-
Welcome to the new forums! Please read this first. For known issues we are working to resolve, click here.
50 mm F/1.8 AF D - 60 mm F/2.8 AF D? or both??
- Thread starter Nok
- Start date
pquaife
Forum Enthusiast
The 50 mm can be used with Nikon's excellent close-up lenses, but I doubt you will be satisfied when comparing the same image shot with the 60mm micro.
The 60mm micro can be used as a portrait lens and will deliver great results, except that the 50mm wider open will give better back-ground seperation due to narrower depth of field.
For protraits I prefer the 85mm, f1.8 over the 50mm (f1.4 in my case).
Buying both the 85mm and the 60mm will set you back 7 times as much as the 50mm, f1.8 plus a close-up lens.
FYI, my 60mm micro does not auto-focus well at close distances on the D70. It just can't find a lock. Not sure why, so I always use MF. This is generally not a problem with macro work anyway.
--
Phil
The 60mm micro can be used as a portrait lens and will deliver great results, except that the 50mm wider open will give better back-ground seperation due to narrower depth of field.
For protraits I prefer the 85mm, f1.8 over the 50mm (f1.4 in my case).
Buying both the 85mm and the 60mm will set you back 7 times as much as the 50mm, f1.8 plus a close-up lens.
FYI, my 60mm micro does not auto-focus well at close distances on the D70. It just can't find a lock. Not sure why, so I always use MF. This is generally not a problem with macro work anyway.
--
Phil
Thx Phill 4 the reply, my doubt was on the 50 mm or 60 mm since i was thinking to get the 85mm 1.8 too!
I think i would do that!!
thx once again
I think i would do that!!
thx once again
vincebeus
Leading Member
I own the 60mm 2.8 micro from nikon and i want to buy soon the 90mm Tamron macro F/2.8 because is great lens. So maybe that is option for you so you have macro and you have a portrait lens!!!
I own the 85mm F/1.8 lens is great portrait lens but is more head and head and shoulders lens. So if you want more on the photo you can allways buy at later stage the 50mm 1.8 because it is bargain price for the quality i had the luck to buy a 50mm 1.4 few weeks ago. I don't know in wich country you life i still have a 50mm 1.8 for sale i hardly used it?
I love the quality of the 60mm F/2.8 and is great for flowers and not shy insects. Tamron 90mm F/2.8 is great lens for flowers, shy and not shy insects.
50mm 1.8 is nice for portraits. For half and full body portraits.
85mm 1.8 is perfect for face shots and half body shots.
They are all worth there prices. the 50mm and 85mm lenses you can buy maybe second handed on internet there are alot off them around for nice prices. 60mm is sometimes offered 2nd handed online. But the 90mm F/2.8 i never see online yet at second handed price maybe nobody wanna sell it?
--
Be Us or See Us
--
http://vincebeus.tk/
The Best Thing In Life Is Free... Better Understanding On My D70
I own the 85mm F/1.8 lens is great portrait lens but is more head and head and shoulders lens. So if you want more on the photo you can allways buy at later stage the 50mm 1.8 because it is bargain price for the quality i had the luck to buy a 50mm 1.4 few weeks ago. I don't know in wich country you life i still have a 50mm 1.8 for sale i hardly used it?
I love the quality of the 60mm F/2.8 and is great for flowers and not shy insects. Tamron 90mm F/2.8 is great lens for flowers, shy and not shy insects.
50mm 1.8 is nice for portraits. For half and full body portraits.
85mm 1.8 is perfect for face shots and half body shots.
They are all worth there prices. the 50mm and 85mm lenses you can buy maybe second handed on internet there are alot off them around for nice prices. 60mm is sometimes offered 2nd handed online. But the 90mm F/2.8 i never see online yet at second handed price maybe nobody wanna sell it?
--
Be Us or See Us
--
http://vincebeus.tk/
The Best Thing In Life Is Free... Better Understanding On My D70
I've had both...
I had the 60mm micro for a while but I sold it and got the 50mm 1.4 instead. I like the 50mm 1.4 much better. The 50mm 1.4 is better throughout the focus range, focuses faster and better, goes to f/1.4, sharper in the non-macro focus range, etc.
