[samos1111]

[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).

[Brightcolours]

[quote name='_sem_' timestamp='1301667517' post='7295']

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).

[/quote]

I tend to ignore Bjorn, his assessments are... peculiar. I rather base my opinion on tests done by for instance photozone and images made with the lenses.

I know that the 50mm f1.8 is not awesome wide open, but which f1.8 50mm is? At f2.8 it IS sharp, and on the whole it is sharper than the 60mm f2.8. I know its bokeh is not perfect, nor is that from the 60mm micro. That the Tamron 60mm f2 has nicer bokeh, I agree.

The 60mm micro is no speed demon either AF-ing, and that has not so much to do with the macro part of its focus path, but more that macro lenses tend to have a longer, more precise focus path anyway.



So, yes I am sure of that the 60mm f2.8 micro-Nikkor does not make a better normal lens than the 50mm f1.8, and that is what the question was about... it has more CA, it is a bit less sharp, it is more expensive. And it does not open as wide.

Does the Tamron 60mm f2 then make a better normal lens? no, because it is an APS-C lens.



The same goes for my Nikkor 55mm f3.5 micro... It is considered to be the sharpest Nikkor SLR lens at macro distances, but does it make a better standard lens? No... this first gen.. loses sharpness at "infinity", making it less sharp than "normal" 50mm lenses outside of the macro realm. It also does not open wider than f3.5. I can use it as normal lens, of course... but it does not better the 50mm f2/1.8/1.4's.



I am just answering the question, not other questions like "Can I use a 60mm f2.8 micro as normal lens and macro lens combined?".