50mm prime and 60mm macro....?

[Pen]

ok so im looking at these two lens' and was originally thinking about getting both....buuuut....there almost the same focal length, and both very sharp at f/2.8 and lower, so why get both? could the 60mm macro be used in place of the 50mm in pretty much any situation? if so then y get both? the 50mm im looking at is Canon's 50mm f/1.4, so i know there is a difference between f/1.4 and f/2.8, but from what ive read the 50mm doesnt really attain superb sharpness until f/2.8 and the macro has superb sharpness at f/2.8, so basically why get both versus just the macro? thanks!

[momtoamiracle]

I don't have the 60mm macro, but I have the 50mm1.8 because that is what I could afford.


If I had the money, with what I know now from reviews, i would get the 60mm macro. I'm longing to get that lens!

[Pen]

ya, see im looking at the 50mm f/1.4 which is only $25 less then the 60mm macro!!!, so the two lens' are almost the same price and same focal length and almost the same speed, but one has macro y not just get the macro? thats what im wondering

[OsmosisStudios]

Depending on what you want the lens(es) for, it'll depend.

Some find the macro lenses to be too sharp. Amazing, I know. But if youre shooting portraits, you dont want to be showing every single pore.

You may also find that the stop and a bit difference between 1.4 and 2.8 is substantial. In certain situations you may need that opening.

[Pen]

ill probably not ending up doing a ton of portrait work, the 50mm would be incase anything like that comes up, but mostly it would just be a nice general lens thats really fast for working indoors, so the being too sharp wouldnt be an issue for me....im just wondering if another $400 is worth that little bit larger aperture, and then which to get first??? most likely i would only be able to get one of them and then have to wait maybe even a year to get the 2nd, as it is i keep forgetting that i need to buy EVERYTHING, going to start building up my own kit instead of using my moms , so all the filters and what not i need to buy as well.

[momtoamiracle]

if you're not interested in macro, which I am and is why I'm drooling over the macro lens, then probably the 50mm 1.8 would do just fine for you.

I'm no expert tho, just going from my own experience.

[inkista]

If close-up photography is only an occasional thing, then getting the 50 might make more sense. Especially since you can use it with extension tubes for poor man's macro.



Canon XT/350D. EF 50mm f/1.8 USM. Kenko extension tube set, all three tubes stacked (68mm extension).

[Pen]

oh, maybe i shouldve mentioned that i am very interested in macro , thats why i was looking at these two, if i wasnt too interested in macro it would be an easy decision, but thats why im wondering....like i said before im probably going to only be able to get one of these (and that wont be until next summer! ) and then the other will have to wait at least a year. As it is im at about $300....and thats to get everything...from scratch...camera, tripod, flash, filters, bag, etc. etc. etc., so i got a ways to go but i still know my theoretical budget, especially because i hope to have at least a semi-decent kit built up by next summer when i go to the grand canyon in mid july (i believe), but thanks for ur suggestions!

[TheKingInYellow]

I just went through the same scenario, and sold my 50mm once the 60mm macro arrived.

Yes, the 50mm is a full stop faster, but I can always bounce a flash if I need more light. The 60 is sharper, has nicer bokeh, and goes from 6" focusing to infinity. It's a great all around lens!