Canon EF-S 60mm F2.8 Macro or Nifty 50

[DavoMrMac]

Could someone please offer me some more advise.

I am looking to buy a prime lens for my 350D and have got a bit confused.

The Nifty 50 you all talk about sounds great, but does it do Macro shots well.

or am I better looking at Canon's new 60mm F2.8 Macro, that definitely offers Macro, but then another questions comes up, will the new 60mm offer the ability to shoot portraits too or just Macro.

Thanking you...

[Kadath]

There are four 50 MM lenses, a 50 1.4, a 50 1.8 Mk2, an out of production 50 1.8 MK1, and a 50 macro.

As far as I know, nobody has reviewed the new AF-S 60, it is due on the street mid April.

Compaing the 60 macro to the 50 1.8, the new 60 will be $400+ compared to $80 and will be a stop slower lens but it does macro and the 50 1.8 does not claim to be a macro lens. I think I read that the 60 has a faster USM too, so that might be helpful, plus its macro to 1:1 and is internal focussing, so no lens protrusions to scare away any creepy crawlies =)

To my inexperienced eye, the bigger battle is between the 60 2.8 macro and the 100 2.8m Macro rather than between the 60 and the 50 1.4, 1.8 or macro.

I'm waiting for the reviews. If I can get one for about $300 or less I might consider it for my first macro lens, otherwise I might stick out for a used 100 2.8....

Sam

[Mike Panic]

sam - there is also an out of production 50mm f1/0 :D

if you are doing macro work - what is your requirements... considering the 1.6x crop of the 350xt as part of your decisions

[J Rabin]

Everyone will have varying opinion. If you want into low budget portraits, and/or control DOF, ON A BUDGET, then the 50 is OK. I dislike both Canon's 50s because they do not have RING USM focus, they focus slow, and hunt in low light. I sold my 50 f/1.4 and never looked back. My copy had poor back focus, slow focus, and hunted. I never used f/1.4-f/2.0 because I don't do ultra DOF creative photography. For macro you need f/11-22 and for most portraits f/5.6-8.
I also notice my lenses with circular apertures (CA) give creamier textured color fall-off to OOF areas. The 50s do not have CA. So, hands down, my vote would be for the 60mm f/2.8. It's got CA. It's got Ring USM fast focus speed. It won't hunt in low light. It provides REAL macro, which I use a lot. There's just no comparison. Just be prepared to: A) get some photos too sharp, where skin pores, blemishes, etc., need softening; B) not get ultra narrow DOF control if creative photography is your thing; and C) pay a lot more. I think it's worth it. I own the 100mm f/2.8 macro, and I'm thinking of adding this 60mm lens for its compactness in the field, because many of my colleagues use the Nikon 60mm macro and its great. Here is an example of a 100-year old hatpin with a bee hive. There is more detail than the naked eye can see:

http://postit.rutgers.edu/uploads/Hatpin%20Extracted%2Ejpg

[DavoMrMac]

Thanks for all the help so far.

I will mainly be planning to use for Macro shots of insects and flowers, but also want the flexibility that the lens will allow me to take portraits. Will the new 60mm allow me to do this?

[Yan]

I think 60mm + 1.6 crop factor should workout well for the portraits... I really wanna get this lens but b&h still do not have it yet..

[Jon]

If you want macro, the 100 macro will give you a better working distance at the same magnification (1:1 will be at a film plane-subject distance of 400 mm rather than 240 mm with the 60). So in macro, the cra^hop factor is something to ignore. The 100 will still do well for portraits, although you'll need a longer working distance there too. They're priced about the same, so go with the known 100 mm.

[Dante King]

I just got tamron's SP AF 90mm f/2.8 Macro 1:1. was torn between canons 100mm for macro and protrait when needed. Went for the tamron for a few reasons. Tamron lens held up very nicely agains the canon lens and is less $$. You would be able to afford the nifty fifty and the tamron 90mm for less than the canon 100mm.