50mm 1.8 vs. 60mm 2.8 macro: What would be the advantage to having the 60mm 2.8 macro, if any?
77696
Biggest difference is close focus distance. The 50mm f/1.8 will only focus at 1.5 feet or farther, and this means that the subject won't fill the frame. Canon claims that the 60mm Macro will focus at 7.8", but in practice I've gotten it to focus at less than five inches. The subject will get really--REALLY--large at that point. The difference is that if you take a picture of a penny with the macro, the penny will fill the entire image. With the fifty, the penny will only be a much smaller portion of the image when shot as a closeup, since you can't get as close. Brian www.alwaysanamateur.com
1780601
One other option for you might be the 50mm 1.2L. It's just as superb (and erratic) as the 85mm 1.2.
1686347
thank so much what do you think about the 55mm 2.8what is best deal i have physical limitations due to wheel chair but lve macro concept
726801
Macro lenses are by design usually better than most prime lenses. In this case my Nikon 40mm will out preform most of my very expensive primes. And yes they carry this performance to any distance.And contrary to the other commentary it will focus accurately at any distance including infinity.I know because I use it thus many times a week.
827152
I don't have the 35mm 2.4 but I do have the 35mm 2.8 macro which I like very much (though the price difference is considerable). The 50mm is an excellent lens and is one of the first ones I grab when I go shooting. I will say though neither the 50mm or 35mm are good for sporting events of any kind. You really can't get the distance shots with either so you might want to reconsider using them for those purposes. The 50mm and 35mm are good for family photos, street photography and candid portraits. I hope that helps.
996813
The biggest difference is how close you want to get to your subject? What will you be shooting macros of the most? Is the Tamron a 2.8 also? Because that is a very nice aperture to have. As to whether the Tamron will work, I honestly don't know because I'm not familiar with your camera. The Tamron website should be able to tell you. I know people with Tamron lenses and they like them.
735069
It definitely has a far superior build quality. I feel more confident with it on my camera. I have taken quite a few shots wide open at 2.8 and have been very pleased. The focusing motor is also a lot quieter than the nifty fifty. I would like the extra stops but i feel i picked the right starter prime lens and plan on a 30 mm sigma 1.4 in the future. (my brother owns the 50 1.8 and this is what i base my opinions on as I have shot some with his lens on my camera.)
1021286
I used the extension tubes in my 60D with 60mm macro and even on the 70-200 L lens. They do increase the close up ability. But the AF is somewhat functionless, and I have to move my camera back and forth manually to get the best focus. Hope this will help you.
1368480
Depends on the lens. The 60mm macro from nikon works reasonably well but you can't get as close. It's important to note that your photos won't be as sharp with the V1 but the V3 produces good results. The real benefit of the FT1 is with longer focal length lenses like the 18-200 and 70-300. I use mine with primes like the 35 and 50 1.8 lenses and get excellent results. Slower lenses only really work in ideal lighting, so a macro will need good light to get the best results. You can get pretty close with a 35 mm prime.
1008810
The 50mm f/1.8 will be able to gather more light than the 35mm f/2.4 and will provide a "nicer" bokeh so it is better suited for portrait photography (indoor or outdoor). It's main drawback compared with the 35mm with be the field of view (50mm becomes a 75mm whereas 35mm becomes approximately a 52mm on pentax DSLR). What it means is that in a close and restricted environment you won't be able to put everyone in the frame. Outside, the 50mm is better, inside, it depends. For kids sporting events you might want to use longer focal length (at least 100mm or higher) and fast lenses if the event is indoor (at least f/2 or lower). I wouldn't recommend any of the ones you talked for this. I have both a 50mm and a 35mm. I love both, and use them both during family gatherings or things like this. I also use my 35mm for landscape photography. Honestly it's a matter of taste.
735073
I have both the 50mm f1/8 and 40mm f2.8 lens. Both have very short DOF so you have to be careful of your focus. The 50 mm is slightly cheaper but I would rate the 40mm a 4.4 out of 5 and the 50mm 4.2 out of 5.
189737
Lighter weight. Better image. Works in a lot less light. The 50 is very inexpensive. I use the 85mm 1.8 quite a bit. Great lens, older metal version or newer plastic one.
11860
Hopefully, you've already made your decision since the prices of both lenses has gone up significantly. I have these two lenses and both lenses are incredibly sharp. The 60mm's IQ in many respects is indistinguishable from the 100mm's. The build quality of the 60 is very nice as well although it isn't weather sealed. The two main advantages the 100mm brings to the table are IS--which would be of limited value with the 60mm--, and length--the extra 40mm means you don't need to get as close to those creepy crawly critters. IS doesn't add much for shorter focal lengths. A lot of macro shooters claim IS doesn't matter regardless because they always shoot with a tripod. I shoot with a tripod only when I have to (I'm stubborn). Thus, I do like it on the 100mm. I really see the value when I switch to my 135L. The shake is quite obvious and would be just a bit better for the 100mm without IS. The added length is indisputably worthwhile. However, you have to determine whether these benefits are worth paying 2.5 times the price.
1333592
Probably a 50 mm would work better for the job, but this macro lens works beautiful on both worlds. And it's reasonably economically
1630950
It's not fair to make the comparison between these two kind of lenses in my opinion as each has its own forte and fulfills a different function. If you want both portrait work and macro then you should get the 100mm macro. While you can use the 50mm for portrait work, it is more suited for full body portrait. For closeup, the 100mm is better (less distortion). Of course you can use just about any lens for any application...some just won't perform very well. With the 100mm, it would be very tough to take landscape pictures (wide angle scenics shots). The 50mm would be better (though not ideal for your T2i which has a 1.6x crop factor). If you must have only one lens, I'd go for the 50mm.
735067
My personal opinion I like it on my Full fram 5D MK 2 in term of sharpness wide open and step down compared with the 50mm 1.8
1249484
Both Lens are Different . One is macro and one I prime. If you Have money invest in both and If you have budget in mind go for Prime. All the best.