# My next lens, Canon EF 50mm f/1.4 vs Canon EF-S 60mm f/2.8 macro



## MDesigner (Jun 27, 2008)

It's a tough call between these two.  I'm leaning towards the 60mm because I really love macro photography a great deal.. it allows me to find "fresh" material in mundane, everyday surroundings, by getting in super close.  But the 50mm looks amazing.. looks like it's tack sharp, and is incredible in low light, and great for portraits.  But I'm thinking the 60mm macro lens can also work great as a portrait lens as well, and looks like it will produce sharp photos as well.  If I get the 60mm, I may not even need the 50mm unless I want that tasty f/1.4 max aperture.  (I'm also big on night photography.. my Tamron 17-50mm f/2.8 does quite nicely in that realm)

Just thinking aloud here.. any suggestions/insight?


----------



## asfixiate (Jun 27, 2008)

What is the reason for this purchase? What can't you currently do with your current lenses?

Those are both great lenses but the 60 has the macro designation. What's minimum focus of both lenses.

is it going to be used for macro or if you get 60 you want it for macro and the 50 you want for portraits/walk around.

are you deciding which to get for macro or deciding which lense to get for what they're both meant for.

the f/1.8 might actually be better buy since the comparison between the two isnt' that difference.

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/Canon-EF-50mm-f-1.4-USM-Lens-Review.aspx

get both f/1.8 50 and the 60.


----------



## MDesigner (Jun 27, 2008)

asfixiate said:


> What is the reason for this purchase? What can't you currently do with your current lenses?



#1, can't do macro.  #2, can't get razor sharp photos that only a prime lens can deliver.



asfixiate said:


> Those are both great lenses but the 60 has the macro designation. What's minimum focus of both lenses.



50mm: 18"
60mm: 7.9"



asfixiate said:


> is it going to be used for macro or if you get 60 you want it for macro and the 50 you want for portraits/walk around.
> 
> are you deciding which to get for macro or deciding which lense to get for what they're both meant for.



Well, many people say the 60mm works great as a portrait lens too.  And I imagine it's pretty sharp, being a prime.  So it seems like the 60mm can work well as a macro lens and a portrait lens.  I think the only thing the 50mm might have over the 60mm is that it MIGHT be a bit sharper, and it definitely works better in low light.


----------



## asfixiate (Jun 27, 2008)

why not get the 50 f/1.8 and the 100mm f/2.8 macro?


----------



## Chris of Arabia (Jun 27, 2008)

I've got both - the 60mm gets far more use. I don't do much low-light stuff though. The 60mm does work as an excellent portrait lens (equiv 96mm on full frame). As for the sharpness, I'll almost guarantee you can't see the difference. The only other reason why you might go with the 50mm is if you are planning going to a full frame body sometime in the near future.


----------



## MDesigner (Jun 27, 2008)

asfixiate said:


> why not get the 50 f/1.8 and the 100mm f/2.8 macro?



Not a bad idea...but see, the only reason I'd go for the 50mm is because of the awesome f/1.4 max ap.  And the 50mm f/1.8 obviously is not 1.4   But you're right, the 50mm f/1.8 looks like a great bang-for-your-buck lens.. it looks like it takes great shots!

I think I might grab the 60mm since I'm so nuts about macro photography..and if I find it lacking in some way, I can get the 50mm f/1.4 later.  Again, I can only imagine needing the 50mm f/1.4 for low light or night photography.. but my Tamron 17-50 f/2.8 works great for that.  I'll take the 60mm f/2.8 for a spin at night time on a tripod and see how it performs against the Tamron.


----------



## Chris of Arabia (Jun 27, 2008)

MDesigner said:


> I'll take the 60mm f/2.8 for a spin at night time on a tripod and see how it performs against the Tamron.



It'll kick its butt...


----------



## MDesigner (Jun 27, 2008)

Chris of Arabia said:


> It'll kick its butt...



That's what I was thinking. 

Not sure how meaningful these charts are, but... here's the Canon 60mm vs the Tamron 17-50mm at f/2.8 (Tamron is zoomed to 50mm)

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/...meraComp=396&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=3&APIComp=0

The Tamron looks generally sharper to me.


----------



## Chris of Arabia (Jun 27, 2008)

Does look that way doesn't it, but you won't get 1:1 out of the Tamron - horses for courses I reckon.


----------



## MDesigner (Jun 27, 2008)

Chris of Arabia said:


> but you won't get 1:1 out of the Tamron



Ding ding.. newbie question alert. :blushing:  What do you mean by 1:1 exactly?  I know it's a ratio.. but a ratio of what to what?


----------



## Chris of Arabia (Jun 27, 2008)

Image size on sensor to subject - basically your image is full size


----------



## MDesigner (Jun 27, 2008)

Hmm.. still not quite grasping it.  So what would be the ratio for my Tamron at 50mm?  And more importantly.. why is the Tamron not 1:1 exactly?


