Side-by-side Comparison of: Zeiss Otus 55, Sigma 50 Art, Nikkor 58G, Nikkor 50/1.4G, Nikkor 50/1.8G

donaldejose

With all due respect, I think there is a bit of prejudice (prejudging against) going on here. Just because a lens is labeled Macro doesn't mean it would not be good at other focal distances. I almost always use my 85mm f1.8 for portraits but I will have to get my old 60mm Macro out the next time I am doing some portraits and try it at f2.8, f4, f5.6 and f8 to see how it works. Don't know, never tried it. Of course, if your preference is shooting portraits at f1.4 then no f2.8 lens will work.

JJ_SO

@donaldejose No prejudging. Macro lenses are optimized for macro distances. So if you want to have only eyelashes - great. Whole person - less great. Landscape - better not.

Why do you think there are special macro lenses if the manufacturer could save some costs by just allowing 200mm lenses close up to 0.2 m instead of 2 m?

FlowtographyBerlin

@donaldejose No prejudging. Macro lenses are optimized for macro distances. So if you want to have only eyelashes - great. Whole person - less great. Landscape - better not.

Have you ever checked this out, though? (Again: serious question)

JJ_SO

It's difficult to check, because you need very clear air with not much pollution in, but yes, highest resolution was not with 105 Micro Nikkor, 85/1.4 G was better at infinity.

donaldejose

But the whole discussion was not about 58-60mm range used at infinity for landscapes. The discussion was about some people saying they liked the 58mm angle of view for portraits but didn't like the lack of sharpness in the 58mm f1.4 so I suggested trying Nikon's 60mm f2.8 macro lenses instead of stopping the 58mm f1.4 down to f2.8 to obtain sufficient sharpness. If it works, and I am not claiming it does, you could have a 58mm angle of view portrait lens for less than one third the cost of the 58mm f1.4. Of course, if you want to shoot your portraits at f1.4 this idea won't work and you should get the new Sigma 50mm f1.4 Art lens. If the colors or bokeh of the 58mm f1.4 are somehow special to you then you should get that lens and stop it down if you don't like the lack of sharpness at f1.4. Just different options for different reasons, that's all.

Vipmediastar_JZ

@donaldejose I think in comparison to the 50vs58 debate was the slight compression look that it gives. I tend to like my 24-70 from 50-70mm and most of the time at 70mm due to the compression that it gives.

JJ_SO

@donaldejose The whole thread is about 5 50mm primes. Very versatile, compared to a macro lens which has other strengths. You're suggesting macro-lenses for portrait. How about comparing them and tell us what you found? Instead of guessing or prejudging? I'd appreciate that as a good input into this discussion.

henrik1963

Come off it boys. All @donaldejose did was suggest you could give something like the 60 macro a try if you liked the FL better.

I don't know about the 60 macro. But I have had good luck with the 105 macro for people shots. So I don't see a reason why a 60 macro should not work.

I am sure the Sigma is a stunning lens - and I think I will get one at some point - but it does not make all other lenses "crap".

donaldejose

Personally, I doubt there is any significant difference between 50mm and 58 or 60mm. 85 to 105 does give a different look. My personal pick for the best 50ish portrait lens would be the Sigma 50mm Art. I don't have one yet, but it is on my "to buy" list.

Bokeh_Hunter

Personally, I doubt there is any significant difference between 50mm and 58 or 60mm. 85 to 105 does give a different look. My personal pick for the best 50ish portrait lens would be the Sigma 50mm Art. I don't have one yet, but it is on my "to buy" list.

@donaldejose - If you do not post that the Sigma 5o Art isn't the greatest lens ever made be ready to get berated like a red-headed step child.

The 60mm AF-D and AF-S are fantastic portrait lenses. The comments above are pure BS about it by people who don't own or use them. The Nikon's 60 (and the old 55mm) is legendary out of the macro lenses. I use it a lot with young kids, as you never have to worry about hitting the close focus limit and it is tack sharp. It is one of the few lenses I can say takes full advantage of the 36mp D800 sensor.

FlowtographyBerlin

Come off it boys. All @donaldejose did was suggest you could give something like the 60 macro a try if you liked the FL better.

I don't understand the discussion either. It was an interesting suggestion. Maybe someone who has both lenses can do a quick test of this and post the result here? After all, everyone's just making statements about their impressions, it'd be nice to see some images in comparison.

Personally, I doubt there is any significant difference between 50mm and 58 or 60mm. 85 to 105 does give a different look.

True, but then again, you do need slightly more distance with the 58. It's not that much though that I'd say it changes the image as dramatically as the jump to 85mm.

FlowtographyBerlin

@donaldejose - If you do not post that the Sigma 5o Art isn't the greatest lens ever made be ready to get berated like a red-headed step child.

Hahaha, touché. Some truth in there.

JonMcGuffin

A website that I find provides some pretty useful reviews is Photozone. A link to the 60mm Macro review is here: http://www.photozone.de/nikon_ff/656-nikkor6028gfx

Comparing their look at the 60mm 2.8 Macro vs the 50mm 1.8G @ 2.8 their sharpness scores and general categorization of the lenses appear to be quite similar. So, to PitchBlack's point earlier, I'm not sure why one wouldn't just buy the 50mm 1.8G and stop it down to 2.8 and now you have a lens that is generally as good as the 60mm Macro.

Or course you lose the close focus benefit, and 60mm is closer than 50mm but we're talking 10mm here. I'm not a big believer in the notion of "zoom with your feet" but 10mm is small, for that you can zoom with your feet.

Sounds like either would be a good option frankly as I think what's more important here is that the Nikon 50mm 1.8G and the 60mm 2.8G actually offer fantastic value with generally excellent "pro" performance at a fraction of the cost of the Sigma 1.4's and 58mm 1.4's.

Jon