50mm vs 60mm macro

[molested_cow]

Ok, why would any one compare a portrait/street/general purpose lens with a macro lens?

Even since I got the 105mm macro, I'd been thinking, why can't all lens be like this one?
It's sharp, and with a huge range of working distance, I use it for pretty much everything from macro to portrait to landscape and even some sports.

Then I look at the 60mm version and was thinking to myself.... would this make more sense as compared to a normal 50mm?

It's true that the 50mm is F1.8 or F1.4, vs the 60mm's F2.8. Also true that they are 10mm difference, but I think that's not really a significant difference.

When I use my F1.4 50mm, I have to step a bit far back(because of min focus distance), often further than I'd like to when taking portraits. That's when I get my 105mm out. Say if I have the 60mm macro instead of the 50mm, I won't have such issue. I can get "more" of the person in the shot.

Plus, the F1.4 50mm and 60mm macro cost pretty much the same.

I've never used the 60mm macro, so I can't say for sure I am right, but does any one else think the same? Or what else am I missing?

 

[sleist]

The biggest differences between a 50mm f/1.4 or f/1.8 prime and a 60mm f/2.8 macro- apart from macro close focus ability - is the focus speed and low light capability.
Additionally, a 2.8 macro is not a constant 2.8 and light will be an issue in many circumstances that could be handled by a fast prime. This will also effect AF ability negatively on top of a macro's usually slower focusing.

Up to you if this will be a problem or not.

 

[JaronRH]

I don't know what camera you're using but if you have a DX camera with a built-in motor, check out the Tokina 35mm Macro. I loved using that for portraits, macro, and general-use on my D90 before I moved to FX. It was extremely sharp and focused very quickly for a macro!

 

[Overread]

First up - YAY someone else in the world owns and uses the Tokina 35mm macro


Now back to macro VS regular; auto focusing speed has been mentioned, but don't forget that whilst macro lenses have very fine control over focusing manually in their close focusing ranges; their longer distance manual focusing is often very crude. That is to say very small turns on the focus wheel result in big shifts in the focus which makes them very hair trigger to focus manually or to make manual adjustments to focusing for regular distance shooting.
It makes them more dependant upon good AF use in those ranges, which is a pain because macro lenses tend to have somewhat slower AF speeds.


Also don't forget that the smaller max aperture of the macro lens means that, indoors and in other lowlight conditions you've less light for the AF sensors to work with and less light to compose the photos with. There is also the exposure issue, although in practice going wider than f2.8 tends to result in such a thin depth of field that it introduces its own problems into things like portraits (eg one eye in and the other eye out of focus).

I think if you really enjoy macro photography then its a worth while consideration to have a lens like a 60mm or 70mm in the bag for those times when you want a portrait and macro lens or when you just want a lighter, smaller macro lens. Myself I have a 70mm for those occasions when I want something smaller and lighter than my 150mm. Though I admit I use it less often for regular shooting and more as just a small macro for those days when I want macro, but where its not the focus of the day.

 

[JDFlood]

I have all the Nikkor lenses mentioned. I agree with how great the 105mm macro is. I like my 50mm f1.4' but the 60mm is so much more flexible, I use it more. If I am going out to do macro I will take my 105mm or 200mm. But if I am not, but it might come up, I take the 60 as a normal... Then I don't kick myself when something small to shoot pops up. When I travel, it is a great light weight macro. JD