EF 50mm f1.8 vs EF-S 60mm F2.8 Macro

As a few people may have noticed Christmas is coming up, and my better half has offered to put some money towards a lens. I've been planning on getting the 60mm macro for a while (the £35 off voucher is calling out to be spent). would this make the 50mm redundant? I don't have any primes, only the 18-55 kit lens and the 55mm-200mm F4.5-5.6 zoom.
Would I be better off putting the ££ aside for say the 135mm F2 L that is next on the list?

I suppose the main questions are, what's the focussing speed difference and does the extra F1 of aperture make a huge difference (the macro will be my fastest lens when it arrives)

[edit]
I should add that I haven't really found my comfort zone as regards to what type of photo i normally take, i've tried pics of my fish (hence the want of a macro), a theatre production (fun with low light levels), judo(again low light), rugby (action was quite far away and resulted in excessive croppage).

It sounds to me as though low light is a bigger issue than close focus. You might consider something faster than a macro lens that also focuses reasonably close. A fast 50 or 85 (depending on where you stand in relation to theater and judo activities) might get more use than a special-purpose (and expensive) macro lens. Neither will focus any closer than your kit lens, but for the price of an $80 extension tube, both will focus close enough for fish.

An extension tube makes a regular lens a macro lens (though perhaps without the same critical performance), but there's not a thing you can do to make a slow lens fast at any level of performance.

Rick "who wonders how close you can get to fish" Denney

i kind of like the idea of the macro lens, and as for how close, well the glass is only 12mm thick

As it is I'm able to get the 50mm 1.8 and the macro without much of a worry, or are you suggesting i get the 50mm 1.4 instead? the money i'd put aside for the 135 would be the money i would spend on the 50mm rather than on the macro mainly as having a macro will allow me to expand on my photo-opertunities more than a faster prime would.

Peitolm wrote:
i kind of like the idea of the macro lens, and as for how close, well the glass is only 12mm thick

As it is I'm able to get the 50mm 1.8 and the macro without much of a worry, or are you suggesting i get the 50mm 1.4 instead? the money i'd put aside for the 135 would be the money i would spend on the 50mm rather than on the macro mainly as having a macro will allow me to expand on my photo-opertunities more than a faster prime would.

If you want a macro go for the 100mm, it will give you more working distance which is key for closeup. Not that there is anything wrong with the EF-S 60mm AFAIK other than not being usable on FF.

The 50mm f1.4 is a super lens and with the 100mm Macro would be very handy.

can't really afford either the 50mm f1.4 and the 100mm macro, we don't have the same price break on the macro in the UK. it's about £379 for the 100mm macro and 279 for the EF-S macro, I believe the US price is only $40 different.

The 50mm F1.4 is £255 compared to £80 for the 50mm F1.8mkII, and as many have pointed out the 1.8 is a silly price.

The EF-S 60 f2.8 USM can double as a macro as well as a "near standard" lens.
I am satisfied with my copy of the the 50 1.4 . However, my copy of the 60 is better in several important ways: sharper, better colours, more capable AF (it's a ring USM) and better build/fit/finish.
In fact, the images I get with the 60 often please me more than those I get with the EF 85 f1.8 USM.

Therefore, in my mind I place the EF-S 60 f2.8 in the illustrious company of two other primes I own and value a lot: 135 f2.0 and 200 f2.8.

petkal don't suppose you have any comparision shots between the 50 and the 60m? looking at a focal length comparison I found on the tamron site (allowing me to compare 60mm vs 96 (taking into acount the 1.6x crop of the 350D body)?

the 135 F2.0 is on the list, but at £730 it's a way off yet

Given the (tested) MTF performance of the 50/1.4 as among the best lenses made, the EF-S 60 must be mighty impressive!

I don't understand the USM complaint. My 50 focuses with the same nearly intantaneous click of my 70-200/4L. I thought it had ring USM based on how it focuses. And at f/1.4, it can focus into near darkness.

I'm impressed that one can coax a fish to swim right up to the glass! I still think a 50/1.8 and an extension tube is a cheap way to scratch the macro itch unless that's something you will do really often, but perhaps the 60 is generally useful enough despite its relatively slow speed.

Another issue is the EF-S issue. I find it hard to recommend EF-S lenses, especially expensive ones, considering that they will only be useful on the consumer end of Canon's DSLR line. Eventually, prices on cameras like the 5D will fall and people will upgrade to full frame, and the EF-S lenses will have to remain with the older cameras. But I have a 10D so what do I know?

Rick "who has a 50/2.5 Macro which is excellent though it has no USM" Denney

I have plecs, they spend a lot of their time eatting on alage on the glass, and the big fella really isn't that shy.

I know some people have said the focussing is slow, but what do people think?

I've been looking at the 50mm 1.4 to purchase soon...but just came across an article in POP photo recommending the 50 2.5 and 60 2.8 as decent portrait lenses.....since I was wanting a macro in the near future as well, I am torn as to whether I should go for either macro instead of the 1.4, but I am going to be doing alot of photography of my friends newborn (in natural indoor lighting) so it sounds like the 1.4 may still be the way to go from what I've read here.....

Two very different lens, and priced very differently. You can own both, although the 50 1.4 would probably be the better one to weigh against since price is more closely comparable.

The 50 1.4 is what you want for low light and speed. Macros tend to be slower, but make up for that in sharpness and defintely beautiful photos, though.