A seriously underrated lens

Dave Jaseck wrote:

"Slow focus" to which I ask, compared to what? I have a 60 with the firmware updates on it and camera bodies. It focuses as fast as my 35 F1.4, and 18 and other 2 lenses. It focuses as fast as my Canon 85mm F1.8 on a Canon 6D. It takes longer if you are focusing on something close (it does go to half life size) which none of the standard primes do, but "typical" of what any macro lens will do when close focusing on objects. When the 60 is used in normal focus distances, it focuses as well as any other lens, perhaps differing only in milliseconds. Someone who also has a Canon 100mm Macro, stated that up close, they focus at the same speed, that's what macros do. For me it is a fantastic short, telephoto with close focusing, sharp wide open, and is one of my favorite lenses, but hey, that's just me!

Very well put Dave. Slow or fast is a relative thing. I don't think I've missed shots when using it for street.

Vic

Vic Chapman wrote:

Dave Jaseck wrote:

"Slow focus" to which I ask, compared to what? I have a 60 with the firmware updates on it and camera bodies. It focuses as fast as my 35 F1.4, and 18 and other 2 lenses. It focuses as fast as my Canon 85mm F1.8 on a Canon 6D. It takes longer if you are focusing on something close (it does go to half life size) which none of the standard primes do, but "typical" of what any macro lens will do when close focusing on objects. When the 60 is used in normal focus distances, it focuses as well as any other lens, perhaps differing only in milliseconds. Someone who also has a Canon 100mm Macro, stated that up close, they focus at the same speed, that's what macros do. For me it is a fantastic short, telephoto with close focusing, sharp wide open, and is one of my favorite lenses, but hey, that's just me!

Very well put Dave. Slow or fast is a relative thing. I don't think I've missed shots when using it for street.

Vic

I concur completely, Dave. I've been using it for my street lens on my XT10, along with my trusty X70. It certainly is one of my fav lenses. The only time it let me down was trying to take close ups at night in low light. A silly idea to start with, and that is why I have my 35/1.4.

Dave Jaseck wrote:

"Slow focus" to which I ask, compared to what? I have a 60 with the firmware updates on it and camera bodies. It focuses as fast as my 35 F1.4, and 18 and other 2 lenses. It focuses as fast as my Canon 85mm F1.8 on a Canon 6D. It takes longer if you are focusing on something close (it does go to half life size) which none of the standard primes do, but "typical" of what any macro lens will do when close focusing on objects. When the 60 is used in normal focus distances, it focuses as well as any other lens, perhaps differing only in milliseconds. Someone who also has a Canon 100mm Macro, stated that up close, they focus at the same speed, that's what macros do. For me it is a fantastic short, telephoto with close focusing, sharp wide open, and is one of my favorite lenses, but hey, that's just me!

I already wrote that it is not a big deal. I have the 35/1.4 too and I love that lens. AF is not blazing fast on that lens too but it doesn't matter that much especially on the new cameras. The XP2 changed the lens for me. I'm not so sure with the 60/2.4. I have tried the lens but I still find AF to be slower and AF hunts in poor light. And if it does it hunts much longer because of the long focus travel.

The 60/2.4 is an interesting lens but Fuji would sell much more if it if they simple make a 60/2 without the half hearted macro implementation.

Joachim Gerstl wrote:

Dave Jaseck wrote:

"Slow focus" to which I ask, compared to what? I have a 60 with the firmware updates on it and camera bodies. It focuses as fast as my 35 F1.4, and 18 and other 2 lenses. It focuses as fast as my Canon 85mm F1.8 on a Canon 6D. It takes longer if you are focusing on something close (it does go to half life size) which none of the standard primes do, but "typical" of what any macro lens will do when close focusing on objects. When the 60 is used in normal focus distances, it focuses as well as any other lens, perhaps differing only in milliseconds. Someone who also has a Canon 100mm Macro, stated that up close, they focus at the same speed, that's what macros do. For me it is a fantastic short, telephoto with close focusing, sharp wide open, and is one of my favorite lenses, but hey, that's just me!

I already wrote that it is not a big deal. I have the 35/1.4 too and I love that lens. AF is not blazing fast on that lens too but it doesn't matter that much especially on the new cameras. The XP2 changed the lens for me. I'm not so sure with the 60/2.4. I have tried the lens but I still find AF to be slower and AF hunts in poor light. And if it does it hunts much longer because of the long focus travel.

The 60/2.4 is an interesting lens but Fuji would sell much more if it if they simple make a 60/2 without the half hearted macro implementation.

