 |
|
|
michael49
Offline
Buy and Sell: On
Registered: Jun 9, 2006
Location: United States
Posts: 5004
|
|
 Oct 1, 2007
|
|
Nan Moore
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Oct 1, 2007
Location: United States
Posts: 0
|
|
Review Date: Oct 1, 2007
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: $340.00
| Rating: 10
|
|
Pros:
|
lightweight, compact, great lens, small filter size, solid
|
|
Cons:
|
none
|
|
|
I just love this lens! I'm new to macro photography, and what a great lens to start with!
|
|
|
Oct 1, 2007
|
|
Veino
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Sep 30, 2007
Location: Finland
Posts: 0
|
|
Review Date: Sep 30, 2007
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: Not Indicated
| Rating: 9
|
|
Pros:
|
Image quality, weight, size, very good at portraits
|
|
Cons:
|
Nothing major
|
|
|
Image quality is stunning for consumer lens, it's fast enough (F/2.8) and it isn't expensive at all. It shines on portraits and it's good lens for walkaround. Handy size and weight plus 60mm is pretty nice lenght for many situtations.
Highly recommended.
|
|
|
Sep 30, 2007
|
|
piberoptikz
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Apr 27, 2006
Location: United States
Posts: 14
|
|
Review Date: Jun 30, 2007
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: $359.00
| Rating: 10
|
|
Pros:
|
VERY SHARP / COMPACT W/ SOLID BODY / SUPER FAST / EXCELLENT LENS / AFFORDABLE / WORTH EVERY PENNY
|
|
Cons:
|
NONE AT ALL
|
|
|
|
|
|
Jun 30, 2007
|
|
Indy Iskandar
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Nov 30, 2006
Location: N/A
Posts: 0
|
|
|
Jun 5, 2007
|
|
byteseller
Offline
Buy and Sell: On
Registered: Jun 18, 2003
Location: United States
Posts: 1772
|
|
Review Date: May 20, 2007
|
Recommend? |
Price paid: $380.00
|
|
Pros:
|
Compact, lightweight, price, can use with onboard flash, fantastic bokeh, fast ring USM with full-time manual over ride, etc
|
|
Cons:
|
not FF
|
|
(Samples at bottom)
Lets face it, you'd be hard pressed to find an optically bad macro lens. In my experience the 60mm is every bit as sharp as the other macro I've used (Canon 100mm, Sigma 150mm and 105mm, and Nikon 60mm and 105mm VR). So rather than compare the Canon 60mm (disclaimer - one of my favorite lenses ever) with any of these other fine macro lenses, I'll just point our some reasons why I find this lens so incredibly useful and used:
1. I like to travel light. The Canon is barely larger than most 50mm 1.4 lenses. It also does not extend when focusing - something no other compact macros can do to my knowledge (Nikon 60mm, Sigma 50, Canon 50mm f2.8, etc). This lens packs wonderfully into almost any small bag for your kit.
2. Since the lens does not extend and is compact (see above) it can be used with the onboard flash even at 1:1 without casting a shadow on your subject -- not sure if any other Macros can pull this off. This allows me to travel even lighter since I don't have to pack off camera flashes or on lens macro ring flashes. Purists will scoff at onboard flash use, but I think that I've gotten some damn good photos using it, especially since I would have had NO photo at all since I would rarely if ever carry the amount of equipment required to do this otherwise.
3. The lens has a very nice ring-USM focusing system. As fast or nearly as fast as any lens out there.
4 Price. Yes I have a budget, not many true macros out there that go for less.
5. Absolutely wonderful bokeh, oh so buttery!! Canon talks about rounded aperture blades, yadda, yadda - something they did works well here. While the background smears wonderfully together, the lens is amazingly sharp wide open.
6. 60mm on a crop body is 96mm - that combined with #5 makes for a very nice portrait lens. Got more use from this lens for that reason than the Canon 85 1.8 (a wonderful lens) that felt a bit long on my 30D.
7. For reasons of it's compact size, light weight and quick focus, the lens is JOY to hand hold (hey less stuff to carry!!). I've even have used the lens very successfully holding the camera in one hand.
Down-sides?
1. You have to work pretty close/stealthily with a 60mm macro - more so than a say 150mm Sigma, but this is well worth the trade off for the Pros outlined above - size, on-board flash, etc
2. No can do on FF bodies - not really a problem since I can't afford these bodies. It might also not be the ideal lens to use with Adriana Lima - but for the same reason, I'm not too worries.
