50/1.4 vs 50/2.5 Macro

Other than the slower speed (2.5 vs 1.4) what are the disadvantages

to using the 50mm Macro instead of the 50mm 1.4 for normal Non-Macro

photography (landscape, urbanscape, candid) ? I know the macro is

better corrected for 'distortions' when shooting close-up. I have

both and am considering selling the 50/1.4

thanks

Frank

Someone on another forum didnt quite get my question.

 

To emphasize or re-phrase the point of the question ....Other than the slower speed, what are the differences, if any, using the 2.5 Macro for Normal Non-Macro work compared to a normal lens (50/1.4) ?

I had the 50/1.4USM, I sold it. I bought the 50/2.5 and use it for everything (macro and non-macro). Other than slight differences in contrast and color, there's very little difference.

 

Go for it. I did.

 

C Painter

Hi,

I bought the 50/2.5 first, but picked up the 50/1.4 at a later date. I find both useful, but would say the principal disadvantage of using the Macro for everyday work is the slower and noisier autofocus. I like speedy and quiet auto-focus, so the 1.4 is a much better lens for candids. But if you're skilled at Manual focus, then there may be no issue.

 

Subjectively, I prefer the out of focus blur (Bokeh) of the 50/1.4, and I like the color and contrast also. But the Macro also gave very nice color and contrast.

 

-Ian

Clifton, please tell us more about the differences in color and contrast between these two lenses.

 

Which has more "L" like contrast and color?

 

Thanks,

Dan

I also have them both. I find the macro's autofocus to be slow, and the manual focus ring kind of dinky. Haven't really done any serious testing, but the macro may be sharper, though.

 

I personally wouldn't want to get rid of the 1.4 and have only the macro; for non-macro shots, I find the 1.4 to be overall better.

Optical differences apart, I have always found the 50/1.4 to hanlde far better than the 50/2.5 for general-purpose use. Much nicer handling, FTM, and no opportunity to rack focus out all the way to x0.5 and back again when you least want it to happen. I now use the EF-S 60/2.8 on my 20D in preference to the 50/2.5 for most macro applications, and although, like the 50/2.5, it lacks a focus-limiter, it is a nicer lens to use. Also, it is not well-known that the camera treats the 50/2.5 as a worse-than-f/2.8 lens for AF purposes, regardless of its focus setting, so on most cameras you do not get any high-precision AF at all.

I've had the f/2.5 macro for nearly 3 years, and I would concur with all the observations made here about it, both positive and negative. I've never used the f/1.4, nor do I do enough 50mm non-macro work to justify the purchase of that lens.

 

That said, if the EF-S 60/2.8 macro had been produced as an EF lens, instead, I would have found an excuse by now to justify its purchase. If Canon ever produces a true ring-USM EF 50/1.x lens, I'm sure I'll convince myself I need to buy one.

 

If, having both, you're considering selling the f/1.4, then you probably don't "need" it.

Hi Frank, My .02 cent's worth:

 

The 50mm 2.5 CM Pros: Sharp at all apertures, amazingly sharp at f/4 through f/8, decent macro lens even without the 1:1 converter, decent portrait lens on a 1.6x digital body, almost zero distortion, it'll stop down to f/32, little need for lens hood since the glass is recessed far inside the lens's body, can be made into a "true" 1:1 macro if you purchase the (not inexpensive) converter

 

The 50mm 2.5 CM Cons: Doesn't have USM or stellar autofocus, noisy, lens extends and retracts

 

The 50mm f/1.4 Pros: Fast, Good bokeh when opened up, seems to be slightly better build than the CM, better autofocus, much quieter, very sharp once you stop it down two stops or so

 

The 50mm f/1.4 Cons: Not terribly sharp wide open, slight distortion (it's not bad at all unless you compare it to the CM), you'll likely need to buy the lens hood for flare

 

To my eye, in terms of color/contrast, there's not enough difference to worry about those things. Here's a studio portrait I took with the 50mm f/2.5 CM... Warning: There's naughty bits: http://www.photo.net/photo/3606115

 

I've had my 2.5 CM for 3 or 4 years and I love it. I just recently bought the 50mm f/1.4 only for low-light shooting. I'll probably keep both but if I *had* to give one up, I'd give up the f/1.4 and keep the compact macro.

I also have both and wouldn't part with either. However if I could only have one, I'd go

for the EF 50 2.5. MF is much smoother, it's a little sharper below F5.6, is perfectly

corrected and focuses more reliably in low light. For some reason the 50 1.4 searches

more. I find AF about the same speed in good light but the silence of the USM gives

the illusion of being faster, but it's not.

Well, if you have both, you are in the right position to decide which one is better for you. Are you not?

is the life-size converter for the 50mm macro any different than 50mm of extension tubes?

The Life Size Converter is very different from an Extension Tube. The Canon MF 50mm macro lenses, all of which I owned over the years, came with a 25mm Extension Tube so the lens itself covered x0 to x0.5 and the lens+tube covered x0.5 to x1, still at a focal length of 50mm. You can do this with the EF 50/2.5 using an EF25 tube (although that is actually marginally longer than 25mm, about 27.5, I think). The LSC is actually a teleconverter with a bit of extra extension, and turns the 50/2.5 into a 70/3.2 (should be 3.5, you would think, but the camera reports 3.2) with a magnification range of x0.25 to x1. It works very well, and both the wider magnification range and the increased focal length are helpful.

I agree with Paulo that if you have both lenses, you are by far in the best position to decide. But for other people reading this thread, let me tell you what I have done.

 

I have the 50/1.4 and 85/1.8 for everyday use. For macro use with larger flat objects, I bought and adapted a Nikkor 55/2.8 Micro lens. For macro use with smaller objects, I use a Vivitar 90mm/2.5 macro lens that is spectacular. So I have four lenses to cover the range, but they are each the best tool available (except the 85/1.2, which I have no interest in). The two macro lenses combined cost me about $220, including adapters.

 

Just a thought for people trying to save money.

>> I have both and am considering selling the 50/1.4

 

If you have both and feel you are not using the 50/1.4 enough then by all means, sell it. Lenses are just tools and each has to choose the right ones for him.

 

 

Happy shooting,

Yakim.

I had both, and found that the 50mm Macro was too noisy for candids, and the f/1.4 of the other lens was a great advantage for indoor shots. The Macro did, however, have a great sharpness to it, and rendered very nice color. I have since purchased a 100mm f/2.8 usm for macro, and like it very much.