The prob i had with the 60mm 2.8 is that even though it's a great macro lens, the working range is too short to be very practical unless you want to haul a tripod around for every macro shot... Also at portrait focus range it seemed not as good. It's a great lens technically, just impractical in my personal opinion.
I had the 60mm micro for a while but I sold it and got the 50mm 1.4 instead. I like the 50mm 1.4 much better. The 50mm 1.4 is better throughout the focus range, focuses faster and better, goes to f/1.4, sharper in the non-macro focus range, etc.
The prob i had with the 60mm 2.8 is that even though it's a great macro lens, the working range is too short to be very practical unless you want to haul a tripod around for every macro shot... Also at portrait focus range it seemed not as good. It's a great lens technically, just impractical in my personal opinion.
similar focal length. So the question is do you anticipate needing low-light hand-held capability more often or do you think you'll need high quality close-up capability more often?
The advantages of the 50mm are: (i) light weight; (ii) low price and (iii) wider apertures that allow hand-held shots in lower light.
The advantages of the 60mm are: (i) superior resolution for close-up and macro shots, (ii) ability to focus as close as a few inches (whereas the 50mm can't focus closer than 1.5 feet) and (iii) excellent resolution and color from macro to infinity (although the 50mm may be slightly better at some distances.
If you like to do close ups (coffee cups, flowers, eyes, coins...) along with portraits and scenics and don't want to screw on a close-up filter or extension tube everytime you do so, the 60mm is definitely the way to go.
If you don't care so much about taking photos closer than 1.5 feet away in 99% of your shooting situations, but want to take existing light photos in low outdoor and indoor locations without screwing the camera to a tripod each time, the 50mm is probably the best way to go.
On the other hand, the 50mm is so inexpensive, you can probably get the 60mm today and then save up your gum money for a couple of months and add the 50mm to your kit too. ;o)
The advantages of the 50mm are: (i) light weight; (ii) low price and (iii) wider apertures that allow hand-held shots in lower light.
The advantages of the 60mm are: (i) superior resolution for close-up and macro shots, (ii) ability to focus as close as a few inches (whereas the 50mm can't focus closer than 1.5 feet) and (iii) excellent resolution and color from macro to infinity (although the 50mm may be slightly better at some distances.
If you like to do close ups (coffee cups, flowers, eyes, coins...) along with portraits and scenics and don't want to screw on a close-up filter or extension tube everytime you do so, the 60mm is definitely the way to go.
If you don't care so much about taking photos closer than 1.5 feet away in 99% of your shooting situations, but want to take existing light photos in low outdoor and indoor locations without screwing the camera to a tripod each time, the 50mm is probably the best way to go.
On the other hand, the 50mm is so inexpensive, you can probably get the 60mm today and then save up your gum money for a couple of months and add the 50mm to your kit too. ;o)
David Chin
Forum Pro
... just get both ) - I was about to recommend the original poster to get both, since it was listed as an option - one can never have too many lenses )
--
Regards, David Chin
(D.7.0. & C.P.4.5.0.0.)
N i k o n D 7 0 Links :> http://www.pbase.com/dlcmh/dslr_links
) - I was about to recommend the original poster to get both, since it was listed as an option - one can never have too many lenses )--
Regards, David Chin
(D.7.0. & C.P.4.5.0.0.)
N i k o n D 7 0 Links :> http://www.pbase.com/dlcmh/dslr_links
dumbo
Senior Member
Why not the Tamron 90mm Macro and the 50/1.8?
The Tamron will not give the same short DOF as the 85/1.8, but will apart from that, give approx the same perspective, which is nice for portraits. The you also a great macro lens with a little more working distance than a 60mm macro, which make it easier to catch insects and such. The Tamron is very sharp indeed. On photodo it scores higher than both the 60mm and 105mm Nikkor macro lenses. And the bokeh is so beautiful it almost makes me cry.
