Switch to English Language Passer en langue française Omschakelen naar Nederlandse Taal Wechseln Sie zu deutschen Sprache Passa alla lingua italiana
Members: 69,905   Posts: 1,521,392   Online: 1069
      
Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12
Results 11 to 14 of 14
  1. #11
    benjiboy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    U.K.
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    6,672
    I've been into photography for more than fifty years and have never had any need or desire for a macro lens, I.M.O. for general photography the 50mm f1.4 lens is much more useful.
    Ben

  2. #12

    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    UK
    Shooter
    35mm RF
    Posts
    78
    Images
    14
    I have never had a 50mm Nikon prime, but I bought the 55mm (non AF) because I thought it could serve both as a normal lens and a macro. I used it to document stuff for work for about 15 years. As a short macro it is superb. As a normal lens I found it rather disappointing: not sharp and (obviously) not terribly fast either. A practical irritation is that the front element is very difficult to clean (because it is so deeply recessed). Of course that also means it doesn't ordinarily need a lens hood, but then again you have no choice but to add filters in front of that deep hood, and you need an extra hood to shield the filters.... I'm afraid that lens contributed to me moving from Nikon to Leica, something I shall never regret.

  3. #13
    narsuitus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    537
    I own and use the Nikon 55mm f/3.5 macro and the 50mm f/1.4. Many times when I have been shooting close-ups and macro with the 55, I also needed to use it for general shooting. As long as there was enough light, the 55 has performed very well as a general-purpose lens; even at infinity focus.

    On the other hand, the last two times I was in extended travel status, I carried my 50mm f/1.4 and not my 55mm macro because I thought I would be doing a lot of low-light shooting and no close-up and/or macro shooting. I was wrong. I did need the fast 1.4 for low-light shooting but I also needed to shoot macro and close-up subjects that the 50mm was able to handle.

    Next time, I will carry both lenses or at least carry a set of supplemental close-up lenses with the 50mm f/1.4.

    However, in answer to your request for advice or opinions, here is what I recommend (in order of priority) for your situation:

    1. 50mm f/1.8 or f/2 (great low-cost normal lens for general shooting)
    2. 50mm f/1.4 (if needed for shooting under dimly lit conditions)
    3. 55mm f/3.5 (if primarily needed for macro and close-up shooting)

    http://www.flickr.com/photos/11336821@N00/5535954258/

    http://www.flickr.com/photos/11336821@N00/5535954258/
    Attached Thumbnails Attached Thumbnails Nikon 50mm 03 sml.JPG   Nikon F2 040 sml.JPG  

  4. #14

    Join Date
    Dec 2012
    Shooter
    35mm
    Posts
    20
    I would recomend nikkor 55/f2.8. Great allrounder lens for naturephotography.

Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12


 

APUG PARTNERS EQUALLY FUNDING OUR COMMUNITY:



Contact Us  |  Support Us!  |  Advertise  |  Site Terms  |  Archive  —   Search  |  Mobile Device Access  |  RSS  |  Facebook  |  Linkedin