----------



## Chris of Arabia (Jun 27, 2008)

Tamron's specs say 1:4.5 (at f=50mm MFD 0.27m). So rather than being a life size image on the sensor, it's a bit less than a quarter of the size.

So lets say you wanted the subject (a caterpillar for example) to appear the same size on the final image. With the Canon you could use the original image in its entirety, whereas the Tamron you'd need to crop the original image considerably to make the subject appear the same size - potentially with a huge loss of quality, as you've discarded over 75% of your image


----------



## MDesigner (Jun 27, 2008)

OK, so the Tamron is 1:4.5 at 50mm.  The Canon EF 50mm f/1.4 is 1:6.66 at 50mm.  Does that mean if I put my camera on a tripod, take a shot with the Tamron at 50mm, then change to the Canon 50mm and shoot the same shot, when I look at my two RAW files in Lightroom, the subject will be different sizes (at different magnifications) in each photo?? (the subject would appear closer in the Tamron shot, right?)

Also.. because the Canon 60mm is 1:1, wouldn't it be sharper than the Canon 50mm?


----------



## Chris of Arabia (Jun 27, 2008)

Rethink: What the ratios mean in this case is related to the minimum focal distance of each lens

 Canon 50mm f/1.4 - MFD = 0.45m
 Tamron 17-50mm f/2.8 - MFD = 0.27m
  The Tamron has a better ratio, because it can focus to a shorter distance than the Canon. Used at the a distance >= 0.45m, they will provide the same image size at the sensor, as they have the same field of view.

The 1:1 ratio has nothing at all to do with how sharp the lens is - it's just how big an image will be presented at the sensor.

With the 60mm you have to get to it's minimum focusing distance to get 1:1 - at that, you're just 200mm from your subject.


----------



## MDesigner (Jun 27, 2008)

Ahh I understand now.  I thought it had something to do with sharpness.  So 1:1 beats 1:4.5 for macro because at whatever distance you are, you'll get a tighter shot.  Along those lines, a 2:1 or 3:1 macro lens would be even better than the 1:1, I'm assuming...

Thanks for the help, Chris!


----------



## Chris of Arabia (Jun 27, 2008)

MDesigner said:


> Ahh I understand now.  I thought it had something to do with sharpness.  So 1:1 beats 1:4.5 for macro because at whatever distance you are, you'll get a tighter shot.  Along those lines, a 2:1 or 3:1 macro lens would be even better than the 1:1, I'm assuming...
> 
> Thanks for the help, Chris!



Correct. You'd probably need either extension tubes, bellows or one of those cheap close up lenses that screw onto the front of the lens to do that though. Don't think I know of a macro lens that goes better than 1:1 on its own - not saying it's not out there, I just don't know it.


----------



## deanimator (Jun 27, 2008)

If you are looking for sharpness, you will probably be better off with a 50mm f=1.8 when set at 5.6 or 8. This is a typical rule for nearly all lenses. Wide open they are at their softest...as you approach the middle of the range they are usually best, but performance drops off again at the smaller apertures such as f=22.

The 50mm f=1.4 will behave in the same way, but cost a bit more while giving you a very small speed advantage in low light situations. It will probably not deliver the same sharpness as the 50/1.8 but in this case sharpness isn´t your main worry anyway.


----------



## Chris of Arabia (Jun 27, 2008)

Very little difference in it to my eye - f/8 comparison

Not to sure why you'd think the f/1.8 would deliver better sharpness than the f/1.4 - the latter is a better made lens than the former.


----------



## asfixiate (Jun 27, 2008)

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/Canon-EF-50mm-f-1.8-II-Lens-Review.aspx


----------



## MDesigner (Jun 27, 2008)

deanimator said:


> [The 50mm f=1.4] will probably not deliver the same sharpness as the 50/1.8 but in this case sharpness isn´t your main worry anyway.



This is interesting.. why would the 50/1.8 be sharper than the 50/1.4?

Actually, it's weird..here's the MTF chart for the 50/1.4:






And the MTF chart for the 50/1.8:





I can see that the f/1.8 lens is a bit sharper.. however, the chart shows the f/1.4 has slightly better bokeh than the f/1.8.


----------



## MDesigner (Jun 27, 2008)

PS, I've already decided on the Canon 60mm macro lens   But we can still keep talking about the 50mm f/1.4 vs the 50mm f/1.8.

One bonus of the f/1.4 over the f/1.8: it's got FTM.  Kinda nice to have.


----------



## deanimator (Jun 27, 2008)

Generally such lenses are easier to make. 
Consider the 50mm f=1.2 which would give you nearly a stop faster, but at 1.2 is actually kinda fuzzy...and the price! They even went as far as a f=0.95 a while back but it was just silly...they couldn´t make it acceptably sharp.


----------



## Dao (Jun 27, 2008)

I have the 50mm f1.8 II  ... but I kind of like how the bokeh looks in the photos take with the f1.4.  Looks smoother


----------

