Nikkor 50mm vs. 60mm lens

[oliviansmom17]

Does anyone have any thoughts on this or any examples?

 

[handicap18]

There are 2 50mm lenses. 1 is an f/1.8 and the other is an f/1.4. I have the f/1.8 lens and love it. It is on the affordable side at about $110. It is an older lens (in other words it hasn't been updated in a while, Nikon is still making them, but no changes have been made a quite a few years). It is great optically and performs well in low light. The f/1.4 version is said to be even better optically and produces better bokah. Its is also about $170 or so more.

The 60mm is an f/2.8 Macro. The macro feature on this lens is very good. Its not as fast (1 1/3 stops slower). However, optically it is excellent. Great AF, true Macro at 1:1. I have a buddy who has it and loves it. He uses it for work as he does a lot of macro stuff. It is expensive at about $250 or so more than the 50mm f/1.8.

All lenses are tack sharp and produce wonderful images. In the end it depends on your budget and what you want to use the lens for.

 

[oliviansmom17]

There are 2 50mm lenses. 1 is an f/1.8 and the other is an f/1.4. I have the f/1.8 lens and love it. It is on the affordable side at about $110. It is an older lens (in other words it hasn't been updated in a while, Nikon is still making them, but no changes have been made a quite a few years). It is great optically and performs well in low light. The f/1.4 version is said to be even better optically and produces better bokah. Its is also about $170 or so more.

The 60mm is an f/2.8 Macro. The macro feature on this lens is very good. Its not as fast (1 1/3 stops slower). However, optically it is excellent. Great AF, true Macro at 1:1. I have a buddy who has it and loves it. He uses it for work as he does a lot of macro stuff. It is expensive at about $250 or so more than the 50mm f/1.8.

All lenses are tack sharp and produce wonderful images. In the end it depends on your budget and what you want to use the lens for.

I've heard this before- what is bokah?

 

[handicap18]

I've heard this before- what is bokah?

Sorry, I spelled it wrong. Its Bokeh.

It was easier to copy the definition from wikipedia rather than try to put it into my own words.

Bokeh (from the Japanese boke ぼけ, "blur") is a photographic term referring to the appearance of out-of-focus areas in an image produced by a camera lens. Different lens bokeh produces different aesthetic qualities in out-of-focus backgrounds, which are often used to reduce distractions and emphasize the primary subject.

Typically, more expensive lenses have better bokeh. Some describe excellent bokeh as being creamy or having a creamy look. Or very smmmmoooooooth.

 

[oliviansmom17]

Sorry, I spelled it wrong. Its Bokeh.

It was easier to copy the definition from wikipedia rather than try to put it into my own words.

Bokeh (from the Japanese boke ぼけ, "blur") is a photographic term referring to the appearance of out-of-focus areas in an image produced by a camera lens. Different lens bokeh produces different aesthetic qualities in out-of-focus backgrounds, which are often used to reduce distractions and emphasize the primary subject.

Typically, more expensive lenses have better bokeh. Some describe excellent bokeh as being creamy or having a creamy look. Or very smmmmoooooooth.

Okay- I know exactly what you're talking about! There is a local camera shop with a shot of a hawk on the wall, and that's exactly how the background looks- like butter...smooth. Thank you for the explanation!
I think I'm leaning toward the 60mm. Sometimes you never know until you start working with it- at least that's what I find...Although it could be an expensive mistake!

 

[Gdad]

I have both the 50/1.8 and the 50/1.4. The 1.8 is sharp and a great value for around $100- but the 1.4 is freaky-sharp and my go-to lens right now. I have heard a lot of good stuff on the 60 macro but it's a little too short a focal length for most of the up-close things I like to shoot- usually shy little critters that scurry away before I could get that close. I prefer the 105/2.8 for macro work.

Here are a few with the 50/1.4 taken at f2.8

 

[AndrewWG]

*please pardon the interruption*

Gdad, that second shot cracks me up everytime I see it! What a perfect expression on her face! Great shot!

*now back to our thread*

 

[Gdad]

And here is some f1.4 bokeh.

 

[Gdad]

Thanks Andy-

 

[Groucho]

Typically, more expensive lenses have better bokeh. Some describe excellent bokeh as being creamy or having a creamy look. Or very smmmmoooooooth.

I believe bokeh is most commonly a function of the number of aperture blades... there are other factors but all else being equal, more blades = better bokeh. More blades give a rounder aperture, with less sharp edges. Unsurprisingly, cheaper lenses tend to have fewer blades.

Surprisingly, both the F1.8 and F1.4 Nikon 50mms have 7 blades. The Nikon 60mm has 9 blades, and are rounded (the 50mm ones are straight) to give a more circular aperture.

 

[barrie]

Perfect timing on this thread. I decided today that my next lens will be the 50mm f/1.4. Thanks for the sample shots Gdad. She's a cutie BTW!

The other lens I was considering is the 35mm f/2.0D. Does anyone have knowledge of or ideas about that?

I am mostly interested in night and low-light photography. Would one of these be better than the other?

They are both about the same price, between $285-300.

 

[Anewman]

Perfect timing on this thread. I decided today that my next lens will be the 50mm f/1.4. Thanks for the sample shots Gdad. She's a cutie BTW!

The other lens I was considering is the 35mm f/2.0D. Does anyone have knowledge of or ideas about that?

I am mostly interested in night and low-light photography. Would one of these be better than the other?

They are both about the same price, between $285-300.

Well this is a trick question...

The 50mm 1.4 is a better lens(IMO), but for the type of shooting you are describing I feel that 35mm would give a better field of view.