# 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.
> 
> ...



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...


----------



## g4pfk (Nov 27, 2008)

Hi
the 50mm 1,8 lens is a good fair priced lens, great for low light conditions & easy to carry.

graham


----------



## Ejazzle (Nov 29, 2008)

jerry, do you ever have problems with the sigma?


----------



## JerryPH (Nov 29, 2008)

Ejazzle said:


> 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 (Nov 29, 2008)

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 (Nov 29, 2008)

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


----------



## Orgnoi1 (Nov 30, 2008)

Ejazzle said:


> 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 (Nov 30, 2008)

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

anyone else have a say on these tubes?


----------



## Orgnoi1 (Nov 30, 2008)

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 (Nov 30, 2008)

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 (Nov 30, 2008)

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 (Nov 30, 2008)

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


----------



## lextalionis (Nov 30, 2008)

Ejazzle said:


> 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 (Dec 1, 2008)

I think ill use the 50mm more right now.


----------

