EF-s 60mm F2.8 Macro

[Ray.Petri]

Hi members

Re the new EF-s 60mm F2.8 Macro
It all seems to have gone quiet on this one - from the spec it is high on my list when it is in stock at my usual supplier - has anyone tried it - own it - or have any comments on it yet?
The fact that it is 1:1 up to 90mm (equiv 35mm) makes it more generally useful than the 100mm macro for my general purposes.



20D
18-55mm
70-200 f4 L USM
28-70 Macro zoom
Angle finder C
Merz 45-CL4
Modified Centon ringflash

[tim]

It's not 1:1 up to 90mm, it's 1:1 at 60mm. The 100mm macro is 1:1 at 100mm. I don't buy EF-S lenses, that way if I get a film camera or a 1D series camera I can still use my lenes. Also, I find the 100mm lens just long enough, i'd actually prefer it longer than shorter.

[J Rabin]

Ray. I took a lot of pics again yesterday. The more I use it, the more I like it. Color and sharpness are clearly = my 100mm macro. People do not realize because of the wonderful internal floating element focus on the 100mm, when it's at 1:!, it's really about 70mm +/- FL anyway. If you are ONLY GETTING 1 MACRO LENS, still get the 100mm. Better all 'round. My colleague also has the 180 macro.
Anyway, here was my first day experience
http://photography-on-the.net/forum/showthread.php?t=69799

This 60mm quickly became my portable handheld field macro, a-la the Nikon I mention. It's a keeper. I'd post yesterday's photos, but I'm not near that computer.
My way to consider these lenses is to price them by working distance @ 1:1,
Since they are ALL good and sharp:
60mm Canon = 10cm working distance @ $450
100mm Canon = 15cm working distance @ $480
150mm Sigma = 20cm working distance @ $580
180 Canon = 25cm working distance @ $1,200
You only pay $20 for the 1st 5cm gain, $100 for the 2nd 5cm gain, and $600 for the 3rd 5 cm gain.
And WD is a BIG limiting use factor (in addition to 2 f/stops light loss @ 1:1), so get as much as you can afford. Given that, the Sigma, with its tripod mount and low price has been calling out to me for a test drive........
For me, the 60 is a special purpose lens, it's not a substitute for a "low light lens," but I think it's going to be popular once people use it.

[mdr]

As mentioned already, the 100mm macro is more versatile. One specific aspect is that if you want to increase magnification by using extension tubes, you'll find that the distance between subject and lens becomes too narrow to work with if you're using the 60mm EF-S, whereas you have more space with the 100mm macro.

I currently have both the 100mm non-USM and USM macro (selling the non-USM on eBay shortly). Anyone interested in me doing some direct comparison with the two.

[Jon]

People do not realize because of the wonderful internal floating element focus on the 100mm, when it's at 1:!, it's really about 70mm +/- FL anyway.

Given that the 60 mm uses a similar internal focussing/floating element design, what's that make it at 1:1? Depending on how similar the designs are, I'd guess somewhere around 40-45 mm.