New Canon EF-S 60mm f/2.8 Macro USM Lens

[Olegis]

http://www.pma-show.com/canon/006_ef-s_60mm_USM.html

[morpheus]

I found out today too (along with the 350D, oh my old 300D).
When will it be ?

http://www.pma-show.com/canon/006_ef-s_60mm_USM.html

[Olegis]

I have no clue :confused:
BTW, I hate to read things like this : "An optional lens hood accessory is available" ! After I found out that the original hood for my 100mm f/2.8 Macro was selling for almost $40 (!), I ordered one of the rubber hoods for less than $5. I really HATE to see a lens selling without a hood ! :mad:

[roanjohn]

That lens looks sweet!!! It should'nt cost more than 250 USD........cuz the 50 f2.5 Macro only cost around that same price point.

...........though, this new lens is 1:1..........the 50 Macro is just 1:2.

Hmmmm..........

The first EF-S prime.......COOL!!!

Ro1

[roanjohn]

I have no clue :confused:
.............I ordered one of the rubber hoods for less than $5. I really HATE to see a lens selling without a hood ! :mad:

Who makes the hood?? I am very interested.............

Ro1

[sdommin]

I have no clue :confused:
BTW, I hate to read things like this : "An optional lens hood accessory is available" ! After I found out that the original hood for my 100mm f/2.8 Macro was selling for almost $40 (!), I ordered one of the rubber hoods for less than $5.

Looks like a disturbing trend with the new EF lenses. The 17-85 EF lens didn't come with a hood either. The irony is that since the EF lenses are designed for certain DSLRs only, they would benefit the most from a specially designed hood. The "free" hoods that come with most other regular lenses are designed more for the bigger image circles of EOS (film) cameras.

[Olegis]

Who makes the hood?? I am very interested...

It's general brand hood, I bought this one (https://www.adorama.com/LNH58.html) from Adorama.

[roanjohn]

Thanks OLEG!!! Ro1

[CoolToolGuy]

Looks like a disturbing trend with the new EF lenses. The 17-85 EF lens didn't come with a hood either. The irony is that since the EF lenses are designed for certain DSLRs only, they would benefit the most from a specially designed hood. The "free" hoods that come with most other regular lenses are designed more for the bigger image circles of EOS (film) cameras.

But only 'L' glass and the 'DO' lenses come with a hood (unless it is built-in). All the other lenses have a dedicated hood available as an option. So, no change.

There has been some discussion about a hood designed for full-frame versus a hood for the same lens for a 1.6 camera, but for the EF-S lenses that point should be moot since they are designed only for 1.6 cameras.

So if you want or need the hood, buy it.

Have Fun,

[Europa]

Already have the 50 & 100 Macros, not really interested in this one.

[Jesper]

I hope the EF-S 60mm Macro is not too expensive - if it isn't, it could be a very nice budget macro lens. But I'm glad that I have the EF 100 f/2.8 Macro, which is an excellent and super sharp lens.

[RJSorensen]

Looks like fun . . . I will be interested in the lens reviews.

[SDK^]

I hope the EF-S 60mm Macro is not too expensive - if it isn't, it could be a very nice budget macro lens. But I'm glad that I have the EF 100 f/2.8 Macro, which is an excellent and super sharp lens.
Well it has 1:1 magnifcation, is fitted with the best Canon Focus USM system and looks like it has a metal finish - My guess is that it isn't going to be cheap.

[Jesper]

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

It looks really nice and small, at with an equivalent field of view of 60 x 1.6 = 96 mm, and its f/2.8 aperture, this would also be a very nice portait lens if you have an EF-S compatible camera!

With lenses like this one, the EF-S 10-22mm, and 17-85 IS, Canon is really making EF-S more and more interesting.... too bad my 10D doesn't take EF-S lenses..... :(

[Duder]

this looks like an interesting lens. how much are they likely to go for?

[Adam Hicks]

This IS really intersting. I'm excited to see if it's near the image quality of the 100mm 2.8, because if it is, I think it'll be a better lens - the 100 2.8 just loved to hunt around, and this one will undoubtedly be faster, even if it just hunts faster :) I like these comments from the press release:

"Fast auto-focus - ...The lens drive algorithm has been enhanced to further improve focus accuracy and speed. The lens also features full-time manual focus override without risk of motor damage.

