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

[Ejazzle]

jerry, do you ever have problems with the sigma?

 

[JerryPH]

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...

The 105mm is fantastic for portraiture. Minimal to no "chipmunk cheeks" that you would get with a 50-60mm lens. It is VERY sharp, fast focusing and an excellent macro function... a true 1:1 macro. F/2.8 defines it as a fast lens and even at F/2.8, it is still crisp, though obviously no lens is as sharp wide open as at it is at it's sweet spot.

 

[Orgnoi1]

IF the OP is still considering the 2 lenses listed... then its a no-brainer and surprisingly not already said...

If you want a good lens that you can use for portrait and also have the ability for macro... and its about a $100 difference... buy the 50/1.4 and buy a $75 set of Kenko tubes... then you have the best of both worlds... and still have the ability of doing both genres you would like to do...

 

[Ejazzle]

good point. will this give me the same quality of the sigma 105?

 

[Orgnoi1]

good point. will this give me the same quality of the sigma 105?

It will give you close enough that you wont worry about the difference... my girlfriend does quite a bit of saleable macro work... this is the route she used to start out and still from time to time will use it even while having the Nikon 60mm, 105mm, and (had) the 200mm...

If you chose that route you will want at a minimum a 20mm tube which I find works the best with a 50mm lens... although you can mix and match and stack the tubes... although you WILL lose autofocus (most macro shooters dont use AF anyways)...

If you would like a shot or two to check out I can post a couple links to her work...

 

[Ejazzle]

thanks a bunch man, Id love to see some links.

anyone else have a say on these tubes?

 

[Orgnoi1]

How about these:

http://www.northeastfoto.com/gallery/files/4/5/DSC_6327edited.jpg

http://www.northeastfoto.com/gallery/files/4/5/DSC_5169edited2.jpg

 

[lextalionis]

FWIW, I tried Canon's 50mm 1.8 with ext. tubes and was only so-so satisfied, and even less so once I bought my 100mm 2.8 macro. I did like the increased magnification; however, I didn't like the extra work of attaching and detaching, loss of AF (*see my comment below), and loss of light.

Once I bought the 100mm 2.8 I rarely use my Kenko set...maybe once in awhile to get a bit more mag.

In your situation, I would opt. for the 60mm macro and shoot w/o tubes for macro and portraiture. If it were me and I had the money, I would love to have that 50mm 1.4D and a Sigma 105mm for a Nikon.

* I shoot a lot of macro and all at 99.9% of the time in AF using my Canon EF 100mm f/2.8 Macro USM lens. I also use this DIY Ring-Flash for about 95% of my macro work. I highly recommend trying to make one if you have the tools. I helped a fellow Nikon shooter make one for his D300 and SB-800.

-Roy

 

[Ejazzle]

ornoi1, those were with the tubes?

lextalionis, so you were saying that you would but the 50mm and the 105? I'll check out that ring flash, thanks!

The 50mm is such a perfect everyday use lens. SO maybe ill get the 50mm for christmas and the 105 for my bday (january)

 

[Orgnoi1]

Yup...those are both tube shots... I am not sure which tubes... but using a 50/1.8 and probably a 20mm tube...

 

[lextalionis]

ornoi1, those were with the tubes?

lextalionis, so you were saying that you would but the 50mm and the 105? I'll check out that ring flash, thanks!

Yes, I would want both. Like I said, I started with a Canon 50mm f/1.8 and tubes, then rented the Canon 100mm f/2.8 and then the Canon 180mm f/3.5L and by far I like the hand-holding ability of the 100mm 2.8 macro and the cost savings...the shots between my 100mm 2.8 macro and the 50mm 1.8 with tubes were night and day.

-Roy

 

[Ejazzle]

I think ill use the 50mm more right now.