So same lens, no macro?

stevo23 wrote:

Joachim Gerstl wrote:

Dave Jaseck wrote:

"Slow focus" to which I ask, compared to what? I have a 60 with the firmware updates on it and camera bodies. It focuses as fast as my 35 F1.4, and 18 and other 2 lenses. It focuses as fast as my Canon 85mm F1.8 on a Canon 6D. It takes longer if you are focusing on something close (it does go to half life size) which none of the standard primes do, but "typical" of what any macro lens will do when close focusing on objects. When the 60 is used in normal focus distances, it focuses as well as any other lens, perhaps differing only in milliseconds. Someone who also has a Canon 100mm Macro, stated that up close, they focus at the same speed, that's what macros do. For me it is a fantastic short, telephoto with close focusing, sharp wide open, and is one of my favorite lenses, but hey, that's just me!

I already wrote that it is not a big deal. I have the 35/1.4 too and I love that lens. AF is not blazing fast on that lens too but it doesn't matter that much especially on the new cameras. The XP2 changed the lens for me. I'm not so sure with the 60/2.4. I have tried the lens but I still find AF to be slower and AF hunts in poor light. And if it does it hunts much longer because of the long focus travel.

The 60/2.4 is an interesting lens but Fuji would sell much more if it if they simple make a 60/2 without the half hearted macro implementation.

So same lens, no macro?

Faster AF and slightly faster aperture - yes.

Joachim Gerstl wrote:

stevo23 wrote:

Joachim Gerstl wrote:

Dave Jaseck wrote:

"Slow focus" to which I ask, compared to what? I have a 60 with the firmware updates on it and camera bodies. It focuses as fast as my 35 F1.4, and 18 and other 2 lenses. It focuses as fast as my Canon 85mm F1.8 on a Canon 6D. It takes longer if you are focusing on something close (it does go to half life size) which none of the standard primes do, but "typical" of what any macro lens will do when close focusing on objects. When the 60 is used in normal focus distances, it focuses as well as any other lens, perhaps differing only in milliseconds. Someone who also has a Canon 100mm Macro, stated that up close, they focus at the same speed, that's what macros do. For me it is a fantastic short, telephoto with close focusing, sharp wide open, and is one of my favorite lenses, but hey, that's just me!

I already wrote that it is not a big deal. I have the 35/1.4 too and I love that lens. AF is not blazing fast on that lens too but it doesn't matter that much especially on the new cameras. The XP2 changed the lens for me. I'm not so sure with the 60/2.4. I have tried the lens but I still find AF to be slower and AF hunts in poor light. And if it does it hunts much longer because of the long focus travel.

The 60/2.4 is an interesting lens but Fuji would sell much more if it if they simple make a 60/2 without the half hearted macro implementation.

So same lens, no macro?

Faster AF and slightly faster aperture - yes.

I think for a lot of us, the macro is at least 50% of the reason we're interested. It's not "half hearted' - it's quite good. I don't see the point in having made a 60mm non-macro. Plus, the 50mm is the lens you wished for anyway I think.

Hi Joachim,

I think it will be interesting to see what Fuji do with the 60mm once they've released the 80/2.8 1:1 macro lens, given that they also offer the 50/2.

I have a feeling from the prototypes that the 80mm is going to be huge - they looked as big as the 55-200.  And none of them had a tripod collar despite the size.  Nor did they have a limiter (an omission on the 60mm too).  If it is huge, I suspect that a lot of people might hold onto their 60mm lenses.  The lens is a great, small, light all-rounder for general short tele work, portraits and close focusing.  It's sharp and gives good bokeh.

I don't agree that it's macro is half-hearted.  Sure, it gives only 1:2 but I think there's a bit of a mental line in the sand about this.  Macro doesn't stop at 1:1 either.  And the 60mm gives 1:1.25 with a single 16mm tube.  Less flexible, I know, but not a lot of difference from 1:1 for the sometime nature photographer.  Many people complain that the 60mm's working distances are too short.  However, an important thing we don't know about the 80mm is whether it's an internal or external focus design.  If it's IF like most of Fuji's recent lenses, it might not offer any more working distance than the 60mm at higher magnifications.

We'll have to wait and see.  I've no doubt that specialists will buy the 80mm, but I think the 60mm might remain a very popular option.  Maybe wiser on the 7th?

