Gear Talk > Lens Talk

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

(1/3) > >>

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.



--- Quote from: MEPER on February 09, 2021, 20:00:41 ---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.

--- End quote ---

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

Navigation

[0] Message Index

[#] Next page