02-24-2011, 11:38 AM
[quote name='Frank' timestamp='1298544414' post='6313']
Thank you very much, guys!
From your answers I got a feeling: for shooting something with rich texture, a macro lens will do much better than a normal lens; otherwise the difference between a macro lens and a good normal lens will not be much. For shooting landscape, a 60mm macro will give similar results to a 50mm 1.8. So, a macro lens can be used as a *good* normal lens in general, and in some special situation can give much better results. Am I right?
[/quote]
I don't think so. The 60mm micro (AF-S) is not really special, it does not have super bokeh for instance. It is not sharper either, see the results from the photozone reviews... in fact, the 50mm f1.8 is sharper.What I can not judge is whether the micro is more contrasty. It might not, due to the higher optical element count.
What you read is a blanket statement, which does not always apply (and probably only applies sometimes). Some macro lenses are special, like the 1:2 100mm f2 Zeiss macro. Others are just ok lenses, that happen to be able to focus closer than "normal" lenses.
In short:
The Nikon 60mm f2.8 micro (AF-S) is NOT sharper than the Nikon 50mm f1.8.
The Nikon 60mm f2.8 micro (AF-S) will focus closer by than the Nikon 50mm f1.8.
The Nikon 60mm f2.8 micro (AF-S) will not open as wide as the Nikon 50mm f1.8.
The Nikon 60mm f2.8 micro (AF-S) will focus slower than the Nikon 50mm f1.8.
I would not consider the 60mm f2.8 micro just as a replacement for a 50mm f1.8. Only when you want a 60mm macro, and you do not also want the 50mm f1.8, it makes sense as "normal" prime. The 50mm f1.8 is the superior lens as normal prime.
The Nikon 50mm f1.8 happens to be quite a good little lens, for a very affordable price. If you happen to be able to afford a full frame DSLR, I think not getting this lens is false economy.
Thank you very much, guys!
From your answers I got a feeling: for shooting something with rich texture, a macro lens will do much better than a normal lens; otherwise the difference between a macro lens and a good normal lens will not be much. For shooting landscape, a 60mm macro will give similar results to a 50mm 1.8. So, a macro lens can be used as a *good* normal lens in general, and in some special situation can give much better results. Am I right?
[/quote]
I don't think so. The 60mm micro (AF-S) is not really special, it does not have super bokeh for instance. It is not sharper either, see the results from the photozone reviews... in fact, the 50mm f1.8 is sharper.What I can not judge is whether the micro is more contrasty. It might not, due to the higher optical element count.
What you read is a blanket statement, which does not always apply (and probably only applies sometimes). Some macro lenses are special, like the 1:2 100mm f2 Zeiss macro. Others are just ok lenses, that happen to be able to focus closer than "normal" lenses.
In short:
The Nikon 60mm f2.8 micro (AF-S) is NOT sharper than the Nikon 50mm f1.8.
The Nikon 60mm f2.8 micro (AF-S) will focus closer by than the Nikon 50mm f1.8.
The Nikon 60mm f2.8 micro (AF-S) will not open as wide as the Nikon 50mm f1.8.
The Nikon 60mm f2.8 micro (AF-S) will focus slower than the Nikon 50mm f1.8.
I would not consider the 60mm f2.8 micro just as a replacement for a 50mm f1.8. Only when you want a 60mm macro, and you do not also want the 50mm f1.8, it makes sense as "normal" prime. The 50mm f1.8 is the superior lens as normal prime.
The Nikon 50mm f1.8 happens to be quite a good little lens, for a very affordable price. If you happen to be able to afford a full frame DSLR, I think not getting this lens is false economy.