Nikon 50mm Af or 60mm Micro AF

Creagerj

Creagerj

Incidental Artist
Local time
9:39 AM
Joined
Jan 25, 2006
Messages
626
Okay,
I've been purchasing lenses for my D200, and I'm to the point were I want a semi-telephoto/portrait lens. What I am having trouble with is choosing between the 50mm f/1.8 AF, or the 60mm f/2.8 Micro AF. Which lens would be better?

I like the 50mm f/1.8 because it is a good lens, and it is inexpensive, but I'm worried that the 75mm equivalent would be too short for a portrait lens.

I like the 60mm because it is also a good lens, and not to mention it has great macro capabilities, which is something I have always wanted to explore. On top of that, the lens is supposed to be really sharp, and since the majority of my photography is documentary like work, I like the idea of a lens that makes people and other things look ultra-realistic. The only problem is that this lens goes for $200-$300 on eBay, if not more. That's nearly twice as much money, and I'm not sure that this lens is that much more useful or that much better than the 50mm, which is half as much money.

Any suggestions?

Is the 60mm a really great lens all around? Or does it have some draw backs?
 
I do not know either lens, but if I were in your place the 60 Micro would be my choice. It offers both close-up capability and a slightly longer focal length, valuable in both close-up and portrait work. The difference in speed is not significant, in my opinion.
 
The 6o's focus throw is longer, and a bit slower if you forgot to set the focus limit. And it's bigger. Apart from that, it's a very good lens.
 
Having shot extensively with the D200/300, I would unconditionally recommend the 50/1.8. This lens is a stunner and incredible value for money. It will also be a more suitable choice for available/low light and using shallow depth of field. A no-brainer really
 
robbo said:
Here's a sample; D300, 50/1.8, ISO 200.
Click to expand...

Robbo,

I think you could have shot that thru an empty guiness bottle and still got a stunning image. The subject is amazing!:D

I have a D300 and use mostly prime lenses including the 50/1.4 & 60/2.8. I personally prefer the 60.

Best regards,

Bob
 
Yes, she is rather nice isn't she:>) However, even with a model like Kayla, if you use a macro lens, you then have to spend ages in PS removing all the minute blemishes you couldn't see beforehand. I find the 50/1.8 more forgiving in that respect.
 
The Bokeh on the AF-Nikkor 50/1.8 tends to be harsh. I had one, sold it, and went with the 50/1.4 AF-Nikkor.

I also have the 60/2.8 Micro-Nikkor. I've used it with the SB-29 ring light for a couple of portrait shots, but mostly for equipment pictures. It is very sharp. If you do a lot of macro photography, it is hard to beat.

picture.php


picture.php


It is not a small lens.
 
Brian Sweeney said:
Do you HAVE to have an AF lens?

http://cgi.ebay.com/Nikon-55mm-f2-8...iewItemQQptZCamera_Lenses?hash=item3efc4e7e51

The 55mm F2.8 Micro-Nikkor is AIS, and uses a floating element to be sharp across all distances.
Click to expand...

Actually, AF is kind of important. I am currently shooting with MF AIS Nikkors, and I am trying to move away from that because I mostly do photojournalism, and trying to shoot MF's on a DSLR isn't that easy.

The speed difference between the 50mm and 60mm isn't really that important to me, I shoot with a 50mm MF right now, and almost always shoot at f/2.8 or smaller.

The 50mm is definitely priced right, but I would like the extra features of the 60mm.

The ultra-sharpness of the 60mm is kind of a plus, because I will be taking mostly candid portraits, and I like the idea of the image being very realistic, and revealing lots of detail, but since I take photos for a news paper, and some people I photograph might get offended by that.

I don't know, maybe I should just go for the 50mm and wait on getting a macro lens. If I already had the 50mm, it would matter as much if I got an MF 55mm macro for macro work. I really only need AF for taking pics of people who are moving around and what not, and those certainly won't be macro pics.

So much to choose from...damn Nikon and their extensive line of high quality lenses...:eek:
 
The 50 1.8 has focus shift which means the focus point changes as the lens stops down.
As you focus wide open, this is a problem. Casual users will not see it, but if you try to calibrate it on a camera that has that ability, it will give you fits.. The next problem i found was if I calibrate for close, the distance goes off. I can`t make it work correctly for both. I settled on 12 feet, F5.6. Most people would be happy.

Buy a 50 1.8 Ais instead and manual focus.

The 60 2.8 works better, but is still not perfect. It is very difficult to get near infinity object to come into perfect focus which is why people say the lens does not work at infinity. It does, you just need a focus aid. The focus changes considerably with only a few degrees of focus ring rotation, not a defect but that is how micro lenses work.

Katz Eye split image will do it for you. Manual focus is questionable on my d200 before I got it, but now all my lenses sharpened up considerably. Understand the focus screen and the auto focus sensors are two separate and independent systems. The green light is plain sloppy and almost useless. I installed the Katz Eye in both my 200 and 700 but the screen required shiming to get perfect focus. There is an adjustment screw on both cameras to help. If that is insufficient, you can get different shims from Nikon. I used a special tape on the nikon to move the screen .0002", 2/10000". That is thinner than paper. Then tweeked the adj screw. Rachel will walk you thru it if you buy the screen.

