Which 'portrait lens'?

[colintinto]

I've been thinking about getting myself a prime lens for my Canon 300D, primarily for portraits.

I've been reading up on the merits for the 50mm f1.4 vs. the 50mm f1.8, but I just spotted something that's thrown a spanner in the works, the new EF-S mount 60mm f2.8 Macro...

I don't have a macro lens at the moment, but have attempted to take a few close up shots of flowers, getting as close as possible with the EF-S 17-85 I've got. So a proper macro lens might be quite nice... But then I'd lose a couple of stops against the f1.4 I had more or less decided on.

Anyone compared these lenses before? Would the 60mm be good for portraits, or should I stick with the 50mm f1.4?

Colin

[Ads]

[thebeginning]

it depends on what kind of portraits you do. if you do full body shots, that macro isnt going to do much. if you do headshots and closeups, the macro tends to come in handy with a closer focusing range. the 50 1.4 focuses close enough though, and on a 1.6 crop it will seem like more anyway. I'd recommend that one.

[colintinto]

I've just read a number of user reviews of the 60mm, and it seems to be very good, and some say it's even better than the 50mm 1.4. OK, it is more expensive, but I am quite tempted, as I'd like to play around wth Macro photography, and don't have a Macro lens as yet.

One down side I guess is that it's an EF-S lens, and if I ever decide to upgrade to a full frame digital camera, it would be useless, but that's not likely to happen for a while, by which point I'll have forgotten about the money I spent on lenses...!

Colin

[thebeginning]

yeah, that 60mm is a great lens. I've heard it's canon's sharpest lens in that range. if you want to do macro, go for it.