 3.5 inches, the 100 has about 6 inches and the 180 has about 9 inches of working distance at 1:1. Also helpful are the comparison shots that show how much background each field of view gives in the macro shots. I find the above site to be very helpful. I have not yet purchased a macro lens, but for what I think I want to do, the 100 seems preferable over the 60. That said, the 60 would make a great walk around option in the jacket pocket for street portraits or spur of the moment macro opportunities, as I don't have another lens for that purpose. So, I'm torn between the two.<br>

I hope this helps.<br>

DS Meador</p>

[bill_fouche]

<p>Simon - I also own both the 60mm and the 100 mm macros from Canon. They are very very close optically. And I value portability quite a bit, which is why I have a light camera (XTi) in the first place. If you also try to minimize weight and bulk, the 60 mm is the better choice. The 100 mm macro on my XTi makes for a clunky, front-heavy package. For that reason alone, I'm disinclined to take it on a nature walk, for example. At the margins, a few ounces and a few inches can make a big difference. In my case, if I did not have the 60mm, I simply wouldn't take my camera along at all.</p>

[itakeimages]

<p>great replies thanks, i think the 60mm is for me, when the price drops again</p>

[gabriel_l1]

<p>DS, you are confusing working distance with distance from the sensor plane (indicated by the "dashed circle" mark on your camera) at 1:1. The review you are quoting is talking about working distance, which is distance from the front element, not from the sensor plane. If the 60mm had only 3.5" clearance at 1:1 from the sensor, whatever you were photographing would have to be INSIDE the lens. Clearly not the case.</p>

[itakeimages]

<p>Coming back to this Macro lens........<br>

Is there an EF equivelant to the Canon EF-S 60mm f2.8 Macro USM, incase i do go to full frame.<br>

The lens's have really gone up in price, so ive been hanging on. The 60mm lens above has gone from £217 to £337 in the last year. <br /> </p>

<p>Also are there any other benefits / problems with using a EF lens on an 450D?</p>

<p>thanks again<br /> </p>