The 60 has no discernable distortion. The 50 just a little.

The 50 AFD is worth the $50 I paid for it. The AIS was $125 and worth it, manual focus and all.

If I could have but one, I would get the 60. I would not count on doing manual focus portraits with it though.

One reason I left DX was the lack of portrait lenses. I would use a 55/200 VR or 70/300 vr
as a portrait lens. Either will work fine at 5.6. If you use AF, the 60 will be fine.

Optical quality between the 50 AFD and AiS is not significant.

save you pennies and get FX some day. Then the lenses work the way they were designed. You will note the price of old manual focus Nikors has exploded recently. That is because of FX. Lucky for me I was ahead of the rush.

A 70/210 4~5.6 for around $150 will work fine to. Use 70mm. That is the same as the classic 100 mm portrait length on full frame.
 
Ronald M said:
The 50 1.8 has focus shift which means the focus point changes as the lens stops down.
As you focus wide open, this is a problem. Casual users will not see it, but if you try to calibrate it on a camera that has that ability, it will give you fits.. The next problem i found was if I calibrate for close, the distance goes off. I can`t make it work correctly for both. I settled on 12 feet, F5.6. Most people would be happy.

Buy a 50 1.8 Ais instead and manual focus.

The 60 2.8 works better, but is still not perfect. It is very difficult to get near infinity object to come into perfect focus which is why people say the lens does not work at infinity. It does, you just need a focus aid. The focus changes considerably with only a few degrees of focus ring rotation, not a defect but that is how micro lenses work.

Katz Eye split image will do it for you. Manual focus is questionable on my d200 before I got it, but now all my lenses sharpened up considerably. Understand the focus screen and the auto focus sensors are two separate and independent systems. The green light is plain sloppy and almost useless. I installed the Katz Eye in both my 200 and 700 but the screen required shiming to get perfect focus. There is an adjustment screw on both cameras to help. If that is insufficient, you can get different shims from Nikon. I used a special tape on the nikon to move the screen .0002", 2/10000". That is thinner than paper. Then tweeked the adj screw. Rachel will walk you thru it if you buy the screen.

The 60 has no discernable distortion. The 50 just a little.

The 50 AFD is worth the $50 I paid for it. The AIS was $125 and worth it, manual focus and all.

If I could have but one, I would get the 60. I would not count on doing manual focus portraits with it though.

One reason I left DX was the lack of portrait lenses. I would use a 55/200 VR or 70/300 vr
as a portrait lens. Either will work fine at 5.6. If you use AF, the 60 will be fine.

Optical quality between the 50 AFD and AiS is not significant.

save you pennies and get FX some day. Then the lenses work the way they were designed. You will note the price of old manual focus Nikors has exploded recently. That is because of FX. Lucky for me I was ahead of the rush.

A 70/210 4~5.6 for around $150 will work fine to. Use 70mm. That is the same as the classic 100 mm portrait length on full frame.
Click to expand...

I intend to upgrade to FX eventually, which is why I am buying up lenses now. I figure that by the time I get into FX, I will only need to buy a tele lens.

Also, I actually have the the 50mm AIS right now. I have considered getting the Katz eye for my D200, but I have read mixed reviews on it.

I'm a little confused by what you are saying, is it that the 60mm and the 50mm don't work well in MF mode, AF mode, or both?
 
I REALLY like my Nikkor 50mm f/1.8 AF-D. I use it on film cameras however, so not sure about the digital translation. I do however know that the thing is sharp and has fast AF.
 
I have both the 50mm f/1.8 AF D and the 60mm F/2.8 AF D Micro. They will both work as medium portrait lenses on a DX body. The 60 is probably better, not just because of the sharpness (the whole "it's too sharp thing is a red herring - you can easily blur it up.) Two big advantages of the 60 are the 20% further stand off, and the better look to out of focus backgrounds.

A lot of folks consider the 60 to be a portrait lens that happens to close focus.
 
not_in_good_order said:
Have you done macro photography before? Do you think you will get a lot of use out of the capabilities of a dedicated macro lens?
Click to expand...

I've done some before, and I've always wanted to do more. I guess mainly I want to have the ability should I have the urge to do so.
 
This is with an AF-Nikkor 35~80 f4~F5.6 Zoom. An earlier one, with the metal lens mount. Dirt Cheap. Molded Aspheric optics. This and the 50/1.8 will run much less than the 60/2.8. The other "inexpensive" Nikon zooms- the 35-70 3.3~4.5 is surprisingly good, and the 28~70 F3.5~F4.5. These are plentiful and cheap, should not be eliminated from the equation if speed is not an issue.



picture.php


Just an illustration of the 28~70 F3.5~4.5... KEH also has some in, well under $100 for EX condition.

http://cgi.ebay.com/Nikon-28-70mm-D...iewItemQQptZCamera_Lenses?hash=item19b9b66e22
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom