Velocity Reviews - Computer Hardware Reviews

Velocity Reviews > Newsgroups > Computing > Digital Photography > New Canon EF-S 60mm F2.8 Macro?

Reply
Thread Tools

New Canon EF-S 60mm F2.8 Macro?

 
 
John A. Stovall
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      03-30-2005
On Wed, 30 Mar 2005 01:09:01 GMT, John A. Stovall
<(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:

Has anyone actual seen one of these?

Here's the link...

http://consumer.usa.canon.com/app/pd...FLensChart.pdf


A better link.

http://consumer.usa.canon.com/ir/con...&modelid=11156


************************************************** ****

"All the territorial possessions of all the political
establishments in the earth--including America,
of course-- consist of pilferings from other people's
wash. No tribe, howsoever insignificant, and no nation,
howsoever mighty occupies a foot of land that was not
stolen."

Mark Twain
"Following the Equator"
 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
 
grenner
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      03-30-2005
I spoke with a Canon rep last weekend at local photo store and he said it is
due out the end of April.

Greg
"John A. Stovall" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:(E-Mail Removed)...
> On Wed, 30 Mar 2005 01:09:01 GMT, John A. Stovall
> <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>
> Has anyone actual seen one of these?
>
> Here's the link...
>
> http://consumer.usa.canon.com/app/pd...FLensChart.pdf
>
>
> A better link.
>
> http://consumer.usa.canon.com/ir/con...&modelid=11156
>
>
> ************************************************** ****
>
> "All the territorial possessions of all the political
> establishments in the earth--including America,
> of course-- consist of pilferings from other people's
> wash. No tribe, howsoever insignificant, and no nation,
> howsoever mighty occupies a foot of land that was not
> stolen."
>
> Mark Twain
> "Following the Equator"



 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
 
Musty
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      03-30-2005

"John A. Stovall" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:(E-Mail Removed)...
> On Wed, 30 Mar 2005 01:09:01 GMT, John A. Stovall
> <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>
> Has anyone actual seen one of these?
>
> Here's the link...
>
> http://consumer.usa.canon.com/app/pd...FLensChart.pdf
>
>
> A better link.
>
>

http://consumer.usa.canon.com/ir/con...&modelid=11156
>
>


Personally, I am more excited about this 30mm f/1.4 sigma lens:

http://www.sigmaphoto.com/lenses/len...00&navigator=6

The 30mm focal length on my 20D will behave the same as the very popular
50mm primes on the 35mm SLRs, and f/1.4 is just awesome for low light
shooting.

Does anyone know, when this one will be available ?


 
Reply With Quote
 
Tumbleweed
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      03-30-2005
> Personally, I am more excited about this 30mm f/1.4 sigma lens:
>
> http://www.sigmaphoto.com/lenses/len...00&navigator=6
>
> The 30mm focal length on my 20D will behave the same as the very popular
> 50mm primes on the 35mm SLRs, and f/1.4 is just awesome for low light
> shooting.
>

The Canon EF 28 1.8 is around already and is excellent.
It's pretty much the same F.O.V and 1 stop slower.
(Out of interest, 50mm was a compromise "standard" with 45mm being reckoned
to be closer to "eyeball" FOV)

The build quality is as to be expected from Canon - hopefully the 30mm will
not be as expected from Sigma.

In termes of usability the 1.8 will give you the bright viewfinder and
shallow DOF you crave.
It will also be less of a risk.

Finally, I'll bet you can find a used one for around the same cost as the
Sigma.....


 
Reply With Quote
 
David Littlewood
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      03-30-2005
In article <d2dr4m$6em$(E-Mail Removed)>, Tumbleweed
<(E-Mail Removed)> writes
>> Personally, I am more excited about this 30mm f/1.4 sigma lens:
>>
>> http://www.sigmaphoto.com/lenses/len...00&navigator=6
>>
>> The 30mm focal length on my 20D will behave the same as the very popular
>> 50mm primes on the 35mm SLRs, and f/1.4 is just awesome for low light
>> shooting.
>>

>The Canon EF 28 1.8 is around already and is excellent.
>It's pretty much the same F.O.V and 1 stop slower.


Actually nearer half a stop (0.62 stops to be picky, but these things
are not that precise).

>(Out of interest, 50mm was a compromise "standard" with 45mm being reckoned
>to be closer to "eyeball" FOV)
>
>The build quality is as to be expected from Canon - hopefully the 30mm will
>not be as expected from Sigma.


It will also work on a 35mm film body or a full-frame sensor body (1D/s
series). The Sigma 30mm will, as admitted by Sigma, not cover the full
field of such cameras.
>
>In termes of usability the 1.8 will give you the bright viewfinder and
>shallow DOF you crave.
>It will also be less of a risk.


The only lenses I have ever had problems with have been Sigma ones.
>
>Finally, I'll bet you can find a used one for around the same cost as the
>Sigma.....
>
>

David
--
David Littlewood
 
Reply With Quote
 
Lester Wareham
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      03-31-2005

"Tumbleweed" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:d2dr4m$6em$(E-Mail Removed)...
>> Personally, I am more excited about this 30mm f/1.4 sigma lens:
>>
>> http://www.sigmaphoto.com/lenses/len...00&navigator=6
>>
>> The 30mm focal length on my 20D will behave the same as the very popular
>> 50mm primes on the 35mm SLRs, and f/1.4 is just awesome for low light
>> shooting.
>>

> The Canon EF 28 1.8 is around already and is excellent.
> It's pretty much the same F.O.V and 1 stop slower.
> (Out of interest, 50mm was a compromise "standard" with 45mm being
> reckoned to be closer to "eyeball" FOV)
>
> The build quality is as to be expected from Canon - hopefully the 30mm
> will not be as expected from Sigma.
>
> In termes of usability the 1.8 will give you the bright viewfinder and
> shallow DOF you crave.
> It will also be less of a risk.
>
> Finally, I'll bet you can find a used one for around the same cost as the
> Sigma.....
>


According to the Canon MTF data neither of the two 28mm lenses are that
sharp. Either of the 24mm are better but best is one of the 35mm.


 
Reply With Quote
 
David Littlewood
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      03-31-2005
In article <424c417c$0$29915$(E-Mail Removed)>, Lester Wareham
<(E-Mail Removed)> writes
>
>"Tumbleweed" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
>news:d2dr4m$6em$(E-Mail Removed)...
>>> Personally, I am more excited about this 30mm f/1.4 sigma lens:
>>>
>>> http://www.sigmaphoto.com/lenses/len...00&navigator=6
>>>
>>> The 30mm focal length on my 20D will behave the same as the very popular
>>> 50mm primes on the 35mm SLRs, and f/1.4 is just awesome for low light
>>> shooting.
>>>

>> The Canon EF 28 1.8 is around already and is excellent.
>> It's pretty much the same F.O.V and 1 stop slower.
>> (Out of interest, 50mm was a compromise "standard" with 45mm being
>> reckoned to be closer to "eyeball" FOV)
>>
>> The build quality is as to be expected from Canon - hopefully the 30mm
>> will not be as expected from Sigma.
>>
>> In termes of usability the 1.8 will give you the bright viewfinder and
>> shallow DOF you crave.
>> It will also be less of a risk.
>>
>> Finally, I'll bet you can find a used one for around the same cost as the
>> Sigma.....
>>

>
>According to the Canon MTF data neither of the two 28mm lenses are that
>sharp. Either of the 24mm are better but best is one of the 35mm.
>
>

Well, according to the "EF Lens Work III" book published by Canon, the
various 20, 24, 28 and 35mm EF lenses all look fairly similar, except
that the two L lenses (24/1.4 and 35/1.4) hold their performance better
to the edge of the frame. In view of their price and exotic design, this
is as it should be.

I have the 35/1.4, and it is indeed an excellent lens. I thought however
that it would be a bit expensive for the OP.

David
--
David Littlewood
 
Reply With Quote
 
Lester Wareham
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      04-02-2005

"David Littlewood" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:(E-Mail Removed)...
> In article <424c417c$0$29915$(E-Mail Removed)>, Lester Wareham
> <(E-Mail Removed)> writes
>>
>>"Tumbleweed" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
>>news:d2dr4m$6em$(E-Mail Removed)...
>>>> Personally, I am more excited about this 30mm f/1.4 sigma lens:
>>>>
>>>> http://www.sigmaphoto.com/lenses/len...00&navigator=6
>>>>
>>>> The 30mm focal length on my 20D will behave the same as the very
>>>> popular
>>>> 50mm primes on the 35mm SLRs, and f/1.4 is just awesome for low light
>>>> shooting.
>>>>
>>> The Canon EF 28 1.8 is around already and is excellent.
>>> It's pretty much the same F.O.V and 1 stop slower.
>>> (Out of interest, 50mm was a compromise "standard" with 45mm being
>>> reckoned to be closer to "eyeball" FOV)
>>>
>>> The build quality is as to be expected from Canon - hopefully the 30mm
>>> will not be as expected from Sigma.
>>>
>>> In termes of usability the 1.8 will give you the bright viewfinder and
>>> shallow DOF you crave.
>>> It will also be less of a risk.
>>>
>>> Finally, I'll bet you can find a used one for around the same cost as
>>> the
>>> Sigma.....
>>>

>>
>>According to the Canon MTF data neither of the two 28mm lenses are that
>>sharp. Either of the 24mm are better but best is one of the 35mm.
>>
>>

> Well, according to the "EF Lens Work III" book published by Canon, the
> various 20, 24, 28 and 35mm EF lenses all look fairly similar, except that
> the two L lenses (24/1.4 and 35/1.4) hold their performance better to the
> edge of the frame. In view of their price and exotic design, this is as it
> should be.
>
> I have the 35/1.4, and it is indeed an excellent lens. I thought however
> that it would be a bit expensive for the OP.
>
> David
> --
> David Littlewood


I would not agree with your view of the MTF charts. The 28mm f2.8 is OK for
APS-C but of course no USM. The 24mm f1.4 is much better than the 28mm f1.8
particularly over the centre of the frame. Both the 35mm have the best
performance.

