XF 60mm v 50mm F2 for macro

On another thread I was discussing that I would like a lens which can do both portraits and macro work. I enjoy macro a lot more than portrait but I am attending a lot of weddings this year and want something which is double use.

So I just wondered if people could post some of there macro shots with both of these lens so that  I could compare

Many thanks for all your help in advance.

James

For macro one would naturally consider the 60mm even though it's not a true macro lens (doesn't offer 1:1 magnification). As for portraits, 60mm is a bit more flattering focal length. However the new 50mm is faster to focus. I've the 60 and it has a great rendering and I've only looked at samples from the 50 which also seems to produce nice images.

Here's a close up from the 60 which IIRC is taken at the minimum focusing distance:

And here's a portrait:

Considering you'll be shooting mostly macro I think the 60 is the way to go.

Hope this is of any help to you.

As far as I know, the new 50mm f2.0 is not a macro lens. The 60mm f2.4 is a 2:1 macro lens. If you want a new true 1:1 macro lens than your current choices are the Zeiss Touit 50mm f2.8 Macro or the Samyang/Rokinon 100mm f2.8 Macro. Or, you could wait for the new Fuji 80mm macro to be released next year or get an adapted Canon or Nikon macro lens, which is what a lot of macro shooters seem to do.

I think you might find the 60mm to be frustrating in a wedding context. It's among Fuji's best lenses, optically, but it's slow enough that I would not feel confident deploying it in a shooting scenario that required fast AF.

The 50mm ƒ/2 is a rocket ship by comparison. Slows down in low light, but it's significantly more reactive in general. Not a great macro lens though, so if that's the priority then you're still better off with the 60mm.

Basically each of the lenses you mentioned excels at only one of your required shooting contexts, and is pretty bad at the other.

Your best bet might be option 3: the 50mm plus one of Fuji's macro extenders—that would get you good AF for weddings and a much better working distance for macro.

Here's an example I shot recently with the 50mm ƒ/2 + MECX-16 extender for reference:

jasimpson wrote:

Thanks all. I should of said that I realise that the 50mm wasn't a macro lens. Also both of these lens are in my budget that have auto focus. The other macro choices don't.

Does the minimum focus distance change with the macro tubes and the 50mm.

Does anyone know what the focus is like on the 60mm under artificial lighting and in poor lighting is really that bad?

having just used the 60 for a photo shoot on monday, i will say that it is a slow lens when doing inside work. the client had excellent lighting from the overhead lights and natural lighting from outside, so lighting wasnt an issue. it was slow to focus and just getting a focus lock was a chore. now having said that, the iq of the pictures was beyond excellent and worth the extra time. I also had the 50 f2 available to me, and it was faster and easier to get a lock. Images quality was also excellent.

under low lighting imho, the 60 can be a bit of a challenge. so if a majority of your shots are going to be in low light, get the 50, else the 60 could fit your bill.

cheers

MariusMasalar wrote:

I think you might find the 60mm to be frustrating in a wedding context. It's among Fuji's best lenses, optically, but it's slow enough that I would not feel confident deploying it in a shooting scenario that required fast AF.

The 50mm ƒ/2 is a rocket ship by comparison. Slows down in low light, but it's significantly more reactive in general. Not a great macro lens though, so if that's the priority then you're still better off with the 60mm.

Basically each of the lenses you mentioned excels at only one of your required shooting contexts, and is pretty bad at the other.

Your best bet might be option 3: the 50mm plus one of Fuji's macro extenders—that would get you good AF for weddings and a much better working distance for macro.

Here's an example I shot recently with the 50mm ƒ/2 + MECX-16 extender for reference:

Minimum focus distance does change with the extenders, yes, and your working distance becomes much smaller, especially with the MCEX-16.

The lens will no longer focus past a certain distance, so it's a case of putting the extender on as a deliberate "I'm shooting macro now" thing.

jasimpson wrote:

On another thread I was discussing that I would like a lens which can do both portraits and macro work. I enjoy macro a lot more than portrait but I am attending a lot of weddings this year and want something which is double use.

So I just wondered if people could post some of there macro shots with both of these lens so that I could compare

Many thanks for all your help in advance.

James

If you want the dual use you speak of, I would definitely get the 60mm. If you are looking solely macro, I would think a 1:1 magnification option with an adapter would be preferable. You are going to be manually focusing anyway. Maybe the Tamron 90mm macro which is in the same price range.

If money were no object, a 90mm macro and the 56mm 1.2 would be my choice. But in my case (and many others) money IS a factor. Personally I don't shoot much macro, even when I had one for Canon, so I just bought the 50mm f2.