60mm EF-S or 50mm 1.4 Lens

Hello everyone, this is my first post.

I have recently bought a Canon 30d and have 2 Sigma lenses - 17-70mm & 70-300.

I want to get a quality prime lens for portraits and am looking at either the 60mm 2.8 EF-S or 50mm 1.4 EF. Has anyone got experience of using these and recommendations which would be the best quality.

Thank you in advance for your help.

i would say EF 50mm 1.4 ... its a lot faster and from what i have seen (0ther user`s photos) it can create some stunning images. It will also handle better in low light than the 60mm.

p.s welcome to the forum :P~

I own the EFS 60 2.8 macro. It's sharp, very very sharp. I hardly ever use it for macro and have done a lot of candid portrait/small group stuff with it. Works great. The focal length fits my style and I also use it as a walk around type lens. It has a solid build and feels right on a 350D. My only wish is that it was a little faster so I could use it for indoor sports (I've tried with mixed results, the 2.8 just won't produce what my 1.8 and 2.0 lenses will).

I don't own it, butI do know the 50 1.4 is an excellent lens in its own right.

For portraits I would choose the 50mm out of those two. The larger aperature will come in handy. I sold my 50 1.4 recently, and I have already kicked myself a few times.

I have the 60mm macro and its a great all around lens. A good portrait lens and VERY sharp even when wide open, but it does lack in low light. Plus you can get nice macros with it. It's probably my favorite lens.

The focus can tend to hunt in low light, but with FTM you can get approximate focus manually and tighten it up with AF on a higher contrast area. But you will miss shots in very low light.

My suggestion is to get the 60mm so you have a great portrait and macro lens, and get a 50 1.8 for lowlight.

Then again if you have no interest in macro, the 50 1.4 is a great little lens.

I work most of my time with f/2.8 lenses. The 60mm looks great, but I am thinking that with the fifty, you would be losing only 10mm, and gaining an edge on f/ stops.

Think of what you will use it for. Portraits? Then the wide aperture is more of a luxury, so you may want to consider prices, and go with either.

But if as mentioned above, you are looking at low light situations -sports, for example- a 1.4 vs a 2.8 will present you with many more options, that a mere 10mm difference won't even come into play.

Now that is my experience, I own the cheap 1.8 fifty, and I love it to pieces. Literally, I shoot it so much, I am on my third lens. (Hey, at $70 a lens, it fits comfortably in any pocket and is a great walkaround lens).

Best of luck, and let us know what you decide on, why, and obviously post some results, how your new lens is shooting.

I just got the 50 1.4 last week and put it through it paces last weekend, inside barns at the fair, outside in rain, outside in sun, outside in sun and I can tell you it performed VERY well and was a joy to use. With the 1.4 you feel like you can shoot anything, anywhere. I love my new lens.

Jon D wrote in post #2080235
Hello everyone, this is my first post.

I have recently bought a Canon 30d and have 2 Sigma lenses - 17-70mm & 70-300.

I want to get a quality prime lens for portraits and am looking at either the 60mm 2.8 EF-S or 50mm 1.4 EF. Has anyone got experience of using these and recommendations which would be the best quality.

Thank you in advance for your help.

Both these lenses are sharp but have different uses.

Now do you want specificaly a macro lens or a fast prime.

If you are looking for a macro I would suggest the 100mm f2.8 USM Macro for better working distance. AF range switch and capability to use a TMA. (Also can be used on full frame if you ever need to).

If you are looking for a fast prime then the 50 f1.4 is your lens.

Thank you all for your advice, so quick!

Because the portraits will be of my 3 children I think the extra aperture stop will come in handy so I am leaning towards the 50mm. I'll let you know what I decide and post some pics.

Jon D wrote in post #2085375
Thank you all for your advice, so quick!

Because the portraits will be of my 3 children I think the extra aperture stop will come in handy so I am leaning towards the 50mm. I'll let you know what I decide and post some pics.

I would choose the 50 out of the two you mention mainly because the 50 fociusses so much faster and my experience shooting my kids was that fast AF is a must

However I also recommend the 85f1.8 for portraits, that little extra bit of reach can make quite a difference sometimes. I sold mine , now that the girls have grown up and been long gone, but it was one of my most used for family shots

Jon D wrote in post #2080235
Hello everyone, this is my first post.

I have recently bought a Canon 30d and have 2 Sigma lenses - 17-70mm & 70-300.

