50mm f1.4 or 60mm f2.8 Macro?!

I'm thinking of buying the Nikon 60mm f2.8 MACRO lense for macro

photography but I also shoot a lot of portraits and am quite keen on

the 50mm f1.4 lens so I can shoot without flash indoors.

 

My question is:

 

Will the 60mm f2.8 lens still be good for portrait shots

(approximately the same focal length but just a couple of stops

slower) or is the macro lens really built purely for macro

photography?

 

Many thanks

 

Gary

The 85mm f/1.4 is a swell portrait lens as is the 105mm f/2.5 or the 105mm f/2 DC Nikkor.

 

The 60mm f/2.8 macro nikkor is too contrasty to be used as a regular portrait lens.

Forgot to mention - am using D70 so the 50mm becomes 75mm (obviously...). Not sure if this changes your responses or not...

Gary, The kit lens at 60-70mm (slower) performs decently as a portrait lens. The 50mm f/1.8 AF is much better than the micronikkor for the same purpose.

The 50mm f/1.8 has no distortion, so it may be better for portraiture. The f/1.4 has some barrel distortion depending on how close you get, which tends to accentuate a person's weight. I learned this the hard way when I used a 35mm f/1.4 on someone, and gave them an insecurity problem about their weight!<p>There is nothing wrong with using the 60mm Micro. It's probably going to be the sharpest of the lot at portrait distances, has no distortion, and a flat field. It is sharp into the corners wide open, due to the flat field. However, for portraiture Micro Nikkors are TOO sharp. I don't think anyone has a perfectly flawless / lineless complexion. I have a Zeiss Softar that I keep handy for such purposes.

I fogot to mention the sweet little Tessar 45mm f/2.8 AI-P. It supports all of the functions of the D70 due to its possessing the CPU chip. It is not an autofocus lens though. It will get you to 67.5mm effectively on your DSLR. It has no distortion to a tiny trace of pincushion (good!), and it has no chromatic abberation (great for digital). Bjorn Rorslett gives it his 5/5 rating at his site. Also, it has reputedly the best bokeh of the 45-60mm range.<p>I see by the UPS tracking that mine is to arrive today! I can't wait!

i love the 50/1.8. personally, i couldn't justify the extra cost just for a half-stop or so (for the 1.4). it's my favorite lens now.<div></div>

Forget the 50 f/1.4! On a DSLR, the 45 P, 50 f/1.8, and 60 micro are good choices but they are sharp to a fault, great if you are after the edgy harsh weather beaten look; otherwise, a Softar filter is called for with these.

 

Most macro lenses are good all purpose lenses (just more expensive and not as fast). If they have issues, it typically is out infinity.

I bought the Nikon 60mm Macro lens a few weeks ago and love it! It's great for portraiture IMO. If it's too sharp, add a little soft focus with some software. The portraits that I did on my website were shot using the 60mm. The 60mm for my purposes are absolutely perfect, as the 50mm was too short, and the 85mm is too long. Both are excellent lenses, but the 60mm is the baby bear... Just right.

I shot this portrait of my daughter with the 60 macro on a D-70 and I'm happy with it.<div></div>

Paul,<p>You have a lovely daughter. The lens gives a nice bokeh in the background.

Thanks. I'm pretty proud of her.

Thanks everyone for the advice, comments and great photos! I think I'll go ahead and get the 60mm MACRO lens - I can experiment with close up photography and can use it to great effect for portraits too.

Paul, Nice portrait and pretty daughter!

Paul at that age one can use a sharp lens for a portrait ^^ just do not conclude that a sharp lens is always the solution for a portrait.

I've been using my 50mm f1.4 for portrait work with my D70. The 60mm just has too much focus seek in it. It is very easy to blur an image in Photoshop so I don't worry about a lens being "too sharp".

There's no such thing as a lens "too sharp" for a portrait. Certain things have to be sharp, eyelashes, hair, the striations in the iris, the catchlights in the eyes, specular highlights on the lips.

 

Anything that needs to be blurred can get blurred after the fact in PhotoShop. Or, if you don't want to PhotoShop (or you're using film) you can shoot through a soft filter, a bit of nylon mesh, etc.

 

This aside, the 60mm is not a favorite of mine for portraiture. If you're critical of bokeh, it has pretty harsh bokeh. If you focus manually, the focusing action of the 60mm at portrait distances will drive you up the wall. A very tiny movement of the focusing ring makes an enormous difference.

It is interesting that many people mistake high contrast for increased "sharpness" from the "perceived"sharpness. I add here a sample shot taken using the S-Planar 60mm f/4 lens which is several times sharper (in real numbers as defined by resolution in lp/mm) than any micronikkors.<div></div>

Vivek, on which film does your lens resolve 360 lpmm?

Vivek, "any micro nikkors"? Even my 28mm ultra micro nikkor (somewhere around 800 lpm). ;)

I'm a cost-conscious bloke so I'd go for a 50mm f/1.8 Nikkor. As someone mentioned in the DSLR world you can always rely on Photoshop for those minor corrections before printing (or displaying the photo here at photo.net!) :-) Have fun.

Here is the deal:

*the best portrait lens aside the one you use is the 105mm f/1.8 - It is much better than the 85mm f/1.4 because it provides more distance between you and the subject. *next, the best 50mm is the f/1.2 and can be picked up relatively inexpensive and its worth the extra money. I have the 55mm f/2.8 macro and I use only for macro.*lastly, I shootly mainly Leica but was blown away by the picture quality rendered by the 50mm f/1.2....(all mf of course)