Considering 60mm 2.8 Macro

[zack_zoll]

<p>Lighting also has a lot to do with why so many pros(relatvely) use macros for portrait work. If you're using lights, there's a good chance you're shooting at f/8-f/11 or so, in which case something like the 85 f/1.4 isn't really given the chance to shine. If you're using natural light, you're more likely to be around f/4 or wider than with lights, and those fast primes offer some huge advantages.</p>

<p>Also, keep in mind the distances you plan to be from your subject. If I'm not mistaken, most 60mm macro/micro lenses hit infinity at around 10 feet. Since those lenses are designed specifically for close up work, they won't be as sharp at infinity. They're not necessarily bad at infinity (although you could argue that the 60 micro-D was), but they will definitely be less sharp than they are before infinity. I would do this:</p>

<p>- Look at the exif data on your favourite 'average' photos. Note whether or not it was a wide aperture.</p>

<p>- Google focusing information on the lenses you're interested.</p>

<p>- If you're generally using a middle aperture, and standing closer than what that lens would call infinity, then a macro/micro can add sharpness to your images. Whether or not the images are better is an entirely different can of worms, but they will probably be sharper.</p>

<p>- If you're using wide apertures, or you expect to be standing at a distance that falls under 'infinity' on that lens, then you're better off sticking with your 50 f/1.4, or the 85 if you want to start buying FX lenses. The macro lenses may still have something to offer, but you won't usually be in a position to see it.</p>

<p>For what it's worth, I used to use an 85 f/1.4D in my living room for 'studio' shots. I was never more than 12 feet away, even if I was crammed against the wall, and I could do torso shots on smaller models without a problem, and head and shoulders shots with everyone. I'd still be using it today, if I hadn't sold it to buy a Hassy kit :)</p>

[cindygillespie]

<p>CPM......... I have two speed lights that I remote trigger if needed and I have two 36" (medium size I would guess) softbox strobes.<br>

I just have a small area... 20x20 with 8ft ceilings....get the picture? Very limited.<br>

Zack... I have been looking this morning at the average of my focal lengths.. that also dawned on my last night. So I will see where the focal points are laying. I typically am using any were from f4 to f11 depending on the effect I am wanting to obtain.<br>

I also do a some old school night club shots that require the faster primes the 35 and the 50 and the 24/70. I don't use flash in those environments so the wider the aperture the better. But that is not were I do portraits. I do them outside or in studio.</p>

 

[zlight_b]

<p>shun: "I am also not at all a fan of shooting portraits with f1.4, f1.8 type shallow depth of field. Those portrait images where one eye is sharp while the other is out of focus bother me to no end."<br>

thanks shun! i absolutely hate this too!</p>

[CvhKaar]

<p>Hi Cynthia,</p>

<p>In that case I'd say : investigate a voigtlander 58mm , although manual focus, it beats the 60mm macro for portrait on different levels.. excelent center sharpness, "draws" the picture not unlike a Leica lens, nice colour rendering and best bokeh in its class ( only one has a nicer bokehmaybe in this class i think, that's the Nikor 50mm 1.2 AIs, but thats just a matter of taste...) .<br>

Here it is on Photozone : <a href="http://www.photozone.de/nikon--nikkor-aps-c-lens-tests/360-voigtlander-nokton-58mm-f14-sl-ii?start=2">http://www.photozone.de/nikon--nikkor-aps-c-lens-tests/360-voigtlander-nokton-58mm-f14-sl-ii?start=2</a><br>

<br /> And mayby , just maybe, get an umbrella or twoon a stand for those speedlights i'd say, (for some extra versatility , and a different look from softboxes...)</p>

<p>Just my two cents....</p>