EF-S 60mm [Archive] - Canon Digital Photography Forums

Jon

21st of April 2005 (Thu), 14:06

If you have a 100, why get the 60? There's absolutely no advantage to it for macro work - you lose working distance, big time. For that matter, since the cost difference is miniscule, why buy the 60 instead of the 100?

cactusclay

21st of April 2005 (Thu), 14:27

Good point.

gasrocks

21st of April 2005 (Thu), 14:31

I agree. Why get an EFS 60 when you can have a much better 100 for about the same $. Makes no sense.

kawter2

21st of April 2005 (Thu), 14:36

when you can have a much better 100

Has it been reviewed to be MUCH better?

cmM

21st of April 2005 (Thu), 14:53

has it been reviewed at all? Any reviews out there? Im curious about this lens

kawter2

21st of April 2005 (Thu), 14:59

has it been reviewed at all? Any reviews out there? Im curious about this lens

I didn't think so, that is why i responded!!!

I FIND IT ODD THAT PEOPLE SEEM TO DEFINE THE "-S" AS BEING A SUB PAR LENS!!!

The only bad thing about forums like this is that peoople seem to get wrapped up in the fact that they will only get "THE" shot if they have a "L" or a 1 Serries. LOTS and LOTS of people take shots that would make you sh*t your pants (in a good way) and they are using lenses you would never be caught dead with

rdenney

21st of April 2005 (Thu), 15:02

I had one in my hand at the WPPI trade show, March, 21 , here in Vegas. They said it would be in the stores the end of the month. Has anyone seen an EF-S 60mm in stock for sale anywhere yet?

What is it? Is it a portrait lens (quite useful at this focal length) optimized for speed and bokeh? Is it a macro lens (as suggested by comparisons to the 100)? I can't imagine why they would need to compete in the macro range with the 50/2.5 they already have in the lineup. But a fast (1.4) portrait lens with USM and better bokeh than the gauss-design 50's would be nice for 20D owners, without really insulting their high-dollar full-frame customers.

Rick "who thinks these introductions provide glimpses into Canon's long-term strategy" Denney

cactusclay

21st of April 2005 (Thu), 15:34

So, what did it feel like when you held it, have some weight to it, or was it light?

VegasGeorge

21st of April 2005 (Thu), 20:30

So, what did it feel like when you held it, have some weight to it, or was it light?

It seemed like a substantial, well built lens. It had some heft to it. I really couldn't test it out while standing at the counter in that crowd. I did focus down on a small object just to see the macro working. It looked good in the viewfinder! :lol:

ScottE

21st of April 2005 (Thu), 20:49

I agree. Why get an EFS 60 when you can have a much better 100 for about the same $. Makes no sense.

With a shorter lens you are going to get slightly better apparent depth of field which can be important at macro distances. Also, the perspective and shorter working distance could be an advantage for some subjects.

Scott

Naytwan

21st of April 2005 (Thu), 21:57

I had a 60mm EF-S over the weekend. I liked the lens, but it just was to short. I had to get way to close to my subject, so I returned it for the 100mm Macro.

This was taken with the 60mm

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v425/naytwan/b14b8806.jpg

VegasGeorge

21st of April 2005 (Thu), 22:04

I had a 60mm EF-S over the weekend. I liked the lens, but it just was to short. I had to get way to close to my subject, so I returned it for the 100mm Macro.

Did you try it out as a portrait lens? I'm curious about the background blur and appearance at longer focal length.

Naytwan

21st of April 2005 (Thu), 23:43

This is as close as I got to a portrait. I liked the lens alot, just not for macro. If it wasn't so expensive (almost the same as the 100) I might have kept it.

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v425/naytwan/95e31fef.jpg

This was at 1/125 and F8.

kevin_c

22nd of April 2005 (Fri), 02:41

J Rabin

22nd of April 2005 (Fri), 05:27

Someone asked why I ordered it since I already have Canon 100mm. You guys are hung on specs; missing point on how folks like me will use the 60mm. It's obvious if you've used the Nikon 60mm f/2.8D AF Micro-Nikkor. A fabulous portable piece of glass. I've been waiting years since moving to Canon for them to produce an equal, They have, it's just EF-S. It's not about focal length equivalency, it's about portability in field.

The 100mm f/2.8. Sharp. 0.6 kilo. The 24 dual macro flash is heavy. When I'm on field trips, and want to have a LIGHT travel kit, the 60mm will triple as the THE sole f/2.8 low light prime/macro/portrait lens. I can't carry my 24-70L brick nor my 70-200 f/2.8 with 1.4x and 500D.

With this 60mm macro, my three lens travel kit will become: 17-40L, 60mm f/2.8 macro, and something like 70-300 DO. With the macro flash, it's still 2 kilos. Last year I missed this once in a 17-year opportunity because I did not have gear:
http://postit.rutgers.edu/uploads/Magicicada%20spp%2017%2Dyear%2Ejpg
Note the shot is ruined with specular highlights and poor DoF. My point is gear taken is better than gear left home because it's too heavy!
Jack

Naytwan

22nd of April 2005 (Fri), 07:43

Jumping in here... Naytwan, what camera are you using, you say "it just was to short" are you using a full-frame sensor or a smaller (20D/300D) one as that would give you a 96mm equivelent, which should not be too bad.
I believe this is why Canon have introduced this lens, to give an equivelent focal lenght to the 100mm?

EF-S lens only work on the 300/350D and 20D. What I ment was to get the same shot of my wife's eye I had to get way to close to her with the 60 then with the 100. My whole purpose for getting the lens was for shooting my son when he is born and getting images of his hands and feet. I just felt the 60 I would have to get way to close to him and risk him kicking the lens or grabbing it.