The 50mm is also nice for portraits, but give a little less background control, and not as smooth of a background as a longer lens, but the sharpness and lowlight capabilities for the price make it a wonderful lens, and well worth the money IMO.
It will also do very well for macro work with extention tubes, but is less conveniant than a "real" macro lens.
The Tamron will not give the same short DOF as the 85/1.8, but will apart from that, give approx the same perspective, which is nice for portraits. The you also a great macro lens with a little more working distance than a 60mm macro, which make it easier to catch insects and such. The Tamron is very sharp indeed. On photodo it scores higher than both the 60mm and 105mm Nikkor macro lenses. And the bokeh is so beautiful it almost makes me cry.
The 50mm is also nice for portraits, but give a little less background control, and not as smooth of a background as a longer lens, but the sharpness and lowlight capabilities for the price make it a wonderful lens, and well worth the money IMO.
It will also do very well for macro work with extention tubes, but is less conveniant than a "real" macro lens.
Thx 4 all the replys, yes i need good lens for low light conditions, like a club or concerts shots, maybe the 50mm 1.8 be the better choice then??
If i could reach very close to the stage and if not?? The 85mm 1.8??
For the macro the tamron 90mm 2.8 costs almost the double then the Nikon 60mm and i don´t need to shot on shy insects cause isn´t a kind of photos i like very much to do (even i like to see wonderfull shots of that kind in this forum) the macro lens i need is more for rings, coins, flowers etc, it worth the difference??
And one more question, since today is my birthday , my wife want´s to give me a lens (nice wife i have eheheheheh) i was thinking in a Nikon 80-200 2.8 maybe with a TC 1.4 what do u think of this??
The kind of photos i would like to do with a tele zoom lens is in the my 6 yo son soccer games, i´m hearing ppl talking about what amazing the 70-200 2.8 VR is, u think that with a little more of $$ i can be more happy with the 70-200 VR then 80-200 with a TC??
By the way, this is the best photo forum in the world!!
Thx all
If i could reach very close to the stage and if not?? The 85mm 1.8??
For the macro the tamron 90mm 2.8 costs almost the double then the Nikon 60mm and i don´t need to shot on shy insects cause isn´t a kind of photos i like very much to do (even i like to see wonderfull shots of that kind in this forum) the macro lens i need is more for rings, coins, flowers etc, it worth the difference??
And one more question, since today is my birthday
, my wife want´s to give me a lens (nice wife i have eheheheheh) i was thinking in a Nikon 80-200 2.8 maybe with a TC 1.4 what do u think of this??The kind of photos i would like to do with a tele zoom lens is in the my 6 yo son soccer games, i´m hearing ppl talking about what amazing the 70-200 2.8 VR is, u think that with a little more of $$ i can be more happy with the 70-200 VR then 80-200 with a TC??
By the way, this is the best photo forum in the world!!
Thx all
David Lal
Forum Pro
Nok, macro is probably my favourite form of photography and unlike you the things I like to work with generally are alive and will run away, certainly not sit still and be focussed upon. For rings and coins and so on, I'm sure the 60mm would be a good choice - I don't have one but I've seen the work of people that do and they are very sharp. A big problem with a short(ish) focal length macro lens is getting enough light onto the subject - tends to call for a ring flash and that, paradoxically, may not be good for highly reflective metal objects (highlight burn out).
Also, I would question having both 50mm and 60mm lenses - not sufficiently different, at least not for me.
Then you mention needing more reach for a not-so-near stage and that again suggests the need for a longer focal length.
Therefore, I'm thinking you need the 50mm (which is a great lens) and either a Tamron 90 or Sigma 105 (which I have). By the way, you can reverse screw the 50 onto the front of the 90 or 105 and have great macro in the range of around x2 magnification. My 105 is my favourite lens and is almost always on the camera.
Another possibility might be an 85 and a set of extension tubes. So many ways to sking a cat!
David
Also, I would question having both 50mm and 60mm lenses - not sufficiently different, at least not for me.
Then you mention needing more reach for a not-so-near stage and that again suggests the need for a longer focal length.
