Nikon 60mm 2.8d and 50mm 1.8g : is it worth keeping both or sell one ?

[vashok1]

I have recently purchased a 60mm 2.8d for macros. I already have a 50mm 1.8g. Guess,  I should have asked this question before buying but here I am wondering if 60mm would be enough for portraits as I read, and I can sell the 50mm ?

So, more specifically,  If I sell 50mm 1.8g what will I miss which I wont get in 60mm besides the difference in focal length and autofocus speed ? Don't want to regret later.

Thanks.

Ashok

[MEPER]

Which camera is it used on (dx or fx)?

I would sell the 60/2.8 and keep the 50mm and then later "get" a 105mm macro for macro shots to have a longer working distance for macro.
105mm could also be a nice lens for portraits. 

[Akira]

In general, I would echo MEPER.

AF-S 50/1.8G is an optical gem.  It worked as a perfect all-rounder when I shot with D750.  Its resistance to the flare and the ghost is unparalleled.

[David H. Hartman]

I would keep both the AF-S 50/1.8G and the AF-D 60/2.8 Micro. They are different lenses for different use although the 60/2.8 can pretty well double as a macro and normal lens in daylight. The AF-S 50/1.8G is preferred greatly after the sun sets. Neither lens blurs backgrounds much has their entrance pupils aren't physically large.

I agree with the recommendation for a 105/2.8 Micro lenses. The choices I recommend are the 105/2.8 AIS for macro and portraits. I recommend both PN-11 and PK-13 tube for the 105/2.8 AIS Micro. The 105/2.8 AIS Micro-Nikkor has floating elements so it's best to use the shortest extension tube possible once focusing past 1/2 life size. The 105/2.8 AIS Being an AIS Nikkor has great build quality but if AF is needed well it's not an auto focus lens.

The other choice I recommended is the AF-S 105/2.8G ED VR Micro-Nikkor. It's big, a honker, and it has correctable issues with axial color aberration. In Capture NX-D I turn off auto lateral color aberration and set axial color aberration correction to 70. VR is helpful where a tripod can't be used. It's also useful if lower shutter speeds are needed provide there isn't much subject movement.

Frequently a longer macro lenses than 55mm ~ 60mm is desirable as the free working distance is quite small with shorter macro lenses. With a 55 or 60mm macro lens it's all too easy to cast a shadow on your subject and there is little space for setting up lights.

If you do not feel as specific need for the AF-D 60/2.8 Micro-Nikkor such as side copying the the suggestion to buy a 105/2.8 Micro-Nikkor makes good sense.

I never bought the AF or AF-D 105/2.8 Micro-Nikkors because they have a reputation for unpleasant bokeh. The sample images shown on the net back this up.

Dave

I own the AF 60/2.8 Micro, 50/1.8G as well as both of the 105/2.8 Micro-Nikkors recommend so I practice what I preach.

Which camera is it used on (dx or fx)?

I would sell the 60/2.8 and keep the 50mm and then later "get" a 105mm macro for macro shots to have a longer working distance for macro.
105mm could also be a nice lens for portraits.

I find the 105mm focal length ideal for head and shoulders portraits. The 50/1.8 not so much. I'd use the 50/1.8 for full standing portrait. It's the lens to subject distance these lenses suggest that gives the perspective I like.

Dave

[David H. Hartman]

Here is a shot of a very ugly creature taken with a 105mm f/2.8 AIS Micro-Nikkor...

The Good, The Bad and The Very Ugly! by Dave Hartman, on Flickr

I think the inset was intended to be a 100% pixels if the Flicrk image is viewed at 1840x1228. The camera was a Nikon D800. The subject might be an assassin bug nymph.

Dave

[vashok1]

Thank you David, Akira, MEPER. I agree that a 105mm would serve both the purpose. It was the weight and the cost. Besides, I was looking to reduce the gear and I have done precisely the opposite .

I am looking at mainly flowers to photograph. ALso, I have d7500, so it is not a full-frame. Not sure if this makes any difference in the decision. I will have to wait and then decide.

But thank you so much for the responses. It is helping me clarify things running in my head.

Ashok

[ColinM]

I can't comment on the 50mm, but I do own the 105mm f2.8 AF-S Micro.
I'd like to suggest some points to consider on keeping/changing the 60mm

I am looking at mainly flowers to photograph

This could still make use of a wide range of focal lengths.
I find I've used the 105mm for almost as many distant subjects as close up.

BUT, its worth noting its a big & relatively heavy lens for its original intended purpose, or for that matter for walkaround. If you find Birna's review of it when it came out, you'll see he questioned this and the value of autofocus and esp VR in something he'd normally attach to a tripod and use manual focus for greater control.

If I was  buying again, I'd look at a longer focal length and always liked the results of the Sigma 150mm (Nikon no longer make a Micro longer than 105 mm).

Others seem to love the 60mm micro, but I like a bigger working distance from my close-up subjects (esp insects) than this seems to allow. Of course, you could wait till the Z line has a fuller range (and probably an improved 105mm macro!)

Traditional use of the 105mm f2.8 AF-S



...and "incorrect" use (with a 1.4TC)

[David H. Hartman]

Thank you David, Akira, MEPER. I agree that a 105mm would serve both the purpose. It was the weight and the cost. Besides, I was looking to reduce the gear and I have done precisely the opposite .

I am looking at mainly flowers to photograph. ALso, I have d7500, so it is not a full-frame. Not sure if this makes any difference in the decision. I will have to wait and then decide.

But thank you so much for the responses. It is helping me clarify things running in my head.

Ashok

For close-up to life size with a DX camera you might consider an AF-S 85/3.5G ED DX Micro-Nikkor. It's smaller and lighter compared to the AF-S 105/2.8G ED VR Micro-Nikkor. I don't know much about the 85/3.5 Micro so research is needed. Maybe someone here has experience. If the bokeh is good it might make a reasonable portrait lens.

For portraits an AF-S 85/1.8G might be a good choice. It's a little long on DX for my taste. It's angle of view on DX is about like a 128mm lens on FX. I believe 85/1.8's Bokeh is supposed to be nice.

Now that I know you are shooting DX I will not recommend a 105mm lens for portraits. 105mm is too long for my taste.

[Birna Rørslett]

The 85/3.5 Micro-Nikkor DX is strangely flewing under most radars. It is in fact a quite nice lens and a good performer.

[Akira]

I am looking at mainly flowers to photograph. ALso, I have d7500, so it is not a full-frame. Not sure if this makes any difference in the decision. I will have to wait and then decide.

But thank you so much for the responses. It is helping me clarify things running in my head.

Ashok

The 85/3.5 Micro-Nikkor DX is strangely flewing under most radars. It is in fact a quite nice lens and a good performer.

I was about to purchase the very AF-S DX Micro 85/3.5 several times and tried it at Nikon showroom when I was using D7000.  It has VR, can focus quite fast, and its working distance is quite large for this type of lens even at 1:1.  I didn't end up buying it simply because the AF of D7000 was not convincing.  Given the much improved AF performance of D7500, the lens should be worth considering.  Sad to find that it has been discontinued.

[Birna Rørslett]

The 85 Micro DX has virtually instantaneous AF on my D500.  The casing is (high-quality robust) plastic so the lens is lightweight and easy to bring on a trip.

A pity if it is discontinued.