Appealing background blur - An EMD (electromagnetic diaphragm) barrel aperture helps to create attractive, even background blur when the photographer minimises depth of field to isolate a subject. This combines with the 60mm focal length to suit the lens perfectly to portrait photography. "

It really WOULD be a perfect portrait lens for a 1.6x factor, and a nice prime 1:1 macro to boot. Wonder why this is such a surprise? It's a nice fit indeed!

I'm buying the first one. As soon as Dell gets them and posts some coupon codes :)

[Citizensmith]

I think somewhere in the 100 plus Rebel XT posts someone said these have been listed with a 'street' price of $450 so pretty much the same price as the 100 2.8 macro that they are an obvious EF-S version of. So more expensive than the 50 2.5 but better as well (Ring-USM vs AFD, and full 1:1 to start with). I was looking to pick up the macro 50 but I may well aim for this instead if the reviews come in positive.

[intechpcx]

Now I have to make a decision. I was thinking about going out and getting the 50mm 1.8 for a portrait lens. Now this makes me think that maybe I should wait and pick this up as my portrait glass instead. I know what most of you will say, get both since the 50mm 1.8 is so cheap. Maybe I will but this makes me have to at least think about it.

[Jim Larson]

At $450, this lens is priced the same (more or less) as the 100/2.8

Closest focus distances:
50/2.5 = 9.6
100/2.8 = 5.6
60/2.8 = about 4.

For Macro work this implies (I think) that this implies that results for the 100/2.8 at 5.6" and the 60/2.8 at 4" would be the same. Only difference would be depth of field (I think).

So. Why would I buy the 60/2.8 EF-S?

60 makes a better portrait lens than a 100 on an APS-C sensor
But the 100 would be a better portrait lens on a film camera, while the 60 won't even FIT.

And honestly. . .for portraits. . .2.8 is too slow. Especially in a 60.

Of all the primes Canon could make. . why this one? How many people have posted "Gee, I really want a 1:1 60 Macro. Oh. . and make it an EF-S mount". And EF-S requires less glass than a conventional lens (smaller image circle). Why does it carry the full EF price tag?

[tim]

I don't find F2.8 too slow for portraits... I like good DOF for those. And for macro work I often want better than 1:1... i'm looking at extension tubes for the 100mm - which btw is so sharp you could almost cut yourself ;)

[Jim Larson]

For portraits, you are FAR better off with a 1.8 lens. . those lenses only get sharper stopped down.
Both the FULL SIZE 85/1.8 and 50/1.4 are significantly cheaper than this lens.

What you are paying for in this less is the 1:1 Macro and the premium (?!?!) for the EF-S mount.

[Jon]

I wouldn't see any reason to get a 60 mm macro if the 100 is anywhere close to the same price. They're the same speed, and the 100 mm will give you 80 mm more working distance at 1:1 (and more working distance all the rest of the way up the line). If you want something for portraits too, pick up an extra stop with the 50/1.8.

[DocFrankenstein]

Yeah... this 60mm macro is a strange move...

But look at nikon... I nearly died laughing!

The Nikon D2Hs performs continuous shooting of 50 photos with 4.1 effective Megapixels at a speed of 8fps.
3 years behind?

[steven]

Also why come out with S lenses at all?
Everyone wants the full format sensor and ,at least for canon, appears to be the trend to move towards all full format.
So why develop a lens that will be useless when this happens? Why buy a lens that when you finally become rich and buy the camera of your dreams you could no longer use?

[DocFrankenstein]

Cause they're planning to keep the prices of full frame cameras way up there.

[Bodog]

Also why come out with S lenses at all?
Everyone wants the full format sensor and ,at least for canon, appears to be the trend to move towards all full format.
So why develop a lens that will be useless when this happens? Why buy a lens that when you finally become rich and buy the camera of your dreams you could no longer use?

Steven, I have to disagree on this one. If there is a trend, it is to the APS size sensor. I think Canon and all the third party lens manufactors has made it pretty clear that they expect that size to be around for awhile. Absent any real competition (Nikon?, doesn't look like much chance there), I wouldn't expect to see an "affordable" full frame DSLR on the market in the next 5 years, maybe longer. I hope I'm wrong...

[HJMinard]

Steven, I have to disagree on this one. If there is a trend, it is to the APS size sensor. I think Canon and all the third party lens manufactors has made it pretty clear that they expect that size to be around for awhile. Absent any real competition (Nikon?, doesn't look like much chance there), I wouldn't expect to see an "affordable" full frame DSLR on the market in the next 5 years, maybe longer. I hope I'm wrong...