There you have it, some samples:
Bokeh:
http://www.pbase.com/pyanez/image/79071462
http://www.pbase.com/pyanez/image/79083170
Macro with on-board-flash:
http://www.pbase.com/pyanez/image/61531223
http://www.pbase.com/pyanez/image/79048687
Sharpness wide-open (or nearly so):
http://www.pbase.com/pyanez/image/59467741
Holdability (one handed shooting):
http://www.pbase.com/pyanez/image/59467741
http://www.pbase.com/pyanez/image/76299503
Portraits:
http://www.pbase.com/pyanez/image/60356474
Many more examples here:
http:/www.pbase.com/pyanez/macro
|
|
|
May 20, 2007
|
|
relicpro
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: May 1, 2007
Location: United States
Posts: 6
|
|
Review Date: May 19, 2007
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: $350.00
| Rating: 10
|
|
Pros:
|
Gorgeous bokeh! f2.8 is nice, build is solid
|
|
Cons:
|
none...
|
|
|
My first lens, and I fell in love with it! Perfect for macro photography and my own pet peeve - flora. The divine bokeh makes it great for portraits as well. Great fixed-length lens!
|
|
|
May 19, 2007
|
|
jlandaue
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Feb 5, 2005
Location: United States
Posts: 672
|
|
Review Date: Apr 22, 2007
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: $400.00
| Rating: 9
|
|
Pros:
|
Sharp, Color accuracy, Focus Accuracy
|
|
Cons:
|
Slow focus in low contrast areas
|
|
This lens is very nice. Not just good for macro, but for portraits and landscapes. I'm having fun with this lens. I can achieve nice effect and be creative in closeups.
I used to have a Canon 17-40 mm L lens, but this one is a lot sharper.
I never take this lens out of my spare Canon XT ( I also have a Canon XTI with 17-85 mm IS).
Here some samples of my shots at the Zoo with the Canon 60 mm. As you can see it is not just for Macro.
http://www.jaimephotos.com/
|
|
|
Apr 22, 2007
|
|
wing tong
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Oct 27, 2006
Location: United States
Posts: 3986
|
|
Review Date: Mar 22, 2007
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: Not Indicated
| Rating: 10
|
|
Pros:
|
sharp, inexpensive, does more than just macro.
|
|
Cons:
|
still trying to find one...maybe ef-s only?
|
|
|
This lens has become my favorite walkaround lens over my 24-105IS L on my 1.6 crop body. The images are sharp, I can take a range of photos and still come up tight to the subject and get those random/spontaneous macros. The 60mm is perfect as an outdoor walkaround focal distance and I don't miss the 24-105 that it replaced. At f/2.8, I can keep it on my camera indoors most of time as well.
|
|
|
Mar 22, 2007
|
|
Fernando Sousa
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Sep 15, 2006
Location: Portugal
Posts: 245
|
|
Review Date: Mar 9, 2007
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: Not Indicated
| Rating: 9
|
|
Pros:
|
sharp sharp sharp! good price
|
|
Cons:
|
hunts a little in low light
|
|
|
got this one yesterday after reading the reviews in this site.
took some shots and im very very happy with the results.
the sharpest lens i own, for sure. it works great with rebel xt. however, autofocus is not accurate in low light and its a pitty its not compatible with full fram bodys.
overall, this is a wonderful piece of glass that you can buy for a nice price.
very good for portraits and for first adventures into the macro world.
|
|
|
Mar 9, 2007
|
|
Poindexter
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Oct 8, 2005
Location: United States
Posts: 102
|
|
Review Date: Feb 7, 2007
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: $380.00
| Rating: 9
|
|
Pros:
|
Very Sharp over a very usable aperture range. Light and compact. Nice minimum focus distance.
|
|
Cons:
|
Might need more range for wildlife macro. Auto Focus hunts too often.
|
|
|
This lens was given to me as a Christmas gift in 2005. I've been pleased with it for portraits and product-like photography. I would prefer something a tad longer, and am going to replace it with the Canon 100mm f2.8 very soon.
I have never gotten over how sharp this lens is. It does a great job wide open. It doesn't take up too much room in the bag or pocket. I've run around state parks shooting birds, but always brought this lens with me in my pocket just in case something small catches my eye. Moving to the 1D series, I won't be able to do that anymore with this EF-S lens.....another reason for getting rid of it.
I would recommend this lens to anyone who wants to get started in Macro - it is an excellent lens for macro beginners (like me) because of its sharpness - call it somewhat forgiving of your beginners skills.
I had to work on my manual focus skills using this lens because the AF hunts quite a bit. Aside from the AF and focal length, this is an excellent lens for the money.
|
|
|
Feb 7, 2007
|
|
toma7
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Jan 31, 2007
Location: Austria
Posts: 0
|
|
Review Date: Feb 1, 2007
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: Not Indicated
| Rating: 10
|
|
Pros:
|
compact, build quality, light, usually fast AF, cheap, my charpest lens
|
|
Cons:
|
hunts a little in low light, ef-s
|
|
|
|
|
|
Feb 1, 2007
|
|
Breach
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Apr 7, 2005
Location: Bulgaria
Posts: 3
|
|
Review Date: Dec 12, 2006
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: $380.00
| Rating: 9
|
|
Pros:
|
Sharp, IQ overall is great, compact, light 1:1 macro
|
|
Cons:
|
AF is slow. AF fails to lock where it should. AF pretty weak in low light. (That's why it gets a 9)
|
|
|
That's the second lens I am getting for my 30D (the first one being the EF-S 17-55). I promised myself I wouldn't get any other EF-S lenses after the 17-55, but now I am getting the EF-S 60mm :-) (What's next guess the 10-22 :P) Seriously, EF-S or not, these two EF-S lens are really good. First impressions? It makes my 30D look cheap!! Yeah, and I consider this a good thing actually. If the camera is facing you it certainly doesn't impress (52mm). In truth, I don't think the build is much different than that of the 17-55, but in the case of the 60mm it does feel better. Maybe because the lens is more compact and doesn't extend.. Weight? It's pretty light. I think it's more balanced for 350D/400D bodies, but it still is OK on x0D bodies.