Cheers, Rod

Dave Jaseck wrote:

"Slow focus" to which I ask, compared to what? I have a 60 with the firmware updates on it and camera bodies. It focuses as fast as my 35 F1.4, and 18 and other 2 lenses. It focuses as fast as my Canon 85mm F1.8 on a Canon 6D. It takes longer if you are focusing on something close (it does go to half life size) which none of the standard primes do, but "typical" of what any macro lens will do when close focusing on objects. When the 60 is used in normal focus distances, it focuses as well as any other lens, perhaps differing only in milliseconds. Someone who also has a Canon 100mm Macro, stated that up close, they focus at the same speed, that's what macros do. For me it is a fantastic short, telephoto with close focusing, sharp wide open, and is one of my favorite lenses, but hey, that's just me!

It's not really slow, but it can rack back and forth sometimes through the entire range. So in that respect, it can sometimes take longer. I don't care, it's a great lens and most of the time is plenty fast.

I have the 60 macro and I use it constantly. In one sense, it's exactly the lens I want for outdoor use - a short telephoto to complement the 35mm on my RX1 and decent but not extreme macro capabilities.

However, I don't really like it. It annoys me sometimes because its just so dull. No true macro capability, a bit slow in both senses, a slightly odd appearance. I'd say it's like a wife rather than a mistress, but no one would ever pledge their future to it unless it came with a dowry.

In all seriousness though, I think the system needs a small macro lens. The 80mm clearly isn't going to fill that capability. Perhaps Fuji need to look at a redesign that goes at least to 1:1 in 35mm terms (so in truth 1:1.5) even if it's only f2.8

With the 50 f2 and 56 f1.2, I think the system already has more than enough short telephoto lenses if you don't need macro capabilities.

Hi,

Good point. Of course 1:2 is not bad at all. It's good enough for almost everything. Definitely good enough for butterflies though I would prefer a longer lens for that. When I was still shooting Nikon I had a Sigma 3.5/180mm Macro lens that worked just perfect for butterflies and bugs.

But the 60/2.4 is much more flexible than a long dedicated macro lens. Bokeh looks very nice too. I only wished it would be f2.0.

Joachim Gerstl wrote:

Hi,

Good point. Of course 1:2 is not bad at all. It's good enough for almost everything. Definitely good enough for butterflies though I would prefer a longer lens for that. When I was still shooting Nikon I had a Sigma 3.5/180mm Macro lens that worked just perfect for butterflies and bugs.

But the 60/2.4 is much more flexible than a long dedicated macro lens. Bokeh looks very nice too. I only wished it would be f2.0.

If this lens had included a limit switch, I believe it would have gone a long way toward improving opinions of it.

stevo23 wrote:

Joachim Gerstl wrote:

Hi,

Good point. Of course 1:2 is not bad at all. It's good enough for almost everything. Definitely good enough for butterflies though I would prefer a longer lens for that. When I was still shooting Nikon I had a Sigma 3.5/180mm Macro lens that worked just perfect for butterflies and bugs.

But the 60/2.4 is much more flexible than a long dedicated macro lens. Bokeh looks very nice too. I only wished it would be f2.0.

If this lens had included a limit switch, I believe it would have gone a long way toward improving opinions of it.

It would be a lot easier to implement a focus limiter in the camera bodies via a firmware update. I really wish they did that.

Nice post!  I have always been tempted to get the 60.  That and the brick are the only two prominent XF lenses I don't own.  I think I'm about to buy the brick, but won't buy the 60.

I would if it were 1:1 macro.  I have 60 fairly well covered with the good old 18-55, 50-200, 50-140, 50 F2, and 56.  Well, sort of -- you get the point.

But nice shots and it is a fine lens.  I think Fuji missed on that lens.  They had a chance to make it great.  They need a lens around 60 with WR, newest focus motor, 1:1 macro, and 2.8.  They could do it easily if they wanted to.

The 60 tried to be something it is not.  But it is a very fine lens and I almost bought it.  Fuji glass always has great IQ.  That's for sure.  All of them....  Especially the primes.  There are no primes dogs.

io_bg wrote:

stevo23 wrote:

Joachim Gerstl wrote:

Hi,

Good point. Of course 1:2 is not bad at all. It's good enough for almost everything. Definitely good enough for butterflies though I would prefer a longer lens for that. When I was still shooting Nikon I had a Sigma 3.5/180mm Macro lens that worked just perfect for butterflies and bugs.

But the 60/2.4 is much more flexible than a long dedicated macro lens. Bokeh looks very nice too. I only wished it would be f2.0.

If this lens had included a limit switch, I believe it would have gone a long way toward improving opinions of it.

It would be a lot easier to implement a focus limiter in the camera bodies via a firmware update. I really wish they did that.