Not sure how easy baby foot and fingerprints would be to clean off the glass, or loosing the shot while it focused. I forgot to mention focusing seemed very slow compared to the 100.

rdenney

22nd of April 2005 (Fri), 09:30

Well, nobody has answered my question as to what sort of lens it is (other than being 60mm), but I gather that it is primarily a macro lens and it's maximum aperture is 2.8. So, it must be intended as a macro lens. I can see where the 100 would be too long with the small sensor (copy stand work comes to mind), and thus the need for a shorter macro lens.

But what makes this lens better than the 50/2.5 Compact Macro? Is that extra 10mm really that useful? Not much is easier to carry in the field than the 50. And I'm not seeing bokeh that seems noticeably better than the 50, which I put in the category of "okay". It seems to me that Canon already has a good short macro lens.

The 60mm Micro-Nikkor was designed for the 24x36 format. It's a wonderful lens, but back in the day the 50 (or was it 55?) Micro-Nikkor was the lens that made Micro-Nikkors famous.

I'm just not getting it.

Rick "wishing Canon would put their energy into an affordable full-frame sensor" Denney

kevin_c

22nd of April 2005 (Fri), 09:52

Naytwan,
forgot about the '-S' part of the lens, of course you can't be using a full frame sensor :oops:

I agree that if you are getting in close to people (or moving objects with sticky fingers/toes etc ) that a longer lens is essential.

I think the 60mm lens will be on my list in the near future, will wait for some more comments about its performance. I think a 100mm will be a bit too much of a telephoto for me.

Naytwan

22nd of April 2005 (Fri), 10:16

From what I saw in the shots I took (except the poorly exposed rose outside my house), its optically a very nice lens. I may still add one o my bag later on, I just think its a bit overpriced at the current price point I paid. At $450 I think there are better lens in its range. knock $100 off and i'll get another one in a heartbeat.

Jon

25th of April 2005 (Mon), 13:47

Rick, I agree. I don't see any reason for Canon to have come out with this particular lens, at within $10-20 of the 100. If you need a travelling macro to 1:1, the 100 will do better. If you can deal with 1:2, and want a lighter lens, the 50 f/2.5 is smaller, lighter, and cheaper. Even if you add an extension tube to it. I really think Canon's offering this as a marketing ploy. I can't see any other reason unless they're about to drop the 50 (no, I haven't heard any such rumors, so please don't use this post to start one).

Adam Hicks

25th of April 2005 (Mon), 13:51

Once again, as has been mentioned, 100mm on a 1.6x body is too long for typical portraiture. The 60mm puts you dead center in the prime range and should focus much faster than the 100mm Macro which loves to HUNT a lot and is pretty slow to focus. I had one for a while but wasn't that impressed with it's speed. It was razor sharp though, and if the 60mm EF-S is as sharp, I'll buy one.

Adam

rtburgess1

25th of April 2005 (Mon), 14:02

Here is a review of the EFS 60 macro: http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/Canon-EF-S-60mm-f-2.8-Macro-USM-Lens-Review.aspx

J Rabin

25th of April 2005 (Mon), 19:27

Come on guys. I tried this yesterday and put the stuff here:
http://photography-on-the.net/forum/showthread.php?t=69799

If you NEED this lens, you'll know it, if you don't need it, why all the verbiage commentary? When I'm traveling LIGHT, max three lenses, 1 is WA (17-40L), 2 is Tele (70-something) and I must have a 3 macro, because that's my work. The 60mm focal length fits that gap, and weight is light. Because the FL is less than my 100mm macro, it's easier to handhold at lower shutter speed to gain f/stop DoF. It focuses manually nice against 20D gorund glass screen.
Adam, you're mistaken, the 100mm macro is not too long for portraits on a reduced format dSLR, especially outdoors. The compression of features is nice.

Sure, the 100 macro is a better overall lens, and as I note, the better choice if you only have one macro. Sure this new lens is a compromise. Sure the working distance is less (but I have the 100mm and a colleague has Canon 180 macro). But, this lens has it's place for handheld less than 1:1 macro in the field. If you need the place it fits....
Luckily, from my foray yesterday, the color rendition, sharpness, OOF blur, are good.
Jack

Adam Hicks

25th of April 2005 (Mon), 19:42

I'm mistaken? That's strange... I've never heard anyone say 160mm is within prime portrait range. Maybe I've been reading all the wrong books!

Adam

J Rabin

25th of April 2005 (Mon), 21:36

Adam.
From my experience yesterday, the new EF-S 60mm macro auto focuses equally slow (or equally fast) with the 100mm macro USM. They both have good lens motors, The issue is the length the lens elements travel inside the barrel. Once they go OOF, the elements rack back and forth a long way seeking focus, like a telephoto. That is why Canon pro bodies have the custom function to stop lens hunting. If fast focus is YOUR NEED, these are NOT YOUR lenses. If macro is your need, I accept this and manually focus.

As to portrait tele lengths. It's not my thing, but I've watched outdoor fashion photogs shooting with 200-400mm lenses for the beautiful compression and background effects. I've seen them come from NYC to the beach with walkie talkies between the photog and the model. Books written by studio pros, backing up against a wall with anything more than 85mm, are not going to recommend it. I routinely use my Canon 70-200 f/2.8 on the 20D at 200mm for portraits outside, when you can back up farrrrrr enough. At lower f/stops its nice. Maybe I'm just contrary, but I find wide angle affects on people pictures far more distorting of perspective than tele, and that includes 28-35mm FL on my 20D.