50mm 1.4 Ai-S OR 55mm 2.8 Ai-S

<p>I have to get either of <strong>50mm 1.4 Ai-S</strong> OR <strong>55mm 2.8 Ai-S Micro</strong>.</p>

<p>I am not much into macro but thought if I get <strong>55mm 2.8 Ai-S Micro</strong> then would it be of some benefit.</p>

<p>I understand 1.4 and 2.8 is big differentiators but still want to know would getting <strong>55mm 2.8 Ai-S Micro</strong> be a great advantage.</p>

<p>Plus please let me know the lens quality of both i.e. number of elements etc.</p>

<p>I am getting each one for 176 USD.</p>

<p>Looking forward for response that will help me in decision making.</p>

<p>Thanks in anticipation.</p>

<p>Regards,</p>

<p>Riz</p>

<p>I just read that on DSLR the 50mm becomes 75mm. I have Nikon D60, please let me know that would I be getting 75mm instead of 50mm?</p>

<p>I`m owner of both, and a FF user. Personally, the main benefit I see on the macro lens (maybe the only benefit) is that you can focus closer. I try to remember that is also sharper at certain apertures.<br /> Other than this, the loss of two stops is a major drawback to me. It is also noticeably longer.<br /> As a micro lens coud be interesting for bellows use. For other applications, the working distance could be a bit scarce, making preferable a longer focal.<br /> If you`re not much into macro, or you don`t have special needs, I`d advice the f1.4 for those who want a standard lens. </p>

<p>Thanks Jose. Also got to know that 50mm 1.8 is better than 1.4 one. What do you say on that.</p>

<p>If you don't need or want macro, don't buy it.</p>

<p>If you're buying a lens you want to actually focus on your D60, if you want a "standard" lens, get the 35mm f1.8 AF-S, which is darn close to 50mm equivalent field of view. I have one, and it's excellent for that camera.</p>

<p>If you truly want the 75mm angle of view, you can get a 50mm f1.8D or f1.4D, but they don't focus on your camera (they DO meter, though). Both are excellent.</p>

<p>If you want the 75mm angle of view and you want auto-focus AND metering on your camera, you will be in the 450 to 500 range at least for the Nikkor 50mm f1.4G or the Sigma 50mm f1.4 HSM. Both are excellent.</p>

<p>We need to know what you want to shoot or how you'll use the photos you shoot to give you good advice, but buying a lens like this that won't meter or AF on your camera may not be wise for you. I wouldn't do it.</p>

<p>As far as lens specs, you can google to find those very easily.</p>

<p>I have the 50mm f/1.4 D and I love it. I have the macro in question as well. I agree with the previous post that macro's are what they are and I also would add that thw macro does not touch the 1.4 and the difference in speed is huge. Just my two cents.</p>

<p>-Cheers</p>

<p>Thanks Peter and Owen.</p>

<p>Peter I am interested in 50mm as its almost closer to what human eye see. I want to shot daily life pictures that can include people, street, event, occasion, architecture etc.</p>

<p>But if 35mm is that what is par with 50mm then I think I would be happy with my Nikkor 18-55mm, but again its not fast.</p>

<p>Rizwan,</p>

<p>You should look for an AF S lens to be fully compatable with your Nikon D60. Peter's recommendation of the Nikon 35mm f1.8 AF-S is what I would recommend, too. This will give you the effective focal length you seem to be looking for.</p>

<p>If you insist on choosing between the Nikkor AI-S 50mm f1.4 or the Micro-Nikkor AI-S 55mm f2.8, I would pick the Micro-Nikkor as performance is sharp at every aperture and it is all-around more usefull for close-ups and portraiture.</p>

<p><a href="http://www.photosynthesis.co.nz/nikon/specs.html">This site may be of interest to you</a>.</p>

<p>Rizwan, something you said earlier made me think perhaps you might not know that you get exactly the same field of view with a DX 50mm lens as an FX 50mm lens. The field of view changes from DX to FX, but the actual focal length stays the same.</p>

<p>Different eyes are different, but the conventional understanding is that the eye sees about the same as a "normal" lens in whatever format you shoot. For FX that's about 50mm (give or take, depending on who you ask--some prefer 35mm or 45mm). For DX, it's around 35mm (again, some prefer 28mm or even 24mm).</p>

<p>But for "walking around picture taking" I think you'd be very disappointed in a lens that wouldn't autofocus and meter on your camera.</p>