Yes, at this point it would be. That would be nice.

io_bg wrote:

stevo23 wrote:

Joachim Gerstl wrote:

Hi,

Good point. Of course 1:2 is not bad at all. It's good enough for almost everything. Definitely good enough for butterflies though I would prefer a longer lens for that. When I was still shooting Nikon I had a Sigma 3.5/180mm Macro lens that worked just perfect for butterflies and bugs.

But the 60/2.4 is much more flexible than a long dedicated macro lens. Bokeh looks very nice too. I only wished it would be f2.0.

If this lens had included a limit switch, I believe it would have gone a long way toward improving opinions of it.

It would be a lot easier to implement a focus limiter in the camera bodies via a firmware update. I really wish they did that.

Then you'd have to menu-dive to operate it.  That would mean taking your eye off the VF and the subject, and taking time to scroll through and select the limitation.  Surely it would be much easier to have an external switch on the lens like every other brand? I guess it would work as a fix for the existing lenses, and that would be great, but it's not ideal.

Fuji should have offered a limiter in the first place.  If the forthcoming 80mm macro doesn't have some system for limiting the AF  focus range, I think a lot of people will be very frustrated.  And  tripod collar.

Cheers, Rod

Rod McD wrote:

io_bg wrote:

stevo23 wrote:

Joachim Gerstl wrote:

Hi,

Good point. Of course 1:2 is not bad at all. It's good enough for almost everything. Definitely good enough for butterflies though I would prefer a longer lens for that. When I was still shooting Nikon I had a Sigma 3.5/180mm Macro lens that worked just perfect for butterflies and bugs.

But the 60/2.4 is much more flexible than a long dedicated macro lens. Bokeh looks very nice too. I only wished it would be f2.0.

If this lens had included a limit switch, I believe it would have gone a long way toward improving opinions of it.

It would be a lot easier to implement a focus limiter in the camera bodies via a firmware update. I really wish they did that.

Then you'd have to menu-dive to operate it. That would mean taking your eye off the VF and the subject, and taking time to scroll through and select the limitation. Surely it would be much easier to have an external switch on the lens like every other brand?

I guess it would work as a fix for the existing lenses, and that would be great, but it's not ideal.

That's how I took it.

Fuji should have offered a limiter in the first place. If the forthcoming 80mm macro doesn't have some system for limiting the AF focus range, I think a lot of people will be very frustrated. And tripod collar.

Cheers, Rod

Greg7579 wrote:

Nice post! I have always been tempted to get the 60. That and the brick are the only two prominent XF lenses I don't own. I think I'm about to buy the brick, but won't buy the 60.

I would if it were 1:1 macro. I have 60 fairly well covered with the good old 18-55, 50-200, 50-140, 50 F2, and 56. Well, sort of -- you get the point.

But nice shots and it is a fine lens. I think Fuji missed on that lens. They had a chance to make it great. They need a lens around 60 with WR, newest focus motor, 1:1 macro, and 2.8. They could do it easily if they wanted to.

The 60 tried to be something it is not. But it is a very fine lens and I almost bought it. Fuji glass always has great IQ. That's for sure. All of them.... Especially the primes. There are no primes dogs.

I bought it when it was on sale and I have never regretted it. I don't have all those other fancy lenses that you have, and I feel I really don't need them, and perfectly happy with the 60 and also the 35/1.4 which is great and the 2 XC kit zooms. For me, the 60 is the perfect carry around lens, which I use, along with my X70, for daily walks in the park and just about everywhere else. I see it as a great small light medium range lens that has the added bonus of also having a good semi macro capability. I don't look at it as a macro lens that failed. The big brick of the 80 macro doesn't appeal to me at all. I had the Nikon 105 micro which was indeed one of the best lenses I've ever owned, even tho a brick, but for this retired teacher the 60 does me just fine. I wouldn't be without it.

Greg7579 wrote:

Nice post! I have always been tempted to get the 60. That and the brick are the only two prominent XF lenses I don't own. I think I'm about to buy the brick, but won't buy the 60.

I would if it were 1:1 macro. I have 60 fairly well covered with the good old 18-55, 50-200, 50-140, 50 F2, and 56. Well, sort of -- you get the point.

But nice shots and it is a fine lens. I think Fuji missed on that lens. They had a chance to make it great. They need a lens around 60 with WR, newest focus motor, 1:1 macro, and 2.8. They could do it easily if they wanted to.

The 60 tried to be something it is not. But it is a very fine lens and I almost bought it. Fuji glass always has great IQ. That's for sure. All of them.... Especially the primes. There are no primes dogs.

I'm happy with mine, but a version 2 with 1:1 and WR would be a great thing.  And a focus limiter. Come to think of it, are there any refreshes of XF lenses?