| Author | Thread |
|
|
05/06/2005 12:56:58 PM · #1 |
Anyone tryout the new canon EF-S 60mm 2.8 macro? Any pics to share. I just ordered one to use for semi-low light, macro and portrait photography. Just wanted to hear some opinions.
Thanks
Ty
Message edited by author 2005-05-06 12:57:13. |
|
|
|
05/06/2005 01:11:18 PM · #2 |
I have had the lens for about a week and a half now and have been very pleased with it. I have pretty much only used it for macro work so I can’t say anything about portrait photography with it but for macro work (bugs and such) it is great. I found it to be extremely sharp all the way from f/2.8 to about f/16 or so then things start to drop off from there (as they do with pretty much any lens).
Here’s a sample picture taken with that lens:
Tom |
|
|
|
05/06/2005 01:11:44 PM · #3 |
| Interesting reasons. Why didn't you go for the 100 2.8? |
|
|
|
05/06/2005 02:40:20 PM · #4 |
Originally posted by Plexxoid:
Interesting reasons. Why didn't you go for the 100 2.8? |
I dont know... I guess it was a somewhat impulsive purchase, being its the new ef-s series and somewhat cheaper @ $449. I like portrait at about 100mm and this lense is about 96mm with the 1.6 crop.
ovenbird: Nice capture on the fly...
Ty |
|
|
|
05/06/2005 03:01:40 PM · #5 |
| I'd spend $20 more for 40 more millimeters, for sure. Full-frame compatible too. I posted a thread last month on this subject. |
|
|
|
05/06/2005 03:06:29 PM · #6 |
100 can be too long for indoor portrait work ... perhaps the 60 will suit better for this purpose
Originally posted by Plexxoid:
I'd spend $20 more for 40 more millimeters, for sure. Full-frame compatible too. I posted a thread last month on this subject. |
|
|
|
|
05/06/2005 03:12:42 PM · #7 |
50 1.8 is ideal for low-light and portrait, only $70. I still say 100 :p
But I understand about not wanting to change lenses, that is a valid reason. Can't wait to see some 60 vs 100 comparisons! |
|
|
|
05/06/2005 03:34:03 PM · #8 |
I had the 100mm f/2.8 macro for a couple of years before I got the 60 and the main reasons I "upgraded" were:
1. I found the 100 to be too big and bulky (didn’t take it with me most of the time because it was inconvenient)
2. Focal length on the 100 is typically too long (on a 1.6x crop body) for what I do (bugs and such). I usually like to use an off camera flash that I hold in my left hand and my arm isn’t quite long enough to get the flash where I want it with the 100.
3. Shorter focal length is easier to hand hold.
Tom
|
|
|
|
05/06/2005 05:55:01 PM · #9 |
mine was shipped today from bhphoto... should have it next week.
|
|
Home -
Challenges -
Community -
League -
Photos -
Cameras -
Lenses -
Learn -
Help -
Terms of Use -
Privacy -
Top ^
DPChallenge, and website content and design, Copyright © 2001-2025 Challenging Technologies, LLC.
All digital photo copyrights belong to the photographers and may not be used without permission.
Current Server Time: 09/17/2025 12:18:25 PM EDT.
