Wow, must makie a decision, 60mm macro or 85 1.8

Sold a couple things and now I need to buy mynew lens and I still can't decide between these two.

I like the thought of having a macro lens, so the 60mm is pullingme one way, butmy main use is portrait and I seem to be satisfied with my Sigma 17-50 OS HSM forportraits wide to 50mm, and all I have above 50mm is the nifty 250, and as much as we all like that lens, I somehow doubt it will be able to compete at outdoor portraits with the 85 1,8.

Now, the 85 1.8 is too long for my indoor shooting other than tight head and shoulder stuff because I live in an apartment, but like i said, I feel pretty happy with portraits like that with my Sigma, and also if I decide on the 85 1.8, then a little later I could just grab the older ef 50mm compact macro for flower shot and also have a very sharp 50mm for great sharp shots indoors as well.

I am thinking that the 85 1.8 is probably the smarter way to go because for 279 later I can get a new 50mm compact macro, but man oh man, that darn 60mm macro is killing me, I want it too, so bad. I use the crop bodies 450D and 500D, and that ef-s Macro is just whispering to me, but I will end up do a good percentage of my portraits out doors and all I have above 50 then is the Nifty, and I want something far better for outdoor portraits.

So am i thinking clearly even if it is against my love for the 60mm macro? Can i stand the wait not having a Macro until I can come up with another 279 for the 50mm compact Macro?

I know if I get the 60mm that soon I would be shooting outdoors portraits and would be wishing I could use the 85 1.8, BUT and this is a big BUTT, I have never felt limited outside with my Sigma 17-50, so it's not like I have wanted or needed to stand way back at 85mm outdoors, so maybe my Sigma would continue to be fine outdoors and then I could enjoy the 60mm Macro and still use it for a little tighter outdoor portrait shooting and be able to enjoy the Macro flower and closeup pics it can give.

This kind of decision stuff is hell on earth, i want both but I don't have 900 bucks, I have basically 400 dollars, I can get either brand new.

I've been struggling with this question myself. I'd like to get both, but don't have the dough for it. I'm actually considering saving a bit more and getting the 100mm Macro (non-L), which I've been led to understand on these forums is more useful for a wider range of subjects than the 60mm one (although it's supposed to be mighty good). Plus, the focal range isn't too dissimilar to the 85mm, although you would lose a couple stops and probably a bit of AF speed.

It might be an option to consider. The 100mm Macro is 560$+tx&shipping right now at B&H, iirc, so not hugely more expensive than your current budget and decidedly less than the price of both.

macro vs 1.8

_Steven89 wrote in post #14408403
macro vs 1.8

+1

If you want to try macro, get the macro.

Since you are satisfied with the Sigma for portrait @ 50mm, I'd say go for the 60mm.

I went with my better judgement and just ordered the 85 from Abes of Maine. The deciding factor was that the older 50mm macro is still being sold new for $279 and the reviews say it is very very sharp also.

The 85 will give me some nice shots outside and maybe even some nice landscapes and normal family stuff, the 17-50 Sigma is fine for indoors and it won't take me long hopefully to save up the 279 for the Canon 50mm macro. It will also be a nice sharp prime for portraits in doors. Then, I can mabe start working on a 28 or 30mm prime of some kind for body portraits. I will have three porimes to cover portraits and the Sigma for general stuff that can handle portraits too when needed. I think i have my plan worked out.

Sigma also has a 50mm Macro Prime, I wonder how good that is, hmm. It would probably be more than the Canon compact 50 macro at 279, so that's probably what i will go for. Maybe I'll add another Sigma when looking for a prime at 28 or 30

I'm excited, oh man I can't wait.

if you are already planning on getting a 50mm macro then definitely go for the 85mm, it's a fantastic portrait lens on both crop and full frame.
i know a photographer that takes portrait shots with the 60mm macro and gets stunning result, after all it's a macro lens that brings details out.

this is basically the same questions that most full frame shooters ask.. 100mm 2.8 L macro vs 135 2 L.
Personally I went with the 135, fast AF, sharp at f2 and produces great bokeh but I was also impressed with the 100L macro, just wasn't my style.