I think there are many photographers - particularly those who enjoy wildlife photography - who prefer the 1.6 factor cameras. We get more reach (sort of) ... more bang for our per-mm buck. I, for one, have no desire for a "full frame" sensor camera at any price, and I appreciate the (relatively) cost effective EF-S option for my less frequent wide angle opportunities.

[Olegis]

So far this EF-S business isn't quite cost-effective - this new 60mm Macro costs almost as much as the 100mm f/2.8 Macro, the 17-85 IS costs more (!) than the 28-135 equivalent, the 10-22 is also very expensive. Personally I can't understand this approach - in all the press releases Canon says that the EF-S mount was invented to make things smaller and cheaper. OK, the new lenses are smaller. Cheaper ? In no way.

[DocFrankenstein]

Cheaper ? In no way.
What do you mean? Chepaer to manufacture for canon of course. That's the cheap way. :lol::lol::lol::lol:

Somebody has to pay for the RD of that new rebel and 20D... and 1Ds MkIII ? :confused:

[Bodog]

So far this EF-S business isn't quite cost-effective - this new 60mm Macro costs almost as much as the 100mm f/2.8 Macro, the 17-85 IS costs more (!) than the 28-135 equivalent, the 10-22 is also very expensive. Personally I can't understand this approach - in all the press releases Canon says that the EF-S mount was invented to make things smaller and cheaper. OK, the new lenses are smaller. Cheaper ? In no way.

Yeah, that press release seems to have been for the investors, not their customers! :rolleyes:

[kawter2]

AND WHERE THE HECK IS AN EF (no S) 10MM (L or no L) Fish 2.8!!!!!



THe only thing my N***n buddies can brag about.. and i must give them the fact that it is a dang nice lens


CANON 1.6 shoooters like real EF wide angles tooo (not just EF-S es)


Sorry, I'm going to run this into the gound.. BUT I WANT ONE!!!

[RJSorensen]

The EF-S lens report back length (mm) data that the flash can use . . . there are little things like this that make the EF-S lens attractive to those who are not 'saddled' with the older lens. For those whom are not 'flash' savvy this is a real boon to the quality of their photos. I believe even the WB data is sent to or taken into account as well. There will always be new improvements and those whom do not like them. AND there will always be those improvements that go bust. The question is how to guess which side of the fence to stand on.

[Tom W]

The EF-S lens report back length (mm) data that the flash can use . . . there are little things like this that make the EF-S lens attractive to those who are not 'saddled' with the older lens. For those whom are not 'flash' savvy this is a real boon to the quality of their photos. I believe even the WB data is sent to or taken into account as well. There will always be new improvements and those whom do not like them. AND there will always be those improvements that go bust. The question is how to guess which side of the fence to stand on.

Not to be picky, but the EF 100 f/2.8 Macro also reports data that the E-TTL II uses. Of course, this data is only used by the flash system if you are using direct flash - bounce flash disables the distance data part of the equation.

Also, WB data is a function of the camera, not the lens. I'm not sure if it is used by E-TTL II or not, since Canon doesn't want to give out detailed information on the flash.

That said, this is a good focal length, and should be useful for not only Macro but also some portraiture in moderately well-lit and possibly studio environments. I'm glad that they made this lens (even though I can't use it), but I wish they had produced a couple of others.

[Citizensmith]

I'm glad that they made this lens (even though I can't use it), but I wish they had produced a couple of others.

EF-S 50 1.8. Because they really need to make the existing one smaller and lighter. :)

I wonder if we'll ever see and EF-S L lens?

[Bodog]

I wonder if we'll ever see and EF-S L lens?

I doubt that as their pro line is now defined by the full frame sensor and probably will be for some time. EF-S is for the rest of us... I would expect to see some wide primes in the future though. That is what the EF-S lacks.

[Olegis]

What do you mean? Chepaer to manufacture for canon of course. That's the cheap way. :lol::lol::lol::lol:

I don't think that it's cheaper for Canon to manufacture, at least not in the first few month (or even a year). You know - new production lines, new products, lower yield etc. It takes time for manufacturing to stabilize its production quality.

[Jim Larson]

Not to be picky. . but almost all USM EF (with maybe an exception or two) lenses provide distance feedback. Remember, the 1D-II and Elan 7n are ETTL-II cameras.