I want to get a quality prime lens for portraits and am looking at either the 60mm 2.8 EF-S or 50mm 1.4 EF. Has anyone got experience of using these and recommendations which would be the best quality.

Thank you in advance for your help.

That would be the 60 F/2.8 macro. It is sharper than the 50 F/1.4 from F/2.8 , has a better build too, and has proper USM.

Contrary to most people, it seems, I seem to have had bad luck (?) with the 4 50 F/1.4s I tested. Only sharp from about F/2.8, problems with focusing nearby and in low light circumstances. I prefer the 50 F/1.8 II to the F/1.4, because it is sharp from F/2, at least the 5 I tested, and I never had any focusing problems with any of them, neither nearby, nor in low light.

Other than that, on a crop camera the 60 is very, very close to a classical portrait lens in FoV. I have used this lens in low light a lot, before getting fast L primes, and it did quite well in relatively poor lit circumstances. I did manage to shoot at 1/45s without much trouble, handheld, using good techniques. And at F/2.8, 1/45s and 1600 iso a few light bulbs are plenty of light.

Other than that, it is also good at macro , and a great short tele landscape lens, and a few other uses.

Very highly recommended!

I sold mine after acquiring a 5D, but there is another one in my future. I really miss it.

Kind regards, Wim

wimg wrote in post #6712615
That would be the 60 F/2.8 macro. It is sharper than the 50 F/1.4 from F/2.8 , has a better build too, and has proper USM.

Contrary to most people, it seems, I seem to have had bad luck (?) with the 4 50 F/1.4s I tested. Only sharp from about F/2.8, problems with focusing nearby and in low light circumstances. I prefer the 50 F/1.8 II to the F/1.4, because it is sharp from F/2, at least the 5 I tested, and I never had any focusing problems with any of them, neither nearby, nor in low light.

Other than that, on a crop camera the 60 is very, very close to a classical portrait lens in FoV. I have used this lens in low light a lot, before getting fast L primes, and it did quite well in relatively poor lit circumstances. I did manage to shoot at 1/45s without much trouble, handheld, using good techniques. And at F/2.8, 1/45s and 1600 iso a few light bulbs are plenty of light.

Other than that, it is also good at macro , and a great short tele landscape lens, and a few other uses.

Very highly recommended!

I sold mine after acquiring a 5D, but there is another one in my future. I really miss it.

Kind regards, Wim

I would agree that the 50f1.4 isn't sharp wide open , however stopped down it is extremely sharp

I Simonius wrote in post #6712700
I would agree that the 50f1.4 isn't sharp wide open , however stopped down it is extremely sharp

Yes, sharpest at F/5.6 .

However, I want to use an F/1.4 lens at F/1.4. Personally, I can't with the 50 F/1.4. The 50 F/1.8, being a less extreme 50 mm Gaussian design, is much better up to F/2.8, which is why I prefer it. However, gimme a 50L anyday, when talking 50s . But I honestly do prefer the 60 F/2.8 macro well above the non-L 50s. My copy of the 60 macro was better than any of the 50s I tested/owned, except for my current 50L. And that is a lot of 50s in total (16, except the current 50L).

Kind regards, Wim

wimg wrote in post #6712741
Yes, sharpest at F/5.6 .

However, I want to use an F/1.4 lens at F/1.4. Personally, I can't with the 50 F/1.4. The 50 F/1.8, being a less extreme 50 mm Gaussian design, is much better up to F/2.8, which is why I prefer it. However, gimme a 50L anyday, when talking 50s . But I honestly do prefer the 60 F/2.8 macro well above the non-L 50s. My copy of the 60 macro was better than any of the 50s I tested/owned, except for my current 50L. And that is a lot of 50s in total (16, except the current 50L).

Kind regards, Wim

do you rate the 50L?

I have read very mixed reports about it

wimg wrote in post #6712741
Yes, sharpest at F/5.6 .

However, I want to use an F/1.4 lens at F/1.4. Personally, I can't with the 50 F/1.4. The 50 F/1.8, being a less extreme 50 mm Gaussian design, is much better up to F/2.8, which is why I prefer it. However, gimme a 50L anyday, when talking 50s . But I honestly do prefer the 60 F/2.8 macro well above the non-L 50s. My copy of the 60 macro was better than any of the 50s I tested/owned, except for my current 50L. And that is a lot of 50s in total (16, except the current 50L).

Kind regards, Wim

sure , it's pretty rough at f1.4.

I remember back with the FD lenses , being very disappointed when I bought the FD 501.4, that it was no wheere near as good as the FD 501.8