Second Prime Lens: 60 or 50?

Hi guys,

Let me introduce myself: I'm Alessandro and I'm writing from Northern Italy.

I recently acquired a brand-new X-T3 (switching from a Nikon D750) and so far I couldn't be happier.

I'm trying to complete my lens kit, my idea was to have 2 versatile zooms and two fast primes. I currently have the excellent kit 18-55, the 55-200 and the 23mm f/1.4.

The 23mm is an amazing all-rounder but I'd like to find a lens able to cover some tighter shots and I'm trying to figure out which lens suits me better. I've already ruled out the 56mm f/1.2: it's great but a little too heavy and expensive right now, plus I'm not a particularly fine portait shooter and I much prefer the microcontrast on the f/2 variant.

So the battle would be between the 50 f/2 and the 60 f/2.4.

I'm more inclined towards the latter simply because I enjoy the occasional macro shot, I hear the AF is slow but there is some evidence that firmware upgrades and newer bodies made it much much better.

Here come the questions:

- Is the 60mm worth it despite being half a stop slower than the 50?

- Do a 23/60 pair make sense or would I be better off selling the 23 and getting the 35+50 (or 60) and using the 18-55 for wider shots?

Thanks in advance!

I have the 18-55 and the 23 1.4. I'd never sell either one of them. I sold a 23 1.4 once and regretted it until I bought it again. Learned my lesson. The 18-55 is just too versatile to sell. I've also had it since 2013, so it would be like selling one of my children. I've never used the 50, but I own the 56, and it's another great lens. I recently bought the 60mm, and should take delivery of it today, but it might be awhile before I can comment on it.

For me, lenses are like paint brushes. I can never have too many of them, and I wish I owned all of them.

No one here (well I do) speaks of the under appreciated Zeiss 50mm f/2.8 macro lens.  I would heartily recommend this beauty for a 50mm portrait/ macro lens.  Granted there is no focus limiter and it can hunt due to this but the lens is superb.  I got mine used for $480.

dual12 wrote:

I have the 18-55 and the 23 1.4. I'd never sell either one of them. I sold a 23 1.4 once and regretted it until I bought it again. Learned my lesson. The 18-55 is just too versatile to sell. I've also had it since 2013, so it would be like selling one of my children. I've never used the 50, but I own the 56, and it's another great lens. I recently bought the 60mm, and should take delivery of it today, but it might be awhile before I can comment on it.

For me, lenses are like paint brushes. I can never have too many of them, and I wish I owned all of them.

Please let me know what you think! I'm leaning more and more towards the 60 but I'm still worried it might be too slow for my liking... F/2 would be a bare minimum on aps-c, but then again, does half a stop even matter that much?

third son wrote:

No one here (well I do) speaks of the under appreciated Zeiss 50mm f/2.8 macro lens. I would heartily recommend this beauty for a 50mm portrait/ macro lens. Granted there is no focus limiter and it can hunt due to this but the lens is superb. I got mine used for $480.

I'm sure it's an excellent lens and I'd like to try it out, but I'm not really looking for a specialised macro lens...

I ordered the 50mm F2 WR with my X-T3.  Now I can stop worrying about rain and so on if I use that lens on that body.

Besides, it seems to be pretty good as a prime.  Price is not too bad.

I would recommend the 50 F2.  The Fuji 80 F2.8 macro is a replacement for the 60, with updated focus motor etc, costs more money, and is bigger and heavier than the 60.  It is also weather resistant.

Macro lenses are not known for excellent bokeh though.  My 50mm F2 WR has OK bokeh but if I want bokeh excellence I would use a different lens, probably a third party non-electronic one.

Of course it all comes down to what you really will be happy with.

That is a really nice image, composition and lighting more than the lens, but I agree about the Zeiss 50mm macro, it is a very nice lens indeed.  Subjectively the AF seems a good deal faster than the 60mm I'd sold.  Small and light too, much as your wallet will be after buying it.

I recently have the 60mm preferred it over the 50mm which I had .

Reason:

I love the 60mm rendering colors also I want a semi macro lens suited also for portrait works .

The f 2 lenses are fantastic tiny lenses but they lack the contrast color rendering to my eyes!

I don't yet have the 50mm F2, though I've been tempted with the sale going on right now.  I don't need it, but I'd like to try it and at current prices it's hard to resist.

I do have the 60, and I feel about it the way I've read others feel about the 35 1.4.  I don't care what the specs say, or if it makes more noise than newer lenses, or hunts a little more or takes an extra fraction of a second to focus (it's slower, but not slow - have to keep in mind it's all relative), there's just something about the photos that come out of that lens.   It just renders beautiful shots, at least to my eye, though I'm an amateur at best.   In the same way that, on paper and to pixel warriors, the 18mm F2 isn't considered a great lens yet you'll see photographer after photographer taking arrays of captivating photos with it, the 60 seems to just work and it has its own following.

Don't agonize too much over this decision...these are both fine lenses so you can't lose either way.   And you can always sell what you buy and go get the other one with minimal loss if you find yourself still looking.  Very little downside here.

camazza wrote:

dual12 wrote:

I have the 18-55 and the 23 1.4. I'd never sell either one of them. I sold a 23 1.4 once and regretted it until I bought it again. Learned my lesson. The 18-55 is just too versatile to sell. I've also had it since 2013, so it would be like selling one of my children. I've never used the 50, but I own the 56, and it's another great lens. I recently bought the 60mm, and should take delivery of it today, but it might be awhile before I can comment on it.

For me, lenses are like paint brushes. I can never have too many of them, and I wish I owned all of them.

Please let me know what you think! I'm leaning more and more towards the 60 but I'm still worried it might be too slow for my liking... F/2 would be a bare minimum on aps-c, but then again, does half a stop even matter that much?

Yes the 60 mm is slow and maybe too slow but I considered it as a Manual lense. It renders the color true to life.

I love it over the very quick 50mm f 2 because I got both the 2 worlds macro and portrait.

Keep the 23.

originally I got the 23/1.4 because I could get a combo deal with the 90/2 I actually wanted, In a an year I sold the 90 and I gradually fell in love with the 23.

as for 50/2 or 60/2.4 ... I am in the same boat. But in this case I might opt for the 60 and use a summicron 50/2 with an adapter. The 60 seems to have a special rendering.

It is f2.4, which isn't that slow.  The speed of a lens for my age is its maximum aperture.

a_c_skinner wrote:

That is a really nice image, composition and lighting more than the lens, but I agree about the Zeiss 50mm macro, it is a very nice lens indeed. Subjectively the AF seems a good deal faster than the 60mm I'd sold. Small and light too, much as your wallet will be after buying it.

Thanks.  Worth every penny I paid.

I know, but the terminology of fast and slow means the maximum aperture.  Truly.

Well thank you guys for the overwhelming responses!

Apparently there's no consensus over which lens is "best" - in my case that is, no lens is objectively "better" than the other.

My takeaway from hearing all of you kind people is that, despite its flaws, the 60 has some "magic" quality to it that seems to be missing on newer lenses (one might argue that this is due to the older lenses being... worse? If you get what I mean), while the 50 is optically superb but I've heard way less people actually "falling in love" with it.

Tomorrow I'll have the chance of trying them both and finally decide. I'll keep you posted!