Do I need a 50mm 1.8 if I have ....

[kelleyrie]

a 60mm 2.8 macro lens? For some reason I really think I need one and the price is good. Should I get it or put $100 on another lens? I have the 60, 18-55 kit and a 28-135 IS, with access to a 70-200L 2.8.

[OsmosisStudios]

That depends.

Alot of people don't like macro lenses for portrait because they're TOO sharp. They show all the imperfections and thats just not flattering. Alot of them also have TERRIBLY bokeh (the NIkon 105 in particular).



It's not BAD per say, but it's not great either.

The 50mm also gives you over a full stop (1 1/3) over the f/2.8. Stopped down to f/2.8, the 50 is hard to beat.

I think if youre gonna go for a portrait prime, go for the 85 1.4

[inkista]

Errr... look again at her lens list. 85mm f/1.8 or 85mm 1.2L, not an 85mm f/1.4, unless she goes Zeiss ZE.

I had the same thought about having the EF-S 60/2.8 Macro do double duty. Then I tried using it in a restaurant to take a picture of my dining companion. f/2.8 was just too damn slow, the lens was too damn sharp (I really didn't want to see pores), and the focal length just a hair too long to be comfortable across a table. I'm ok with the 50/1.8 on both counts, although I prefer messing about with my little Olympus OM-mount 50/1.2 and Leica-R 35/2 more these days.

I'd say, try the 60 and see if it works for you as a portrait lens, and if you don't like it, then consider going for another prime. But I would also recommend taking a look at the portraits you've already taken with zoom lenses, like your 28-135 IS, and see what focal lengths you tend to stick to. (I like the freeware ExposurePlot for this, which I use via Parallels on my MacBooks). The 50/1.8 is a great lens for the $100, but more expensive lenses outclass it in usability and image quality. The 50/1.8 has its flaws: a plastic mount, a manual focus ring that's a PITA to use, no focus scale, and no USM, so you hear it whir-whir as it focuses.

[OsmosisStudios]

Originally Posted by inkista

Errr... look again at her lens list. 85mm f/1.8 or 85mm 1.2L, not an 85mm f/1.4, unless she goes Zeiss ZE.

I keep forgetting Canon does weird stuff with their primes. Nikon's fastest 85 is a 1.4 and it's B-E-A-utiful.

[inkista]

He scoffs who never shot at f/1.2.

Still, the Nikkor 85/1.4 is a $1200+ lens, not easily affordable by most, and not often, I'm sure, purchased as a first portrait prime, any more than the 85 f/1.2L is.

The Samyang 85/1.4, otoh. Ohmy. For a $260 lens, it's testing awfully nice. And there's that rumored 35/1.2 for Canon (f/1.4 for everybody else).

[kelleyrie]

I love my 60 for closeup portrait work, I like the crispness but it is slow in low light. When I use my zoom I almost always go out past 100mm and just use my feet to get what I want in the frame. I guess that means I should get a longer prime?

[CaptainNH]

You'll certainly appreciate the extra speed of the f/1.8 even if it is only to speed up focus.

I use my 50 f/1.8 regularly, but it isn't as sharp as my 85mm f/1.8. Since my move to FF, the 50 has been used less and the 85 more.