Help deciding?

I currently have a 50mm f1.4. I use it for portraits and everyday stuff. I've heard very good things about the sharpness of the 60mm Macro, and I'm thinking of getting it. I wont be using it for actual macro, again, just portraits and everyday things. Is it worth it, or should I just keep the 50mm? Thanks.

I'd stick with your 50mm, if I were in your position. By the time the 50 gets to 2.8 it is plenty sharp, so if macro isn't in the plans, you may as well keep the versatility of the wider aperture. If you'd like to mix up your portrait kit a bit, perhaps supplement your 50mm with the 85mm 1.8. An absolute stunner of a portrait lens.

I've had the 50/1.4 and it's an excellent lens until I sold it for extra cash (stupid move) it was my most used lens. Very sharp at 2.8 and above and still will produce beautiful images from 1.4-2.5. I'm a proud owner of a 100L and although the IS is very very nice to have, I would much prefer a 85mm or 135mm prime with a wider aperture if I was just shooting portraits and non-macros. I wouldn't recommend a 60mm macro for you.

Maybe you should consider supplementing your 50/1.4 with an 85/1.8. Last time I checked they were available for less than $400.

If you arent doing macro there is no real need for the 60. For portraits sharpness is nice, but its not always the most critical things. Bokeh and background separation is equally important. Macro lenses tend to be a bit slower to focus as well. I agree about adding the 85 1.8.

keep the 50