Therefore, I'm thinking you need the 50mm (which is a great lens) and either a Tamron 90 or Sigma 105 (which I have). By the way, you can reverse screw the 50 onto the front of the 90 or 105 and have great macro in the range of around x2 magnification. My 105 is my favourite lens and is almost always on the camera.
Another possibility might be an 85 and a set of extension tubes. So many ways to sking a cat!
David
dumbo
Senior Member
Seems that price differs very much on different locations. Here in sweden the Tamron is about 75% of the price of the 60mm Nikkor.
Well... Longer focal lenght gives both more working distance and better background control. More working distance give not only abillities for insects, but it's also easier to get the light to the subject. On the other hand the risk for camera shake is less with a shorter focal length.
If it's worth it only you can aswer.
The Tamron is also usable for conserts, as the 85/1.8 might be, but of course it's 1 1/3 stop slower...
Then, as someone pointed out, you can reverse the 50mm on the 90/100/105mm macro lenses and get scale 2:1. (Working distance then is about 2.5 cm (1 inch).)
I was just playing around with that the other day...
Two pictures. Just downsized. No cropping.
Grain of rice:
Granulated sugar:
I think that would be a very good solution. This is what I'm thinking of for myself, when I get the money. The Sigma 70-200/2.8 might also be a good choice. It's faster focusing due to the HSM focusing motor.
If you feel that you won't need the f/2.8, you could also look at something like the Sigma 100-300/4, but then you won't have the possibility to shoot at f/2.8, when you don't need that much reach.
For the soccer games the VR will not be THAT much of a help. You will need fast shutter speeds to freeze the action anyhow. It might help you be a little more steady while panning. A monopod might take care of that too though.
After long time of doubts, the decision is made!
In about 15-20 days if all works well, i could have in my hands (broken hands ehehehe) the
Nikkor 50mm 1.8 AF D
Nikkor 85mm 1.8 AF D
Nikkor 105mm 2.8 AF Micro
Nikkor 80 -200mm 2.8 ED AF
TC -14E II
It was a best choice??
In about 15-20 days if all works well, i could have in my hands (broken hands ehehehe) the
Nikkor 50mm 1.8 AF D
Nikkor 85mm 1.8 AF D
Nikkor 105mm 2.8 AF Micro
Nikkor 80 -200mm 2.8 ED AF
TC -14E II
It was a best choice??
vincebeus
Leading Member
Nice choices
I have some off the same lenses:
Nikkor 50mm 1.8D AF but also i own the Nikkor 50mm 1.4D AF
Nikkor 85mm 1.8D AF
I have not the 105mm 2.8 AF Micro but i do have the 60mm 2.8 AF
Nikkor 80-200mm 2.8D ED-IF AFS (almost same version but then the 5 ED glasses version with silent wave motor never heared such low noise lens if this scares away a birth then i dont know it no more. I breath harder then the noise of the lens.
And i still must buy a TC i am thinking of the 2x version. so i could put all my lenses on it that are between 1.4 and 2.8 (so i can test the 80-200mm 2.8 vs the 70-200mm 2.8 vr lens that i get around june)
Be Us or See Us
--
http://vincebeus.tk/
The Best Thing In Life Is Free... Better Understanding On My D70
I have some off the same lenses:
Nikkor 50mm 1.8D AF but also i own the Nikkor 50mm 1.4D AF
Nikkor 85mm 1.8D AF
I have not the 105mm 2.8 AF Micro but i do have the 60mm 2.8 AF
Nikkor 80-200mm 2.8D ED-IF AFS (almost same version but then the 5 ED glasses version with silent wave motor never heared such low noise lens if this scares away a birth then i dont know it no more. I breath harder then the noise of the lens.
And i still must buy a TC i am thinking of the 2x version. so i could put all my lenses on it that are between 1.4 and 2.8 (so i can test the 80-200mm 2.8 vs the 70-200mm 2.8 vr lens that i get around june)
--
Be Us or See Us
--
http://vincebeus.tk/
The Best Thing In Life Is Free... Better Understanding On My D70
Keyboard shortcuts
- f
- Forum