If you need faster than f/2.8 for your outdoor portraiture, get the 85. If you can live with f/2.8, or whatever the 55-250 dishes up between f/4 and f/5.6 at the FL you need, get the 60 macro.

Put another way, if to you portraiture means one eyebrow in focus, get the 85, otherwise, get the macro.

guitarjeff wrote in post #14407287
I like the thought of having a macro lens, so the 60mm is pullingme one way, butmy main use is portrait

Well them you're in luck....The EF-S 60mm Macro is not only a great macro lens for crop bodies but is also a great portrait lens for crop's as well!

So two purposes with one lens

I know you've already made your decision but ...

I have both lenses - the 60 macro and the 85 - and if I had to choose just one to keep, it would be a no-brainer for me: I'd keep the 60 macro and sell the 85. It's an outstanding lens in every respect, and the macro function is so much fun to use. It's the perfect focal length on a crop camera, and is often the only lens I take with me because it does everything well: landscapes, portraits, street photography, close-ups and, of course, macros. The 85 is a great lens too, but I find the long MFD a bit limiting sometimes, the purple fringing in high-contrast situations is irritating, and the focal length is a bit odd on a crop camera. It's my least-used lens and I keep thinking I'll sell it, then I put it on the camera for a portrait session and am blown away by the images ... Overall, however, I have more fun with the 60 macro, it suits my shooting style better, and I just love the results it produces. Canon really got it right with this lens, IMHO.

Be aware that the 50 CM only provides 1:2 without an expensive "lifesize" converter.

I have both. The 60 mm is maybe more useful for different things, but I think the portraits look much better with the 85 mm. It's not sharper, and it's not the background blur I'm thinking of. They just look better... But the 60 mm is a very sharp lens and the focal lenght is maybe more useful on a crop.

once you get the macro you'll realize you need better light, better tripod, better... just get the 85 until you are ready to do macro.

guitarjeff wrote in post #14408816
Sigma also has a 50mm Macro Prime, I wonder how good that is, hmm. It would probably be more than the Canon compact 50 macro at 279, so that's probably what i will go for.

The canon 50 macro only does 1:2, the sigma goes 1:1. But the sigma costs $90 more. But to get the canon to 1:1 you need the lifesize converter, which costs another $279, so to get 1:1, you'll end up spending ~$540. Or you could go extension tubes, but then you lose infinity focus and its a bit of a hassle mounting/unmounting tubes. So I'd pick the sigma.

xarqi wrote in post #14410521
Be aware that the 50 CM only provides 1:2 without an expensive "lifesize" converter.

.

For 80% of the macro shots I take, 1:2 is fine. If you want photos of the inside of a flower or a small bug it won't work. When I need to get closer, I use an extension tube. That said, the 60mm macro is one incredibly sharp lens. Both, the 50mm 2.5 and the 60mm 2.8 are nice portrait lenses for indoor work.

You guys will laugh, but I couldn't sleep last night, woke up today and cancelled my order for the 85 and bought a used 60mm on Ebay, 2 months old bought from Adorama for $365 and free shipping.

I had to go with my gut, I just couldn't let that 60mm get away.

Actually, the macro i will be doing would have been fine with the 1:2 compact fifty, cause i can't stand seeing them ugly monster bugs. My macro will mostly be flowers and other fairly small things, but not the real tiny stuff.

I decided on the 60 simply because I have never been unsatisfied with my Sigma portraits outdoors at 50mm, I never felt like I needed more reach, and the one time i did take some outdoors portraits with the Nifty 250, they looked fine and the lens did great.

I will get the 85 at some point, and also a 28 or 30 prime, but i just had to have that sharp 60 right now, and the macro will be a nice bonus and something I can have fun with in and outdoors both.

I can't wait.