Anyone have experince with the EF-S 60mm f2.8 Macro USM

[Camo 757]

Do you think it could by used as a hybrid macro/portrait lens?

[Jon]

Yes, it could. For the money, the 100 macro's going to be a better buy, though. It'll give you a better macro working distance for virtually the same price, especially with the current rebates.

[Camo 757]

thanks for the response. I'll check it out.

[gasrocks]

Why get the 60? Unkown, untried, odd. Get the 100 (it is about the same $) and you'll not regret it. Longer is better anyway.

[J Rabin]

Camo. This is GREAT lens. I shot this (sorry typical boring Bleeding Heart) the other day.
http://postit.rutgers.edu/uploads/Bleeding%20Heart%20f8%2040s1%2Ejpg
Look at the nice color rendition, the nice OOF blur from a circular aperture. It takes brutal sharp, even over-sharp portraits, just like the 100mm macro. Women may not like the skin pores, blemishes, etc.

Those of us outdoors, that for years used Nikon's micro Nikkor 60mm f/2.8 macro in the field were waiting YEARS for a Canon equal. It just happens to be EF-S, so I and colleagues can't share its use at work on the MkII, but this is one damn fine lens.
It is special use lens for those of us that need 1:1 and <lower reproduction, hand holdable, in the FIELD as part of a light weight kit. It should NOT be a substitute for a REAL low light lens (lower-yes, low-no, f/2.8 is not enough for that), and it should NOT be your only macro lens. The Canon 100mm f/2.8 macro is unparalled for that.

Imagine a field/travel/camping in Maine, whatever kit with the 17-40mm f/4L, this EF-S 60mm for macro/portrait/lower light, and a 70-200mm f/4L or other travel tele zoom.

If you look at the related links below, you will see a post with my field notes on the EF-S 60mm.
Also, search my posts, as I did a "macro cost vs. working distance" comparison post in the lens forum

[Tudordoc]

I am looking for a macro lens to use in the operating room to take intra-operative photos. I previously had a 100mm Macro Vivitar with my Nikon that was great. I want an equivalent now for my 350D. Since I do not want to get too close to the sterile field to take the puctures is the 100mm 2.8 USM a better bet than the new new 60mm 2.8 EF-S?
Thanks
TudorDoc

[J Rabin]

Use in the operating room to take intra-operative photos.

Doc.
You need working distance.
And you need a ring flash.
And you need to do a one-time 3 minute "custom white balance" for your XT between the hi-intensity OR lamps and the camera flash.

Read my long post below. My vote would normally be for a Canon 180mm macro. But, in your case, I'd strongly suggest you check the cheaper Sigma 150mm f/2.8 and put the balance toward a Canon 14EX ring flash, and a Canon 72mm macrolite adaptor. The three together = 180mm macro lens price. The ring flash is not good on people photos because it is shadowless (no modeling) but great on reflective tissue and organs.

The old Nikon's had a feature that provided "effective" f/stop in viewfinder when a macro lens was connected. Canon's do not. At 1:1 magnification, your f/2.8 lens focuses like an f/5.6. The camera TTL meter handles the difference, but YOU NEED THE ADDED SHADOWLESS LIGHT.

Since I do macro at work, so I'll copy/paste a post I did earlier to a similar question. All macro lenses are brutally sharp. One way to compare macro lenses is to think about their working distance relative to cost when these lenses are focused at full 1:1 magnification:

60mm Canon = 10 cm working distance @ $450
100mm Canon = 15 cm working distance @ $480
150mm Sigma = 20 cm working distance @ $620
180mm Canon = 25 cm working distance @ $1,300

180mm Tamron = 26 cm working distance @ N/A

You only pay $30 to add 5 cm of working distance from Canon's 60mm to 100mm macro lenses. Unless you need the 60mm for a specific handheld use on an APS-C 1.6 body (I do at work), the 100mm Canon macro is a best all around value in working distance and flexible use for most people. Due to the floating internal elements, the Canon 100mm has a shorter internal focal length at 1:1, probably around 70-80mm, keeping the field of view nice while still getting the 14.9 cm distance.

To step up, you pay an additional $140 for the 2nd 5cm distance gained from the Canon 100mm to the Sigma 150mm. This, and the fact the Sigma comes with a hood, tripod mount, HSM auto focus, with full-time manual over ride (I shut off auto focus and manually focus much of the time) makes it an interesting middle contender.

Step up one more time, and you pay an additional $700 for the next 5 cm working distance between the Sigma 150mm and the Canon 180mm. This is an amazing optic, little diffraction even when stopped down to f/22 & beyond! Ultimate in working distance. It's big and long and prefers to be used tripod mounted, except when "butterfly hunting."