[DocFrankenstein]

I don't think that it's cheaper for Canon to manufacture, at least not in the first few month (or even a year). You know - new production lines, new products, lower yield etc. It takes time for manufacturing to stabilize its production quality.
1) First few months don't count, cause the costs of production line are big.

2) They do not need a "new production line" per se... The elements are manufactured the same way and then put together just as any lens.

3) It is significantly cheaper for canon right now, as every element of the identical lens is 1.6 times smaller in diameter... so the volume of the "expensive optical glass" in a lens is 4.096 times less in an EFs lens than in full frame... and less areas to polish and coat too.

Cheers

[Citizensmith]

I doubt that as their pro line is now defined by the full frame sensor and probably will be for some time. EF-S is for the rest of us... I would expect to see some wide primes in the future though. That is what the EF-S lacks.

Yeah but that assumes only pros buy L lenses and we all know that isn't true. I'm not expecting a EF-S 600 f/4 L, but what about an EF-S 45-125 f/4 L that would effectively provide a smaller version of the ever so popular 70-200 f/4 L. When you look at it that is what they did with this new lens, provide an EF-S alternate to the 100 macro. If they are really serious about the EF-S format I think its just a matter of time before we see EF-S L.

[FlipsidE]

I think I'd still like to stick with the 100mm macro that Canon has out now. I enjoy photographing insects, so the further I can get away from them, the better...esp for the ones that sting.

FlipsidE

[Olegis]

2) They do not need a "new production line" per se... The elements are manufactured the same way and then put together just as any lens.

If they want to manufacture the EF AND the EF-S lenses and keep the production volumes to the plan, they just have to add production lines - it's cheaper (on the long run) to have two different lines for two different products. If you manufacture two or more products on the same line, you have to change setups all the time - and when you do that, your yield goes down. Trust me on this one - I work in a (very) large electronics company and I'm very familiar with the manufacturing process. The lens production might be a little different than cellular phones production, but the principles are the same. :)


It is significantly cheaper for canon right now, as every element of the identical lens is 1.6 times smaller in diameter... so the volume of the "expensive optical glass" in a lens is 4.096 times less in an EFs lens than in full frame... and less areas to polish and coat too.

But we don't know their yield right now, do we ? What if from every 100 lenses they produce, only 50 or 60 lenses are good enough to make it to the shelves ?

[Tom W]

1) First few months don't count, cause the costs of production line are big.

Not to mention amortization of R&D costs.

2) They do not need a "new production line" per se... The elements are manufactured the same way and then put together just as any lens.

Probably, but not necessarily. I suspect that they do a run of one lens, then re-tool for another similar lens on the same machine. But they have different machinery/lines for dissimilar products. Depends on tooling costs, as Oleg mentions. In the manufacturing work I have done in my younger years, retooling was frequent and easy, but the product was very simple.

3) It is significantly cheaper for canon right now, as every element of the identical lens is 1.6 times smaller in diameter... so the volume of the "expensive optical glass" in a lens is 4.096 times less in an EFs lens than in full frame... and less areas to polish and coat too.

Cheers

Actually, that is not entirely true - lens diameter at least for the front group is a function of aperture, as defined by 1/focal length. The longer the lens, the larger the input aperture needed for a given f/stop, and therefore the smaller the difference in diameter. And, some inner elements are probably nearly identical in diameter to some FF lenses, if not identical for the purpose of parts standardization. Note that the diameter slims down near the nodal point in most lenses, before widening back out towards the rear element.

And I'd venture to say that except for exotic glass, the cost of raw glass is not as significant as the cost of shaping and polishing, as well as assembly.

[DocFrankenstein]

Tom and Olegis...

Then the EFs glass is not cheaper to produce.

The RD costs are the same... The glass (by volume) costs are the same and insignificant... Main expense is in polishing and coating the lenses... and it doesn't matter if the lens is big or not...

Actually, that is not entirely true - lens diameter at least for the front group is a function of aperture, as defined by 1/focal length.
Exactly. My point is that lenses with identical effect are gonna be easy to make.

Suppose you want an EF-S lens with equivalent view of 50/1.4... 40 degrees horisontal, right?

To get the same effect for EF-S lens, you just scale down the gaussian design of 50/1.4 and you get 31.25/1.4

Why f/1.4? Because the focal length and aperture decreased proportionally, and their ratio didn't change. So you finally get your "normal" focal length on a APS camera.

And canon doesn't even need RD costs... just scale down the glass and redesign the casing...

