Canon 60 f/2.8 vs. 50 f/1.8

Started May 4, 2012 | Discussions thread
OP DoctorPDA Regular Member • Posts: 105
Re: Love the 60, but "Ultra-SHARP" is not desirable in Portrait Photography

007peter wrote:

That is why Canon 50mm f/1.8 II is the better portrait lens. It is sharp enough wide open, but no so sharp to pickup every facial flaw on a person's face. It is useless to pit 50mm f/1.8 vs 60mm f/2.8 macro, since they are 2 different lens for 2 different purposes .

Thanks, makes sense....

I eventually decided on the 50 f/1.8 which I'm very impressed with, and also the kit lens (18-55 IS), which I'm not as impressed with, mainly because of the higher max aperatures at the longer focal lengths. Unfortunately, although I find that the 50 mm f/1.8 is awesome, the field of view is too narrow, so I have to keep changing to the kit lens for wider angles, which is a bit cumbersome.

I thought about using 2 primes, the 50 mm f/1/8, and a lower focal length prime, but doesn't seem like there are many options. The 35 mm f/2 is not wide enough for me. The 28 f/1.8 seems like it's not that good, and probably not wide enough. The 24 f/2.8 would be perfect focal length for me, but doesn't seem to be that much better than the kit lens from reviews (ex., but not sure about that..... Is the 24 f/2.8 better than the kit lens at 24 mm??? I don't want to spend more than $500, so the more expensive Canon primes are out of question for now. The Sigma primes that are 20 or 24 mm didn't seem that great. I think Sigma 30 mm would be too narrow as well.

The other alternative is a zoom lens, where the versatility seems really nice. So, the magical question is, what is the best zoom lens for less than $500? I don't really want to spend $1000 on a lens at this point (ex. Canon 17-55 f/2.8). After a lot of research, it seems like it's the Tamron 17-50 f/2.8. I've heard about it being "soft" at 2.8 by some, but "sharp" by others. Not sure what to think. The reviews make it more confusing. For example, on, the Canon 18-55 3.5-5.6 Kit lens has same resolution values as the Tamron 17-50 f/2.8!!!! I thought it was a mistake, since everywhere else the Tamron is "sharp as a knife mostly" (, or it "it figuratively mops the floor with Canon and Nikon's "kit" lenses" (SLRgear). Is the main benefit of the Tamron for the constant 2.8 aperature, which will give you lower ISO's? Does it have higher resolution than the kit lens?

Would appreciate any advice....

Post (hide subjects) Posted by
Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum PPrevious NNext WNext unread UUpvote SSubscribe RReply QQuote BBookmark MMy threads
Color scheme? Blue / Yellow