The Canon EF-S 60mm f/2.8 is an excellent macro lens. It's internal focusing (doesn't extend when focused closer), is quite compact and has relatively fast USM focus drive. At least,. it's fast for a macro lens (most of which tend to be a bit slower focusing because they use "long throw" focus design, which emphasizes accuracy over speed).
The disadvantages are that it's a "crop only" lens, so only usable on APS-C cameras such as 7D-series, 80D/70D/etc., and the Rebel series models. Also, a short focal length macro like 60mm puts you pretty close to subjects when using high magnification. That can be a problem with some subjects. The minimum focus distance (MFD) of a 60mm is about 8" (measured from the film/sensor plane of the camera). A 100mm or longer macro lens gives greater working distance.... but also makes for a bigger, heavier lens that's more difficult to hold steady and may require smaller apertures to have adequate depth of field at high magnifications. Typically 90/100/105mm macro have a min. focus distance around 12", while a 180/200mm macro is usually about 18". Again, in all cases MFD is measured from the sensor/film plane of the camera, so some of that dimension is occupied by a portion of the camera body, the lens itself, plus any attachments to the front of the lens.
Compared to the 50mm lenses.... f/2.8 is 1-1/3 stop "slower" than f/1.8, two full stops slower than f/1.4 or 2-2/3 stops slower than f/1.2. But, of course, those lenses aren't designed to focus anywhere near as close. The larger apertures do allow for stronger background blur effects at "portrait" focusdistances. (At macro focus distances, strong background blur is almost inevitable.) To me that's at least as important, maybe even more-so than the larger aperture's light gathering capabilities.
I haven't compared them all and - even if I did - don't really have means of comparing them objectively, but the USM focus drive of the 60mm Macro is probably similar to the speed of the 50mm f/1.8 STM, faster (and quieter, more accurate) than the micro motor focus drive of the older EF 50mm f/1.8 "II", but likely a wee bit slower than the USM drive of the EF 50mm f/1.4 or EF 50mm f/1.2L. And, of course, all the 50mm lenses are "full frame capable", usable on both full frame and APS-C cameras.
The macro lens is also a "flat field" design... optimized to be sharp and relatively evenly illuminated from corner-to-corner and edge-to-edge at very close focus distances... mere inches. That's not the case with the 50mm lenses, which are optimized for probably more like 8 or 10 feet focusing distances. The 50mm lenses can be made to focus much closer by adding macro extension tubes behind them, but they will be softer in the corners of images and show more vignetting, especially at their larger apertures. (Those aren't necessarily bad things... can even be useful for some images.)
Of course it can be used for landscape photography, portraiture and other things... not just for macro. Personally I would be more likely to use a normal to wide angle lens for landscapes, instead of a short telephoto like the 60mm... but there's no reason it can't be used, if it serves your purpose.
FYI: Tamron also makes a 60mm crop-only macro lens. It's different in that it has a larger f/2 max aperture, which might make it more useful for portraiture and certain other things. It's also reasonably compact and internal focusing. However, it's more expensive than the Canon EF-S 60mm f/2.8 and it also uses a slower micro motor focus drive.
If you get the EF-S 60mm Macro, keep in mind that its lens hood is sold separately. I highly recommend getting and using Canon hood ET-67B, which makes for better images in a lot of situations, as well as providing good physical protection for the lens (better than a thin glass, "protection" filter).
I have and use a 60mm (the Tamron) as a compact macro and a substitute for 50mm and 85mm portrait lenses. One lens to carry instead of three!
But for "serious" macro work, I prefer my Canon EF 100mm f/2.8 USM (not the L/IS version). Both the Canon 100mm macro are superb and can optionally be fitted with a very useful tripod mounting ring. With one exception, no other macro shorter than 150mm that I'm aware of comes with or can be fitted with a tripod ring. (The only exception I know of is the Canon MP-E 65mm... But that's a very specialized, ultra high magnification lens. The very least it can focus is 1:1 or full life size, while it can go as high as 5:1 magnification... 5X life size! It can fill a camera's viewfinder with a single grain of rice. It's also manual focus only and not internal focusing. The MP-E 65mm comes with a tripod ring, in fact it uses the same Tripod Ring B as the non-L/IS EF 100mm f.2.8 USM.)
Finally, another advantage of the Canon macro lenses is that they're designed to work with the dedicated Canon macro flashes: both the MR-14EX Ring LIte and MT-24EX Twin Lite series. When you look at the EF-S 60mm, you'll see a groove around the front of the lens. The Canon macro flashes clip directly onto the lens there. (Also true of the EF 100mm non-L/IS and the MP-E 65mm.... And possible using adapters to fit the flashes to the older EF 50mm f/2.5 "compact macro", EF 100mm L IS and the EF 180mm f/3.5L macro lenses. There are also adapters to allow the flashes to be direct mounted to some third party macro lenses.) Personally I use the Twin Lite with my 1:1 macro lenses and the Ring Lite with the MP-E 65mm.
***********
Alan Myers
San Jose, Calif., USA
"Walk softly and carry a big lens."
GEAR: 5DII, 7DII (x2), 7D(x2) some other cameras, various lenses & accessories
FLICKR & EXPOSUREMANAGER
