I'm starting a You Tube channel, and I don't have a powerful need for a macro lens, but for the right price it will definitely add some pizzaz to the channel. Up close and personal. It's flexible enough to use for other purposes like portraits etc. but onto the real meat of the subject: just what a deal, and mind-blowing solution for such a little bit of money. High end photography where they are purchasing thousand-dollar lenses makes sense for your Time magazine article, but what about the rest of us who want to dabble, get really impressive results, but at a fraction of the price. So, let's get into the nuts and bolts of this. I Googled "Macro Lens' and up it came the short and sweet sentence highlighted/featured in Google, and it said, "A true macro lens has a magnification of 1:1 or greater, and a minimum focusing distance of 30cm" which is 11.81 inches.” I have a Canon R7 and accidentally grabbed this one which is for a Canon M-Mount camera such as the M50. Oops. Well after doing all of the research, and comparing it to the Canon Macro at twice the price, I just bought this same lens for the RF mount which is what my camera takes. So, let's compare it to the Canon RF 35mm 1.8 macro which is twice the price. I'm not knocking Canon lenses, most all of my lens purchases for my R7 are just that, a Canon lens. That being said, from a pure performance perspective, compared to the Meike 60mm 2.8 we have something to discuss here. First off, the Canon is a 1.8 aperture, which means you let in more light, and you can more effectively get those shots where the depth of field is narrower giving you that fuzzy background with the subject superimposed in total clarity, which is a nice effect. The 2.8 gives you some of that, but not to the level of the Canon, BUT let's dig a little deeper, and look at what really matters, the magnification being 1:1 or greater which the Canon is not. The Canon is 0.5x magnification which means the subject is only half of the size in the picture of what it is in reality. You know, you want to get that ants head up close, but due the lesser magnification, it is smaller and farther away. The Meike magnification is better at 1:1 which is Googles definition of a true macro lens. In plain words the Meike blows the subject up at twice the size of the Canon or should I say the actual size of the subject, whereas the Canon is only half the size. In terms of close focusing distance, how close you can get to the subject, (the second Google criteria) the Canon comes in at 0.56 feet or 6.72 inches, and the Meike comes in at 6.8 inches a virtually non-discriminate difference. Like I said, if I was shooting for Time Magazine, I would be looking into the thousand dollars plus lenses, but for the occasional macro enthusiast, this Meike lens can't be beat. Highly, highly recommended. Read more