<p>Try this. Take your kit lens and use a rubber band to "lock" it at 35mm. Walk around and shoot for a while. Now "lock" it at 50 and do the same. See which you like better. In fact, first, tell us what you don't like about that lens. If you think just buying a new lens will make better photos, I hope you know it's not that simple.</p>

<p>If you're like me, you like one of those for some things and one for others. These days a LOT of my photos are being taken of kids in action (one in particular: mine), and for that, I put the primes away and stick with my 18-70. For more deliberate picture taking, I stick with either my 35mm f1.8, my 50mm f1.8 (which won't AF on your camera), or my 11-16 zoom.</p>

<p>With a DSLR that has does not have a good focusing screen for manual focusing and won't meter with manual focus lenses I would rather have a lens that will auto focus and meter with the body. The Nikkor 35mm 1.8 AF-s and the Sigma 30mm 1.4 HSM will be fully functional with you body and are about the correct focal lenght to be considered a normal lens with the DX size sensor. If you really want a short telephoto which is what a 50mm will be on a DX body then look at the Nikkor 50mm 1.4 AF-s or the Sigma 50 1.4 HSM.</p>

<p>"Hangin' w/ Mr. Hooper" is right about the 55mm being tack sharp... because it is very sharp even wide open @ f2.8. On the flip side of that is that AI-S f1.4 has that great bokeh wide open which is what a lot of portrait shooters are into. You could say both lenses have their pros and cons, so why not just get them both and tell your landlord you need an extra couple of weeks to pay the rent.<br>

You should try to get your hands on the 35mm AF-S lens they're talking about here. It is a very nice lens and would work very well on your D60.</p>

<p>I've had both. Found the 50mm 1.4 to be OK but not stellar, but the 55 2.8 micro astonishingly good, I loved it. Plus of course 1:1 macro.<br>

So I'd say if you need f2 or wider very much then of course you need the 50 1.4 otherwise I'd highly recommend the micro.<br>

Steve</p>

 

<p>Second (or third) the recommendation for the Nikon 35mm f1.8 AF-S lens for your D60. You need a lens with AF-S if you want AF to work, as there is no in-body AF motor. Any AF-D lens will not AF at all. And you need a lens with a CPU (AF, AF-D, AF-S) to have any metering on the D60.</p>

<p>I have both lenses and I can tell you they both perform very well. I purchased the 55mm Micro on ebay for peanuts, because I wanted to get into copy work, but had to send it to Nikon due to a stiff focusing ring. I heard this is comon with this lens.<br>

With that said, this lens became one of my favorite Nikon manual lenses. It is very sharp wide open all the way to f22. Although the maximum aperture is f32 I haven't ried shooting there yet. As far as I know this lens is not 1:1 you have to add a tube at the back to convert it to 1:1 life-size ratio. In any case 1:2 is not bad either if you can't afford the tube.<br>

At first I was a little(allot) dissapointed with the 50mm f1.4, because the first time I used it was on a dark overcast day not to mention the sun was starting to go down. I was using ISO 100, so I had to keep the lens wide open at f1.4 at all times. All my pictures came out rather soft. Just recently I took the lens out in the middle of a snow storm and a got some extremely sharp shots. Of course I had the aperture set beyond f1.4. This is a great lanscape lens. <br>

If I had a choice to just keep one lens I would keep the 55mm f2.8. You lose one stop of light, but in my opininon you are not really losing anything at all. </p>

 

<blockquote>

<p>Peter I am interested in 50mm as its almost closer to what human eye see. I want to shot daily life pictures that can include people, street, event, occasion, architecture etc.</p>

 

</blockquote>

<p>This is wrong. The 50mm is called the "normal lens" (for FX but by another reason) but it is very different from what your eyes normal actually see. What your eyes see is actually much wider than a "50mm" lens...Search the 'net but this very idea is so often misinterpreted and taken as the truth... </p>

<p>I agree with Leslie on the eye issue. For full frame I find a 35mm lens is far closer to what I see. 50mm is "tight". With a DX body the situation is even worse and 50mm is a mild telephoto. It took me many years to appreciate the mild wide angle. It's a classic PJ lens. I find primes are pretty silly on a modern dSLR except for macro. I'd recommend a limited range zoom that gives decent image quality, say the 17-70 kit lens (or is it 18-70, can never remember), plus the 55mm f/2.8 macro for better sharpness and macro capability. Sure, the 50mm f/1.4 and f/1.8 are faster, but it comes at a cost in money, weight and image quality if you use them wide open. If you don't use them wide open, why bother- get the zoom. </p>

<p>Sorry, my mistake, I always thought it was 1:1, but I never used it for big macro use, more just general photography.<br>

Steve</p>