04-01-2011, 02:18 PM
[quote name='Brightcolours' timestamp='1298547492' post='6315']
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.
[/quote]
Intriguing. How certain are you about this? Only handled it briefly myself but it has a remarkable reputation, for example see Bjorn Rorslett's assessment.
Obviously it does not open as wide. Regarding sharpness, the 60 does not have a problem, and the 50 isn't perfect wide-open either. The 50 is great for the money but its bokeh is not perfect; I've got the Tamron 60/2 macro (DX) and its bokeh is nicer (got the 50 also). I think F/2 is a bit of an exaggeration by Tamron, but it gets great by F/2.8, no loCA etc. Regarding AF speed, the 50/1.8 is no speed demon on the D90 and the Tamron 60 is about as fast when it lock focus, I guess the Nikkor 60G is faster and silent. The AF issue with both these macros is the lack of the AF limit switch, meaning trips over the macro range when there is nothing to lock on under the active AF point(s), so they're no good for action.
The tricky thing with the Nikkor 60G is that it is a specialty wide-angle macro as it shrinks the FL a lot when focusing close, and the macro working distance at 1:1 is 5cm, so it makes a great second macro lens in addition to a longer one; the Tamron behaves more like a midrange macro, WD is 10cm.
You may put the 50/1.8D on auto extension tubes and get a still quite user-friendly and useful 1:1 if using it stopped-down. But one may be surprised how much the thin air inside the tube degrades the performance up to F/8 (sharpness, CA).
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.
[/quote]
Intriguing. How certain are you about this? Only handled it briefly myself but it has a remarkable reputation, for example see Bjorn Rorslett's assessment.
Obviously it does not open as wide. Regarding sharpness, the 60 does not have a problem, and the 50 isn't perfect wide-open either. The 50 is great for the money but its bokeh is not perfect; I've got the Tamron 60/2 macro (DX) and its bokeh is nicer (got the 50 also). I think F/2 is a bit of an exaggeration by Tamron, but it gets great by F/2.8, no loCA etc. Regarding AF speed, the 50/1.8 is no speed demon on the D90 and the Tamron 60 is about as fast when it lock focus, I guess the Nikkor 60G is faster and silent. The AF issue with both these macros is the lack of the AF limit switch, meaning trips over the macro range when there is nothing to lock on under the active AF point(s), so they're no good for action.
The tricky thing with the Nikkor 60G is that it is a specialty wide-angle macro as it shrinks the FL a lot when focusing close, and the macro working distance at 1:1 is 5cm, so it makes a great second macro lens in addition to a longer one; the Tamron behaves more like a midrange macro, WD is 10cm.
You may put the 50/1.8D on auto extension tubes and get a still quite user-friendly and useful 1:1 if using it stopped-down. But one may be surprised how much the thin air inside the tube degrades the performance up to F/8 (sharpness, CA).