ef 85mm 1.8 or efs 60mm 2.8 w/ macro

quad1661

alright so I'm pretty stuck with my decision right now for my next lens, its a toss up between the 85mm 1.8 or the efs 60mm 2.8 macro

as for the efs point i am not to worried about it being phased out if nothing else ill just keep my 1.6 crop body if FF becomes affordable, anyways its not a big deal to me

my current situation is that i am working part time as a wedding photographer assistant and my job on weddings when he doesn't have me holding a reflector are getting film is to go out and shoot all of the small details that you normally wouldn't notice (eg flowers, jewelry, kids playing, table centerpieces and so on) with that said i am also doing a lot of portraits at weddings too

so I'm feeling like i need to get another prime lens definitely needs to be fast for the pictures that need to be taken in low light/ or with a small depth of field

i already have 24-105 f4L, and the cheapo 50 1.8 (among the 18-55, and 75-300)

so this is how i got to the 85mm 1.8 thinking it would be nice to have a little more telephoto and would be easier to isolate my subjects as well

then after looking at reviews on fredmiranda and deciding i don't have enough money to go for the 85 1.2L ha ha i then came to the efs 60mm and hadn't until then considered that as being a truly useful lens for what i normally shoot, but because it does have macro it might be worth my while to use it for those detail shots such as taking pics of the rings with their wedding goblets and such

so i guess my question to you is, what lens would you pick considering the situation?

Scott_Quier

Just to throw another into the mix, the EF 100 f/2.8 macro is also a very nice lens. It might do double duty for you as both the macro and the portrait work solution.

I have both the 100 and the 85 f/1.8 - you really can't go wrong with either.

System

I think you should decide based on focal length. I use the 85/1.8 indoors on my 1.3 crop body a lot, but I often find it slightly too long to be able to get a clean shot with no limbs missing and whatnot. It's a gorgeous lens, though, I even wrote a short ode to it here

Depends on what you're shooting.

Other than that, I think that the 65 might be a bit too close to your 50 when it comes to focal length, and if you don't need the macro capability, you're probably wasting your money.