lens questions for the d50

[patticakes]

Please bear with me as I'm still in the learning phase.

I have just come home with the sigma 2.8 18-50mm lens and the Nikkor 2.8 60mm fixed. It made sense at the time in the store... and now I'm not getting why I bought the fixed?? I know I'm going to appear as a complete moron. Is there a benefit on the fixed to the not?

I'm primarily hoping to do family photos, babies, kids and such. Outdoors when the weather is nice, but for a lot of the time I imagine I"ll be inside which is why I wanted the 2.8 for the low light situations. I love all that I have read up on the Sigma. All I have been doing is researching lens' for days and I'm thinking I got muddled and actually should have got the Nikkor 50mm 1.8 shouldn't I? (as opposed the the 60)

I havn't been able to find any reviews on the Nikkor 2.8 60mm can someone please fill me in(without laughing too hard?)
Thank you in advance
patti

[wh0128]

I don't really know alot about that 2.8 60mm Nikkor, but I do know that it is very sharp in picture and can focus at a minimum distance of 8 3/4" with a 1:1 reproduction image. And since you are goign to be shooting family photos, babies, kids and other things and might go outside, I think that the 60mm is perfect. Though you probably payed around 350$ for it, the 50mm 1.8 is only 99$ with a huge aperture for that inside shooting you're going to be doing. The 50mm also is very very sharp in detail at its widest aperture of 1.8. For me, if I was you, I would keep the 60mm because I like to do close-ups of flowers, some portraits, and also have some type of reach with my lense. Some more people on this site will know better than I do. I want to get the 50mm 1.8 because these forums and many reviews on it, show that it is a really really cheap lenses with really good quality,and a pretty good 'normal' lense. I think im gonna get the 50mm next, or save up and see what the reviews look like for the 70-300 f/4.5 VR that is being released in October. Again the 60mm lense you bought is mainly for 'macro' shots.

[coldrain]

Well, I am not sure either why you bought the Nikkor 60mm f2.8 macro if you did not intend to buy a macro lens.

A macro lens is a lens that lets you make photos of really small things. It is a very good macro lens though, good build quality and great optics. One of Nikkon's sharpest lenses. So... if you want to make close up macro photos of flowers or other tiny things, you did very well. If you just wanted a lower light/portrait lens, the Nikkor 50mm f1.8 would have been a better idea.

[patticakes]

Thank you both so much!!! that is exactly what I thought. I very much appreciate your input and professionalism!! :) I am looking forward to reading through the threads here and learning !

[K1W1]

I know that it is late but we are in a different time zone. :)
I can't see the point in the 60mm f2.8. I would rather have the 50mm f1.8 for the better low light performance and save some money.

[RichNY]

I know that it is late but we are in a different time zone. :)
I can't see the point in the 60mm f2.8. I would rather have the 50mm f1.8 for the better low light performance and save some money.

You are correct that the 50mm f/1.8 is cheaper and better in low light. It would certainly be the better choice if it were being use for taking a portrait.

However, for macro photography, it is not the correct lens.
The 50mm f/1.8 has a minimum focal length of 18" the 60mm is 8.8"
The 50mm f/1.8 has a magnification of 1:6.6, the 60mm is 1:1

In this case, better is determined by need.