Nikon 50mm f/ 1.4 or 60mm f/2.8 macro.

Ejazzle · Nov 23, 2008

Christmas is coming up and I am debating between these two lenses. I just cant seem to make up my mind though. I love taking close up "macro" pictures and figured the 60mm could double as a portrait lens also. But the speed of the 50mm is really appealing too. :banghead:
Does the 60mm work well as a portrait lens?

which one would you guys choose? i'll be shooting everything.

digital flower · Nov 23, 2008

I have the 60mm/2.8 and I love it. It is on my camera 60% of the time. I also have the 50mm/1.8 and that is a great lens but I like the 60mm better.

kundalini · Nov 23, 2008

I don't have a macro lens, but I have been looking to get one. So take my comments with a large salt block.

My thoughts are that the 60mm macro is supposed to be pretty good, but the working distance to the subject is too close. Therefore, I am more inclined to get the 105mm. My brother has the 60mm macro and is less than impressed with the working distance.

With the price difference between those two lenses, you could get the 50mm and a SB-800 flash for the price to the 60mm lens. The flash will be beneficial with all the lenses listed in you sig.

Just my 2¢.

digital flower · Nov 23, 2008

kundalini said:
I don't have a macro lens, but I have been looking to get one. So take my comments with a large salt block.

My thoughts are that the 60mm macro is supposed to be pretty good, but the working distance to the subject is too close. Therefore, I am more inclined to get the 105mm. My brother has the 60mm macro and is less than impressed with the working distance.

With the price difference between those two lenses, you could get the 50mm and a SB-800 flash for the price to the 60mm lens. The flash will be beneficial with all the lenses listed in you sig.

Just my 2¢.

The price difference between the lenses is about $100. I actually like the working distance on the 60mm (just personal opinion). If it was just a dedicated macro lens I would probably go for the 105mm but the 60mm is a better focal length for me as a walk around lens/macro combo.

Ejazzle · Nov 23, 2008

i have an Sb-800. just forgot to put it in my sig

i think you were confusing the f/1.8 and the f/1.4.

how much closer do you have to get with the 60mm compared to the 105?

Early · Nov 24, 2008

Ejazzle said:
Does the 60mm work well as a portrait lens?

I would say so. f2.8 should be plenty wide enough to blur the back ground if that's what your worried about.

SpeedTrap · Nov 24, 2008

I have both of these and they both have thier place, I prefer the 60 mm, due to it's focal range and Macro.

In most cases I need to shoot at F1.4 to get a good exposure, I usually start to add fill flash and then the 2.8 is fine.

But I will say the 50 mm F1.4 on a D700 at ISO 6400 is outsanding, you can almost see in the dark.........

Ejazzle · Nov 25, 2008

this is a tough one....

do you guys use the f/1.4 that much?

JerryPH · Nov 26, 2008

Ejazzle said:
i have an Sb-800. just forgot to put it in my sig
i think you were confusing the f/1.8 and the f/1.4.

As per forum rules, we're not supposed to post equipment lists in the sig anyways. I had Terri give me a gentle slap on the wrist reminding me of that a little while ago, hence why my sig is a simple 1 liner. In a way she is right, I much prefer looking at posts than equipment lists and besides, we have a section in the profile for listing hardware and it makes looking at posts a lot more pleasureable when I do not need to see a 10-line list with a 3 word reply to a post.

Ejazzle said:
how much closer do you have to get with the 60mm compared to the 105?

About 5-6 inches vs 10-12. Enough to make it a serious issue if you are taking macros of bugs and bees. A bee will sit for a macro at a foot... but it will get pissed fast if you invade it's territory at 4 inches away... lol

As for using F/1.4, I have a couple lenses now that can do that, and to be honest, it really depends. When I need it, I usually REALLY need it and will use it. When I don't need it, it's usually between F/4 and F/8 becuase bokeh is sometimes too intrusive (clear eyes, blurred nose and ears, for example). This becomes an even more pronounced issue for people with full frame cameras.

Ejazzle · Nov 26, 2008

thanks jerry, i didnt know that.
SO i think i am going to fo macro...

How is the sigma 105 f/2.8?

Iron Flatline · Nov 26, 2008

This is all about how and what you shoot. Your flower blog ids lovely, and the question is which direction you want to move in. I think the macro lens may be more interesting for you, because even if you want to isolate a blossom or a leaf from the background by selecting a shallow DOF, you will still be able to do that with the 60mm lens. DOF is not just a question of aperture, but also distance from sensor to subject. If you're shooting something relatively close up, things far away will be out of focus.

This is very much a creative choice, as well as a question of handling. The only option is to go and put them both on your camera at a store... but then make sure to give them the business too.

monkeykoder · Nov 26, 2008

I should get out some pictures I took of a snake with either the 1.8 (50mm) or the 60mm macro of a snake showing the shallow depth of field (size of a baby corn and I got PART of the eye in focus both sides are starting to get fuzzy.)

JerryPH · Nov 26, 2008

Ejazzle said:
thanks jerry, i didnt know that.
SO i think i am going to fo macro...

How is the sigma 105 f/2.8?

I own that one... pretty sweet, if you ask me.

Ejazzle · Nov 27, 2008

The sigma 105 is tempting, But i also want to use this lens sort of as a portrait lens,
Do you need alot of room to work with a 105?
I kind of like the focal length of 60mm but i dont think its the "ideal" focal length for macro...