Thus my statement that if you want performance at a low cost and don't need
USM and FT-M go for the 35mm f2.

I agree if you must have a wider view then the 24mm f2.8 and 28mm f2.8 have
similar performance for APS-C but the 24mm better for full frame 35mm.

The main thrust of the response was to warn that the 28mm f1.8 is not the
sharpest lens about from Canon's own data.

This is most obvious if you overlay the MTF data for various lenses. Take a
look at http://www.zen20934.zen.co.uk/photog...ction.htm#28mm.

Lester



 
Reply With Quote
 
David Littlewood
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      04-02-2005
In article <424e3585$0$5485$(E-Mail Removed)>, Lester Wareham
<(E-Mail Removed)> writes
>
>"David Littlewood" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
>news:(E-Mail Removed)...
>>>

>> Well, according to the "EF Lens Work III" book published by Canon, the
>> various 20, 24, 28 and 35mm EF lenses all look fairly similar, except that
>> the two L lenses (24/1.4 and 35/1.4) hold their performance better to the
>> edge of the frame. In view of their price and exotic design, this is as it
>> should be.
>>
>> I have the 35/1.4, and it is indeed an excellent lens. I thought however
>> that it would be a bit expensive for the OP.
>>
>> David
>> --
>> David Littlewood

>
>I would not agree with your view of the MTF charts. The 28mm f2.8 is OK for
>APS-C but of course no USM. The 24mm f1.4 is much better than the 28mm f1.8
>particularly over the centre of the frame. Both the 35mm have the best
>performance.
>
>Thus my statement that if you want performance at a low cost and don't need
>USM and FT-M go for the 35mm f2.
>
>I agree if you must have a wider view then the 24mm f2.8 and 28mm f2.8 have
>similar performance for APS-C but the 24mm better for full frame 35mm.
>
>The main thrust of the response was to warn that the 28mm f1.8 is not the
>sharpest lens about from Canon's own data.
>
>This is most obvious if you overlay the MTF data for various lenses. Take a
>look at http://www.zen20934.zen.co.uk/photog...ction.htm#28mm.
>
>Lester
>

Clearly we are looking at different data; the charts I looked at show
exactly what I said they did. Looking at a single arbitrary cut-off
point, though making mechanical comparisons a lot easier, does rather
lose a lot of meaningful data; there are many cases of lines dipping
below your limits and then rising back above them, suggesting a much
better performance than implied by your cut-off point.

I found your web site interesting, but some things puzzled me. You state
in the preamble that "Clearly comparing maximum aperture data for lenses
of different max apertures is of limited significance so only the f/8
data is presented here". However, reading your data and remarks for,
say, the 28/1.8, your crossing points - supposedly for f/8 - match
almost exactly the crossing points shown for f/1.8 in my source. The
corresponding figures for my source would be 17 and N/A for 10 lp/mm;
and 5 and 11 for 30 lp/mm (note that the 11 is a very pessimistic figure
as the MTF curve drops below 0.5 and then rapidly rises back above it to
the edge of the frame.

There are other significant differences, but I'm not sure it is worth
going on; it simply shows that if we talk from different data sets we
are likely to reach differing conclusions.

It's an interesting exercise you did. I don't personally see the
validity of ignoring the open-aperture performances; I didn't buy my
35/1.4 because it has superior performance at f/8, but because I needed
a lens which I could use at f/1.4 in museums etc. In fact its f/1.4
performance is not that different from the f/2 performance of the 35/2
(you could say, tongue in cheek, that its f/1.4 performance is decidedly
superior to that of the other lens). The only fair and meaningful
comparison of these two lenses would be at f/2.0, i.e. at the lower of
the two maximum apertures. Unfortunately the data are not available.
--
David Littlewood
 
Reply With Quote
 
Lester Wareham
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      04-02-2005

"David Littlewood" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:78+Eh5B$(E-Mail Removed)...
> In article <424e3585$0$5485$(E-Mail Removed)>, Lester Wareham
> <(E-Mail Removed)> writes
>>
>>"David Littlewood" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
>>news:(E-Mail Removed)...
>>>>
>>> Well, according to the "EF Lens Work III" book published by Canon, the
>>> various 20, 24, 28 and 35mm EF lenses all look fairly similar, except
>>> that
>>> the two L lenses (24/1.4 and 35/1.4) hold their performance better to
>>> the
>>> edge of the frame. In view of their price and exotic design, this is as
>>> it
>>> should be.
>>>
>>> I have the 35/1.4, and it is indeed an excellent lens. I thought however
>>> that it would be a bit expensive for the OP.
>>>
>>> David
>>> --
>>> David Littlewood

