can 60mm macro replace nifty fifty?

[mrklaw]

I used to like playing with macro shots in my old P&S days, but now I have difficulty as you need a proper lens to do it properly.

Now I could get the canon 60mm macro. It isn't too expensive, and there is a (small) rebate on it at the moment.

But as its 60mm, and people mention how macros can be good for portraits, would my nifty fifty then be redundant enough to sell it on to help pay for the macro?

I hardly ever use it at 1.8, so I don't *think* 2.8 would be a limitation. Usually its indoors, often with flash, for more 'structured' shots (candids I usually use the 24-105), so speed of focus shouldn't be a major issue (unless its really bad).

Any thoughts?

[Andy_T]

I don't own the 60 macro, but it should nicely replace the 50/1.8. When I still had my 50/1.8, I always used it @ f/2.8 (as I use my 50/1.4 and Sigma 30/1.4 now) as a good compromise between speed and sufficient DOF for portraits.

However, there are also a Canon 50/2.5 macro and Sigma 50/2.8 macro that
- have very good reputations
- are significantly less expensive than the EF-S 60 macro
- and also work on full frame cameras.

Best regards,
Andy

[kevin_c]

I have the 60m Macro and I'm extremely pleased with it. It is well built (for a non 'L' lens) has USM and for me, the f/2.8 apperture is not a problem.
It is a very sharp lens, if you do search on these forums I'm sure you will find many happy owners.
I was going to get the 50 f/1.4 but thought the 60 would also give me a similar field of view but with the close-up facility as well, even though it is slightly slower.
As 'Andythaler' above says though, it is EF-S so will not work on a full frame camera, but for me that is not really an issue (at the moment :-))

I can't comment on any of the others he mentions as I have no experience with them.

[ron chappel]

I *think* you could get away with it quite well.
To be honest i very rarely use the nifty fifty wide open...allthough i'd be reluctant to give up that ability entirely

[mrfourcows]

imo, i don't think it can ever replace the nifty fifty if you're into portraits and bokeh.

but...
since you've already stated that you wanted to do macro, and dont mind f/2.8, then what are you waiting for?

though you might want to hold on to the nifty fifty for low light work, or maybe not. think it through.

[steved110]

It gives an equivalent view of 97 or so mm compared with a 35mm camera, so is practically a 100mm equivalent, as opposed to the 80mm equivalent of the 50.
This makes it a perfect focal length for portrait use, indeed on full-frame and 35mm this is one of the great advantages of the 100mm macro.
I'm not sure it is worth selling your 50 as they are so cheap, I'm not sure most people would want to buy a used one...and I can't see you getting enough back to be worth the trouble. but I'd certainly recommend any of the macro lenses as a good buy if you are into close-up stuff.

another option would be to get some extension rings fpr your 50 and use that for close -ups

[Lightstream]

I own both lenses.. the 60 macro is a wonderful portrait lens. Bokeh blows away the plastic 50. Smooth and creamy is the word. Sharpness, wide open, is a treat. They say the 50 is sharp. The 60 at equal apertures crushes it (and the 50 has a 1.8-2.8 stop down headstart already!). Ring ultrasonic focusing drive means your focus is DEAD accurate at normal working ranges and unbelievably fast. The 60 can hang with all my Ls in this department. Actually, it's an L in everything except that it doesn't have a red ring and it's EF-S. The build quality slaps even the 50 f/1.4 silly. I look at the 1.4 and think of my 60 macro and I keep deciding I don't need the 1.4 because it just doesn't feel right. And macro, product photography is right up the 60's alley. I use it for both (macros of products.. and products ;)).

So.. why didn't I get rid of my 50?

The 50 actually makes a GREAT low-light lens. f/1.8 can really, REALLY help when the going gets tough. It beats f/2.8 even when you wind up the ISO. I've shot at ISO 1600 at f/2, and the 50 delivered. For the incredibly low price the 50 is affordable to keep even if you hardly use it. I always think about getting rid of mine then I realize it's at moments like these where I would truly value it.

[mrklaw]

The 50 actually makes a GREAT low-light lens. f/1.8 can really, REALLY help when the going gets tough. It beats f/2.8 even when you wind up the ISO. I've shot at ISO 1600 at f/2, and the 50 delivered. For the incredibly low price the 50 is affordable to keep even if you hardly use it. I always think about getting rid of mine then I realize it's at moments like these where I would truly value it.


Great post Lightstream, thanks.

When you say low light, do you mean low light at relatively long distance (like across the room in a club/bar)? Because I always find 1.8/2.0 too narrow DOF-wise for short distances. And I mostly use it indoors/at home for portraits.

So I don't think I'd need it for super lowlight. Of course, if I can't sell it for any reasonable cost I'll just keep it. But selling that+kit lens+rebate would get me £100 towards the 60 macro which means getting it quicker.

[rwong2k]

I own both lenses.. the 60 macro is a wonderful portrait lens. Bokeh blows away the plastic 50. Smooth and creamy is the word. Sharpness, wide open, is a treat. They say the 50 is sharp. The 60 at equal apertures crushes it (and the 50 has a 1.8-2.8 stop down headstart already!). Ring ultrasonic focusing drive means your focus is DEAD accurate at normal working ranges and unbelievably fast. The 60 can hang with all my Ls in this department. Actually, it's an L in everything except that it doesn't have a red ring and it's EF-S. The build quality slaps even the 50 f/1.4 silly. I look at the 1.4 and think of my 60 macro and I keep deciding I don't need the 1.4 because it just doesn't feel right. And macro, product photography is right up the 60's alley. I use it for both (macros of products.. and products ;)).

So.. why didn't I get rid of my 50?

The 50 actually makes a GREAT low-light lens. f/1.8 can really, REALLY help when the going gets tough. It beats f/2.8 even when you wind up the ISO. I've shot at ISO 1600 at f/2, and the 50 delivered. For the incredibly low price the 50 is affordable to keep even if you hardly use it. I always think about getting rid of mine then I realize it's at moments like these where I would truly value it.

I've been thinking about this argument recently. I current own the 50/1.8 MKI which I got off my dad's camera. Considered the 60/2.8 for a bit but went with the 100/2.8 instead. I've owned the 85/1.8 that's one awesome lens and for some stupid reason I sold it, I'm going to have to grab one back in the future, but for now I'll play witht the 100/2.8 for outdoor portraits to see how well it does

[Lightstream]

Great post Lightstream, thanks.

When you say low light, do you mean low light at relatively long distance (like across the room in a club/bar)? Because I always find 1.8/2.0 too narrow DOF-wise for short distances. And I mostly use it indoors/at home for portraits.

So I don't think I'd need it for super lowlight. Of course, if I can't sell it for any reasonable cost I'll just keep it. But selling that+kit lens+rebate would get me £100 towards the 60 macro which means getting it quicker.

Ah yes.. the DOF is very narrow. For low-light situations where I shoot wide open, it would fall into your long distance category. Hmm.. you might not miss much then :)

If the price is right, let it go. If you really, really miss it later on, you can always get it back. There isn't much 'sharp copy' variation between 50 1.8's that I've heard of so it's quite safe to say you'll get back something that's pretty sharp in the future if you buy again.