still cant decide people? - DPChallenge Forums

01/14/2007 04:48:10 PM · #3

It a no brainer. Go for the 60...don't it have a smaller min. aperture?

01/14/2007 04:52:23 PM · #4

Originally posted by David Ey:

It a no brainer. Go for the 60...don't it have a smaller min. aperture?

Eh... re-read the initial post.

01/14/2007 04:55:59 PM · #5

Originally posted by tooohip:

Originally posted by David Ey:
It a no brainer. Go for the 60...don't it have a smaller min. aperture?

Eh... re-read the initial post.

OK, now what?

Ivo

01/14/2007 04:57:25 PM · #6

I had the 60mm 2.8 and it is a very sharp lens. It ios great for macros as well. Curious why you'd want to spend $400 plus on the 60mm when ou have a fantastic portrait lens with the 50mm? Oh yeah, I got rid of my 60mm because it is loud and the zoom is too finicky handheld for macros.

Sigma 105mm f/2.8 EX DG Macro for Canon

01/14/2007 04:59:44 PM · #7

Originally posted by David Ey:

Originally posted by tooohip:

Originally posted by David Ey:
It a no brainer. Go for the 60...don't it have a smaller min. aperture?

Eh... re-read the initial post.

OK, now what?

The choice is between an 85 1.8 and a 60 2.8

1.8 vs. 2.8

1.8 = wider aperture

If you really meant that you would rather have a smaller min. aperture, then yes, the 60 has a smaller min aperture, but a wider min aperture is always better when it comes to lens selection.

Tranquil

Canon EOS-300D Rebel

01/14/2007 05:03:58 PM · #8

The 85mm f/1.8 is a great piece of glass. It really depends on what types of portraits you are looking to do -- for headshots the 85 is great, but you have to realize that it's minimum focusing distance is just a little less than three feet.

I loved the 85mm, but for portraits I also can really back-up the 200mm f/2.8 as an option.

Nikolai1024

Nikon D300

Nikon AF Zoom-Nikkor 24-85mm f2.8-4.0D

01/14/2007 05:07:18 PM · #9

I use my 24-85 for portraits. It's sharp and gives me flexibility to zoom. What else could you ask for?

01/14/2007 05:10:00 PM · #10

Originally posted by Nikolai1024:

I use my 24-85 for portraits. It's sharp and gives me flexibility to zoom. What else could you ask for?

Nothing can compete with a prime, so that's what I could ask for. ;-)

Canon EF 24-70mm f/2.8L USM

01/14/2007 06:52:20 PM · #11

Well, my thought was you would have better depth control with the SMALLER aper. and lighting really would not be a factor.

Ben

Canon EOS-30D

01/14/2007 06:55:31 PM · #12

Are you getting confused with smaller number, but 'wider' aperture David?
1.8 is 'wider' than 2.8.

01/14/2007 06:56:58 PM · #13

Originally posted by David Ey:

Well, my thought was you would have better depth control with the SMALLER aper. and lighting really would not be a factor.

Actually, you would have more control of depth of field with a wider aperture lens. As an example if you are shooting a portrait with a distracting background you can open the lens up as wide as it goes to throw the background out of focus easier.

Canon EF 24-70mm f/2.8L USM

01/14/2007 07:12:00 PM · #14

Actually, I guess I am confused as to which would be more versatile in reducing the background, or including it, as the shot might require. I really thought you could blur the background with either, but get more facial, or body depth with the 60 while still blurring background. I do understand the f22 is little bitty compared to f1.8
Anyway, I have no idea....carry on.

MikeJ

Canon EOS-1D Mark II

01/14/2007 07:20:51 PM · #15

I have the 85mm 1.8 and in low light, it's a great lens. For portraits, shooting at portrait distances, it's also a great lens... but not at 1.8. Unless you want about 2" of depth of field. With some people that will get their nose in focus and everything else will be out. LOL!

Even the 2.8 for portrait will be a shallow depth of field. Both are great lenses, but you have to consider how many times you are going to shoot at 1.8 or 2.8 in a portrait situation.

Mike

Quantaray AF 70-300mm f/4.0-5.6 High-Speed for Nikon

01/14/2007 07:22:16 PM · #16

Of course, but at least you have the option of the added low light usability.

Dlove

Nikon D50

01/14/2007 08:08:57 PM · #17

Ive ordered some Alien bee lighting equipment if that will help any.

Bear_Music

Samsung Galaxy S24 Ultra

Sony 24-70mm F4 Vario-Tessar T* FE OSS

01/14/2007 08:37:40 PM · #18

Geesh, you people need to focus... (pun intended) They are both great lenses. The 60mm on 1.6 crop = 96 mm (35 mm FF equivalent) which is right in the wheelhouse for "ideal" portrait range. The 85mm is perhaps a tad long on the 1.6 crop, ideal on the FF sensor. For a given magnification (i.e. head size is same on both shots) the DOF is the same at a given f/stop. If you want to have seriously restricted DOF, the 85mm is a better choice. But f/2.8 at headshot range is a very nice limited DOF. If you work with f/1.8, you better be spot on with your focusing or you are in trouble.

The 60mm has the added advantage of being a true macro lens. it's up to you...

R.

Nikon AF Zoom-Nikkor 24-85mm f2.8-4.0D

01/14/2007 08:45:48 PM · #19

Yes focus indeed. ;-) Yes, I would also go for the 60 if I didn't have a macro lens yet, however that added "lower" light usability is tempting as well.

Also, if this is for your D50, Nikon has a 1.5x crop, not that it really makes a difference from 1.6. ;)

Nikolai1024

Nikon D300

01/14/2007 10:57:23 PM · #20

Originally posted by David Ey:

... and lighting really would not be a factor.

This kind of comment bothers me so I have to say it. Lighting always matters. In fact it matters so much more than a lens. You can do wonders with stock 18-55 if you have good light and know what you doing with it.

MikeJ

Canon EOS-1D Mark II

Canon EF 24-70mm f/2.8L USM

01/14/2007 11:14:25 PM · #21

If you have a bad lens, you don't want good lighting... cause then it will show all the faults of the lens. LOL!

Mike

Qiki

Fujifilm X100T

Pentax DA 70mm f/2.4 Limited

01/14/2007 11:33:05 PM · #22

Originally posted by Bear_Music:

If you work with f/1.8, you better be spot on with your focusing or you are in trouble.

R.

What Robert said.....

I don't know if you've previously used a lens at f/1.8, but if you haven't you will find that focusing is pretty unforgiving. If your model moves slightly toward/away from you it may well be enough to throw out the focus a little because of the shallow DOF. If you intend using the camera hand-held your problems will be magnified further as you move too.

Q.

Pedro

Nikon D200

Nikon AF Zoom-Nikkor 70-200mm f/2.8 VR DG IF-ED

01/15/2007 11:30:54 AM · #23

As posted previously the 50mm and the 60mm are very similar, with the exception of the wider aperture on the 50mm. I have both and they are both extremely sharp. With studio lights, you will be shooting at F7-11 anyway, so the really wide aperture is unnecessary.

Outdoors in shade, or indoors without studio lighting, the 85mm will be a much better choice having that extra stop of light. Be aware though, that F1.8 is MUCH shallower on the 85mm than it is on your 50mm.

All things considered (including your current lens lineup) I'd say the 85mm makes more sense, provided having macro capabilities isn't high on your list of priorities.

Either way, they're both solid pieces of glass that will give tack sharp results.