Not sure what ISO you are using but I've found the 60D able to deliver very good images at moderately high ISO. I regularly use ISO = 800 to capture under natural light, and find minimal issues.
800 is about as far as I like to take my 7d as well. My house is not very well lit with minimal natural light most of the time so my 60mm 2.8 is just a little on the slow side.
Above statement illustrated.
The inner whitish area is what the APS-C frame captures with a lens.
The outer (full image) area is what the FF camera captures with its larger sensor, using the same lens FL as the APS-C camera.
The red circle shows the smaller image circle of the EF-S lens design...it cannot fill the FF area, which is why Canon puts the EF-S mount on the lens, to prevent its use on a FF sensor camera.
The 50mm lens will frame an area which is 20% wider than the 60mm lens on the same camera. For example, the 50mm lens will frame an area 8.9' along one side (the long dimension of frame) at a subject distance of 20' when mounted on the APS-C camera; the 60mm lens will frame an area
which is 7.4' along the long dimension of the frame... 8.9' = 120% of 7.4'; 50mm = 60mm / 120%
I understand what your saying, I had some crazy Idea that the EF-S lens were equivalent to their full frame brother as far as perspective goes. ie 60mm EF-S takes the same picture crop wise as a FF 60mm EF (if they made one), not the case though.
Here is the Sigma 50 f/1.4 @ 1.4:
The Canon version would not have such smooth bokeh nor would the in-focus details be quite this crisp. But I think the Canon has a very slight IQ advantage @ 4.0 and up... at least in the in-focus areas. The difference between the 2 is greater @ 1.4 than it is @ 5.6 so I kept the Sigma. Sorry, I don't have any Canon 50mm examples on my Flickr.
My Sigma required no microfocus adjust on my 7D. It focuses pretty much spot-on every time. I must be one of the lucky ones. I have heard that AF is a big weakness in some of these lenses. Mine was fine. I think the end result would be worth the hassle of trying a few copies (if you have to.)
FWIW the Canon AF on my copy was hugely sporadic, sometimes confiming that the focus had been locked when in reality the focus was literally 20 feet off. And then other times it would be fine. I'm pretty sure that was just the copy of the lens that I had.
Nice shots, I looked at some reviews on Photozone and some sample shots on Digital picture and I am sold. Thanks for taking the time to give me your input.
Do you shoot macro often? If not, why not sell the 60mm and pick up a 50/1.8 and a used 85/1.8? The extra 2/3 stop between the 1.8 and 1.4 won't make a huge difference in terms of DOF and low light capability indoors. You might appreciate what you can do having two lenses.
I do shoot some macro and I absolutely love this lens (60mm) so I am not ready to part with it just yet. Its the fastest lens I have ever owned at this point. My original thought was to get the 85 and some kenko tubes for macro but I feel 85 will be a little too long in my small living room. The 60mm seems a little long at times.
Do you like the FOV of your 60mm Macro? If you don't do much macro, I would totally go for the 50mm f1.4, the f1.8 is an okay lens, but the 1.4 is a completely different animal-faster, quieter AF, much nicer bokeh, and better build.
If you still want to do macro, I would say buy the 85mm f1.8-it's an incredible portrait lens and you won't be disappointed.
The FOV seems a hair tight in my house taking pictures of my daughter.
50 and 85 are both so close to 60 that I wouldn't bother. I'd look a little wider or longer depending on your needs and get the Sigma 30mm or Canon 100mm f2. Either of those makes a nice progression rather just a near duplicate non-macro lens.
I may sell the 60mm at later date, I think ideally a Sigma 50 1.4 and a Canon 100 f2 with a set a good tubes (for the 100) would be Ideal. I admit buying the 60mm was not such a good idea but I didn't research enough!