But what is the problem with that lens? The bokeh is gonna suck! Why?

The opening of the lenses is:
50 f/1.4=35.7mm
50 f/2 = 25 mm
30 f/1.4 sigma = 21 mm

That tells me, that 50/1.4 on full frame is gonna give me a background that is much more blurred.

To get the bokeh of 50/1.4... the sigma will have to come up with a lens with an opening of 35.7mm... which would make it... 30 f/0.8

Something tells me that no manufacturer is gonna make a lens like that. That's why I don't want to touch EF-S with a 10 foot pole.

End of rant.

[Tom W]

What doesn't make sense at these longer lengths is that Canon could have made an identical full-frame 60 mm f/2.8 Macro USM lens for almost the same cost. The savings doesn't exist on these longer lenses like it might on shorter lenses.
I suppose that there is a marketing angle here - "EF-S is made specifically for ME!!!", but where the specific short-backfocus design of the EF-S mount doesn't improve things, they might as well make the universal EF lens instead.

[Citizensmith]

What doesn't make sense at these longer lengths is that Canon could have made an identical full-frame 60 mm f/2.8 Macro USM lens for almost the same cost. The savings doesn't exist on these longer lenses like it might on shorter lenses.

Does make you wonder doesn't it. They could have positioned this lens as a replacement to the 50 2.5 for full frame users as well as an alternate to the 100 2.8 for APS-C frame users.

[DocFrankenstein]

"EF-S is made specifically for ME!!!"
ME being the user with 1.6 times less cranial capacity? :confused:

[Moses]

Why has there been no mention of the MP-E 65mm f/2.8 1-5x Manual Focus Lens for EOS? Is it because it can only be used for macrophotography?

Forgive me if this is a dumb question, but I'm kind of new to all of this.






http://www.bhphotovideo.com/images/largeimages/183199.jpg
Canon Telephoto MP-E 65mm f/2.8 1-5x Manual Focus Lens for EOS USA
Mfr# 2540A002• B&H# CA6528MP
Our Price: $ 829.95

A unique lens exclusively for use in the macro realm, the MP-E 65mm can fill a 35mm frame with an object as miniscule as a grain of rice! Floating internal lens elements keep the resolution sharp throughout the range of focus. The lens also has an element of ultra-low dispersion glass. For macro shooters with a desire to document the diminuitive, the MP-E is a quantum in ease-of-use compared to previous solutions involving bellows.

[Adam Hicks]

Yeah it's just a macro lens, and is manual focus only AND is $$$!

[ron chappel]

Many of you have completely missed the point on why they chose the 60mm focal length
-it is to fill a gap in the DSLR lens choices.
Up until now if one wanted a portrait prime then the only choices are 50mm and 85mm.Something inbetween is very welcome

[Jim Larson]

I think it is purely marketing.

From the way this press reads. . .they are looking to duplicate the entire EF lineup in EF-S models. Why? Because that way all the APS-C sensor users will replace their EF lenses for EF-S lenses. Not everyone. .. but enough. . .

And those that buy EF-S lenses. . . some will upgrade to 1D-II's. . .and will be forced to upgrade. Not everyone . . but enough. . .

[Tom W]

I think it is purely marketing.

From the way this press reads. . .they are looking to duplicate the entire EF lineup in EF-S models. Why? Because that way all the APS-C sensor users will replace their EF lenses for EF-S lenses. Not everyone. .. but enough. . .

And those that buy EF-S lenses. . . some will upgrade to 1D-II's. . .and will be forced to upgrade. Not everyone . . but enough. . .

In this particular case, I'd say that marketing has a lot to do with it. Unless this lens takes advantage of the shortened backfocus of the EF-S mount, its size differential compared to a 60 mm full-frame EF Macro lens would be pretty small.

I'm not saying it isn't a useful focal length - just saying that there was no need to make an EF-S lens in this case.

[MP4/8]

I just picked this lens up on trial, for product photography.
I think it's a keeper...

Shot wide open at f2.8 and handheld
http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4135/4854345474_cd26c405fe_b.jpg
http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4117/4854348292_31d5e2fb44_b.jpg
http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4114/4853736375_dfbbf750a1_b.jpg
http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4073/4854333436_1751e0ba1b_b.jpg

[ckhorne]

Talk about resurrecting an old thread! Half a decade has passed!

[lonelyjew]

http://i136.photobucket.com/albums/q196/z2ggy/DDO/necro.jpg