>>
>>I would not agree with your view of the MTF charts. The 28mm f2.8 is OK
>>for
>>APS-C but of course no USM. The 24mm f1.4 is much better than the 28mm
>>f1.8
>>particularly over the centre of the frame. Both the 35mm have the best
>>performance.
>>
>>Thus my statement that if you want performance at a low cost and don't
>>need
>>USM and FT-M go for the 35mm f2.
>>
>>I agree if you must have a wider view then the 24mm f2.8 and 28mm f2.8
>>have
>>similar performance for APS-C but the 24mm better for full frame 35mm.
>>
>>The main thrust of the response was to warn that the 28mm f1.8 is not the
>>sharpest lens about from Canon's own data.
>>
>>This is most obvious if you overlay the MTF data for various lenses. Take
>>a
>>look at http://www.zen20934.zen.co.uk/photog...ction.htm#28mm.
>>
>>Lester
>>

> Clearly we are looking at different data; the charts I looked at show
> exactly what I said they did. Looking at a single arbitrary cut-off point,
> though making mechanical comparisons a lot easier, does rather lose a lot
> of meaningful data; there are many cases of lines dipping below your
> limits and then rising back above them, suggesting a much better
> performance than implied by your cut-off point.
>
> I found your web site interesting, but some things puzzled me. You state
> in the preamble that "Clearly comparing maximum aperture data for lenses
> of different max apertures is of limited significance so only the f/8 data
> is presented here". However, reading your data and remarks for, say, the
> 28/1.8, your crossing points - supposedly for f/8 - match almost exactly
> the crossing points shown for f/1.8 in my source. The corresponding
> figures for my source would be 17 and N/A for 10 lp/mm; and 5 and 11 for
> 30 lp/mm (note that the 11 is a very pessimistic figure as the MTF curve
> drops below 0.5 and then rapidly rises back above it to the edge of the
> frame.


Hmm note that the presented plots are the worst case of the meridional and
sagittal at each point.

I checked the raw data for the 28/1.8 and this looks very close to the data
on the USA web
http://consumer.usa.canon.com/ir/con...1&modelid=7302,
which I used as the primary source. But in the back of EF LENS WORK III the
f/8 meriodional is much better although the other curves look the same.

This is the second Canon data discrepancy I have seen. Which to believe? I
see clearly the web data is wrong as the M and S for f/8 at 10lp/mm must be
the same at the optimal centre by definition (should have seen this before
bit it's been a lot of work).

I delibratly used the worst case and the first drop below the MTF thresholds
to maximise the differential between the lenses. If you take the average of
everything then its is difficult to differentiate.

>
> There are other significant differences, but I'm not sure it is worth
> going on; it simply shows that if we talk from different data sets we are
> likely to reach differing conclusions.


At least that trace is different for this lens. I begin to wonder how
reliable the data is.

>
> It's an interesting exercise you did. I don't personally see the validity
> of ignoring the open-aperture performances; I didn't buy my 35/1.4 because
> it has superior performance at f/8, but because I needed a lens which I
> could use at f/1.4 in museums etc. In fact its f/1.4 performance is not
> that different from the f/2 performance of the 35/2 (you could say, tongue
> in cheek, that its f/1.4 performance is decidedly superior to that of the
> other lens). The only fair and meaningful comparison of these two lenses
> would be at f/2.0, i.e. at the lower of the two maximum apertures.
> Unfortunately the data are not available.


There is in fact a section on maximum apature performance in
http://www.zen20934.zen.co.uk/photog...%20Performance.
As you say it is difficult when there is just one common aperture between
all the lenses.

Doubly so if Canon have two sets of data for the same lens!

I'll update the web to use the Lens Works data, thanks for pointing this
out.


Lester


 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
Reply

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are Off


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Canon efs 60mm f2.8 macro underexposure wide-open Geoffrey Digital Photography 0 10-11-2006 10:57 AM
Micro Nikkor AF 60mm vs 105mm (D70) Ken Tough Digital Photography 22 03-29-2005 12:37 PM
Which Nikon macro lens, 60mm or 105mm? greg Digital Photography 18 09-08-2004 04:48 PM
Sigma 24-60mm/2.8 EX DG lens announced Thad Digital Photography 2 05-15-2004 05:45 PM
Is there a Nikon 2x teleconverter that will AF with D100 and Nikkor 60mm 2.8?? nick Digital Photography 3 11-30-2003 06:42 PM



Advertisments