Even though the Tamron 180mm has the longest WD at a very good price, a stellar 26cm, and is sharp, I do not include the Tamron because of it's front element filter adjustment. It is inconvient to work with the 14EX or 24EX flash units.

If you're serious about macro, do not buy a macro lens where the barrel length extends during focus, like the older Sigma 105. For casual macro users, this is fine (like carrying the Canon 50mm f/2.5 in a pocket out for a hike).

What is working distance (WD)? WD is the distance from the front of lens element to the subject when the lenses are close focused at 1:1 magnification. The lenses all focus continuously to infinity also, but we are only calculating close focus distance.

WD to subject = published close focus spec - lens length - distance between rear element and sensor or film plane (4.4 cm for Canon EOS cameras).

WD is a BIG limiting use factor (in addition to the full 2 f/stops of light loss @ 1:1 magnification), so get as much as you can afford. They all hunt focus because the elements move so far between macro and infinity, that when they de-focus, they really de-focus. Don't carp, live with it and manual focus.

When I mean macro, I mean life size reproduction, (1:1) magnification or greater. There is loads of fun "close-up" photography at less than life size, say 0.25x to 0.70x (butterfly and dragonfly hunting range) that you can do with these macros, or with diopters, close focusing zooms, etc. A cheap Canon XXmm-300mm zoom with a Canon 500D ($140) +2 diopter makes a good butterfly hunter, providing about 0.4-0.7x depending on focal length.

Hope that helps. J

[martook]

I'm also looking at macro-lenses, and if you consider the prices here in Europe:

Canon EF USM 2,8/100 Macro - 516 euro
Canon EF-S USM 2,8/60 Makro - 368 euro

With current rebate on the EF-S it costs 318 euro, so 200 euro difference, which is quite a lot to me. Also, the 60 is a lot better if you'll bring it on vacation and need clothes and so on with you as well and don't want to carry just lenses... :)
Personally I'll go with the 60mm for now and get a better one if I feel the lens specs is limiting my photographing...

[Tudordoc]

Thanks J for the very full reply. MAybe you can answer another question? I previously used a Nikon CoolPix 990 for taking intra-opeative pictures. The advantage was that with the twisty body I could set the camera up on a Benbo tripod and get an assistant to move the camera in over the operative site. With the screen facing out and the lens pointing down it was easy to get the correct image even when I remained sterile and someone else pressed the remote cord. The problem with not having an image displayed on the LCD of my 350D is letting someone else take the picture.

I was wondering if the remote shooting option would help but I cannot seem to get the image onto the computer screen before the picture is taken or even immediately afterwards. Is there a way of doing this. If there were I could then direct someone to set up the shot without having to do it myself.

Thanks

TudorDOc

[J Rabin]

Ahh. Doc, you've just discovered one of the "gotcha's" of SLR photography. The R of SLR. The mirror has to move out of the way before the sensor can see the image. In the vast range of things, there are only two things digicams can do that SLRs can't.

1. A digicam provides a LIVE PREVIEW, with a live HISTOGRAM, on the little LCD panel before the shot, as you've noted. The digicam LCD is really like a tiny video cam of the image the sensor sees. Unless an SLR had transparent mirror, that will not happen on a dSLR.
2. A digicam, because of the tiny sensor and narrow resulting pinhole lens, provides comparatively greater macro/close-up depth of field (DoF) than with better cameras.

For me, the poor image quality of digicams forces me to work harder on the DoF, and I use flash (that's why I suggested to you a Canon 14EX Ring Flash) to take care of exposure without a live histogram. All these digicams have poor high ISO image performance.

I enjoy Canon macro, but on "reflection," maybe for the OR work, you should stick with a good digicam with live preview and infrared remote under well lit OR conditions. The live preview and increased DoF makes life easier. Also, a Canon dRebel XT with a one Kg Sigma 150mm macro lens and 0.5 Kg ring flash might be RISKY weight sitting on the end of tripod lateral arm perched over the sterile working field. At the least, you'd have to hang a counter balance weight on the opposite end of the Benbo arm.

At work, we have one Nikon microscope pre set with a 4 MP "digicam" and the pictures are great because the whole rig is set for it, and costs $30K!

Sorry for being wordy. Hope this helps. Let me know how you make out.
J

[Tudordoc]

Another thread has shown me what I need. I need this http://www.dpreview.com/news/0506/05060701zigview_lcd.asp

I can then see what is about to be taken without glueing my eye to the camera

TudorDoc

[J Rabin]

can see what is about to be taken without glueing my eye to the camera
Great. To your good fortune, just released as you're seeking. I hope you'll report back in a few months and tell how it works.

Set your camera parameters to shoot Adobe RGB so the red tissue and organ colors won't be exagerated, which JPG has a bad tendency to do. Best of luck.
Jack