Image Quality? I'll have to repeat everything said so far -- this lens is SHARP 2.8 to 11 (f/16 is good too, diffraction kills anything higher in terms of f-numbers). Contrast is great, colors seem natural.. Simply outstanding (and that's why I got it ;P). Really outstanding.
Negatives? AF speed is pretty low -- kind of sucks when you are shooting fauna and humans.. who usually get impatient quickly ;P Then again, it's a macro. Low light auto focus is pretty bad too, gets half way decent with my 580EX's AF assist.. It's funny but obviously contrasting objects fail to get AF to lock too.. (and I guess that's the worst to be said about the AF's shortcomings). When I compare it to my trusty 17-55, I can really feel the difference in all noted departments... I also guess Canon can sell it for around $300, but all in all given the IQ you get it's well worth the money.
So... why did I get it instead of say 50mm macro, or 100mm macro or 180mm macro or 50/85/100mm? These are all lenses I considered -- and what one does is identify needs. Well, what I needed was a sharp prime, preferably designed during this century with 1:1 macro capability, but also great for portraits:
50mm macro was out of the way -- no 1:1 magnification out of the box. I guess I could've gotten the 100mm macro it's a great lens from what I've read -- but a bit too long for portraits on a 1.6 body. 180mm macro - arguably the best macro lens, but too long for portraits and far more expensive.
50mm 1.8? Mmm no thanks I already have the 17-55 2.8, don't think I'll be getting any 50mm primes any time soon. 85mm? Now, I was almost drawn into getting the honorable 85mm 1.8 -- however the CA were way worse and it wasn't as sharp -- 100mm f/2 on the other hand was too long (and seems like a fine lens otherwise).
So there you have it, again -- highly recommended unless a FF upgrade is not in your immediate future.
|
|
|
Dec 12, 2006
|
|
Infrasound
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: May 27, 2006
Location: Norway
Posts: 14
|
|
Review Date: Dec 6, 2006
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: Not Indicated
| Rating: 10
|
|
Pros:
|
Incredible sharpness, great contast and colors. Cheap filters
|
|
Cons:
|
None
|
|
|
I bought it after reading the great reviews here, and I have never regretted it. I use it with my Eos 400D and I think it outperforms my 17-40mmL without a doubt. I wish Canon would make a wide angle version of this one.
Like someone said in a previous review, this lens could have been labeled as L lens.
|
|
|
Dec 6, 2006
|
|
condyk
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Mar 14, 2005
Location: United Kingdom
Posts: 300
|
|
Review Date: Dec 3, 2006
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: $500.00
| Rating: 9
|
|
Pros:
|
Compact with excellent build quality. Image quality is excellent and one of the sharpest lenses I have ever owned, if not the sharpest.
|
|
Cons:
|
I have never used a Macro that can AF as well as a conventional lens, esp. in low light, and most Macro is in MF anyway. Seems unfair to criticise on that basis, but it is a tad irritating when using for non macro shots. So, not quite perfect. No lens hood is also unforgivable but this is standard from Canon on their non-L lenses :-( Cheapskates in my opinion as a hood is essential for most lenses!
|
|
|
Very safe buy for a crop body DSLR. Good all rounder and not just a Macro.
|
|
|
Dec 3, 2006
|
|
aladyforty
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Feb 3, 2006
Location: Australia
Posts: 1361
|
|
Review Date: Oct 25, 2006
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: Not Indicated
| Rating: 9
|
|
Pros:
|
smooth fast focus, very very sharp, beautiful color saturation
|
|
Cons:
|
hunts a little in low light
|
|
|
Ive only had this lens for just over a week but it has not come off my camera since I got it. I usually have a 100-300 on my 30D so thats saying something. Ive been able to get beautiful sharp close up shots of the inside of flowers, something I had trouble getting before. Im loving the lens right now. It does hunt a little in low light but I am getting the nifty 50mm F1.8 for those low light shots
|
|
|
Oct 25, 2006
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Reviews
|
Views
|
Date of last review
|
|
111
|
242137
|
Dec 23, 2012
|
|
|
Recommended By
|
Average Price
|
|
98% of reviewers
|
$409.23
|
|
|
Build Quality Rating
|
Price Rating
|
Overall Rating
|
|
9.31
|
8.81
|
9.6
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 |
