50mm 2.5 compact macro

[miketing]

Hi,

I'm looking for a macro to get some product shots. We normally use a 70-200

2.8 which has decent magnification. We're now thinking of getting a 50mm

macro, cause we really don't need the magnfiication ratio of the 100mm.

(again, for product close ups, not insects and such)

 

would someone have a test shot with the lens on say a handwatch? how

close can you get with that lens, and how well does it capture the markings on

the watch?

 

Thanks.

[jimstrutz]

I'm sure that the 50mm f/2.5 compact macro would be fine with a lot of subjects. But with products like a small watch or jewelry, your working distance is likely to be quite short. My only question would be, wouldn't that close distance provide an unnatural looking perspective for a watch? People are used to seeing them from a normal viewing distance, and if this is shortened too much, you could end up with some sort of perspective distortion, looking as if it was taken with a wide angle lens or something.

 

The Canon 50mm macro with the 1:1 extension device converts the lens to about a 70mm lens. The Canon 100mm macro is internal focusing, so it's focal length is reduced to about the same 70mm when focused to the 1:1 range. But since you are not interested in 1:1 macro range, the 100mm lens would provide more working distance, and a better perspective for many of your subjects.

 

Just my opinion.

[PuppyDigs]

<P>I use the EF 50 2.5 CM for small products and find it ideal. Here's my review if you're interested in detail and image samples:</P>

<P><A HREF="http://emedia.leeward.hawaii.edu/frary/toolbox5.htm" TARGET="_blank">EOS

Normal Prime Reviews</A></P>

[beauh44]

Hi Michael, I happened to have my 50mm CM on a tripod, so I whipped off my crappy watch and took a picture for you. It's hard to tell much about a pic posted here, but IMHO, the 50mm CM is one of (if not the) sharpest lenses I own. This was taken on my back porch, on a (very) cloudy day about 15 minutes ago, with Hurrican Ivan passing by. I was probably 4-5 inches away from the watch. The lens is nice, but I can't recommend the watch. ;-)<div></div>

[beauh44]

Here's a 100 percent crop.<div></div>

[jamiew]

Michael.

 

Ignore the people that talk about being too close causing distortion. The 50/2.5 is a copy lens. It's primary purpose is copying text at close range with no distortion. This is exactly what you are looking for... not to mention it is less than $250 online.

[beauh44]

Jamie's right - there's pretty much no distortion with this lens. Go ahead and check it out on Photodo.

[camilla]

For anything small (products) and to get distortion-free pictures, the 50mm macro is my first choice, even now when I also have the 100mm. I think it will suit your needs better than any other lens.

[rayn]

I don't know how much you want to spend, but the 90/2.8 TS is probably the best lens for

product shots in the Canon line. Once you tilt and shift, you never go back as the french

say.

[willie_ju1]

Jim's talking about perspective distortion, which isn't a property of the lens. No lens can "correct" for that.

[jamiew]

Willie,

 

Jim mentioned perspective as a factor of focal length. For product shots (where everything is at a reletively uniform distance) that is usually a factor of lens distortion.

[topher]

On the other hand, (PI) the close focusing distance is 9 inches, that is the distance I

suspect most people are used to looking at their watches. Try it.

 

perspective distortion is misnomer IMHO, It is just a _different_ perspective. And it

really doesn't have anything to do with lens or cameras. you get those different

perspective with your eyes alone. It is just the isolation of a picture which makes it out

of context.

 

I don't ever recall seeing macro shots which gave unpleasing perspective.

 

Thank You Kindly.

[willie_ju1]

"Jim mentioned perspective as a factor of focal length."

 

Jim goes to great length relating working distance with perspective. Nowhere is he relating focal length with perspective.

 

"For product shots (where everything is at a reletively uniform distance) that is usually a factor of lens distortion."

 

Again, perspective is not a property of the lens.

[jamiew]

willie working distance is a factor of focal length, just different sides of the same coin. Again for product shots it is not an issue.

[jamiew]

also "unnatural perspective is a factor of varrying working distances within the same composition, again something that is not an issue at the distances you use for product shots, and with the controled backgrounds. Macro this is not.

[jimstrutz]

Hmm, didn't mean to start an argument. And I don't do product shots professionally, so perhaps I should have kept out of this, but...

 

The 50mm f/2.5 macro is an incredibly sharp lens with little, if any noticeable optical distortion, but any time you have a subject with much depth, or with a not so close background, and you shoot it close, you stand a good chance of seeing some perspective distortion. Call it simply a different perspective if you want, but if it's substantially closer than the distance you normally view it at, the perspective will be substantially different than normal. That's why a short tele lens works so well for portraits. It allows you to step back to normal viewing distances and still get a head & shoulders shot. As was mentioned above the 50mm macro was designed as a great copy lens for essentially flat objects.

 

I'm not sure what Michael means by "handwatch". If this is a pocket watch, and you're just showing the face, the lack of depth will reveal no perspective issues, but if this is a wrist watch with a band that is receding rapidly in the background, shooting too close might look a bit odd, in my opinion. I have seen plenty of jewelry shots where the back/bottom of a ring band looked too small compared to the top/front of the ring. To me that looks odd.

 

Anyway, either the 50mm or 100mm macro would probably work. I just think the 100mm macro would be more versatile.

[david_lau3]

I own both the Canon 50/f2.5 and Tamron 90/f2.8 macro, and I agree with Jim.

 

The best is to go to your local dealer and look through both the 50 and 100 macro at a small 3D object at an angle i.e. not parallel to film plane. The difference in prespective will then be obvious and you determine if the 50/f2.5 is suitable for you.

[miketing]

Puppy Face: Nice Little Review!

 

 

Beau Hooker: Thanks for the sample shots, but I don't think you went all the way to

maximum magnification did you? Is the 100% crop sharpened?

 

Ray Negus: I actually am thinking about the T/S as well.. Problem is I also need a 24mm

TS, and two TS lenses aren't friendly to my bank account.

 

As much as I love 50mm length (I can also use the macro for my wedding photography,

etc), looks like I have to go with the 100mm Macro. I've thought about this and I'd need to

go really close with 50mm it would obstruct the lighting etc.

[nathan_dandar]

If you're looking for 50mm, I would suggest the Sigma 50mm f/2.8 EX macro over the Canon. It focuses down twice as far as the Canon (1:1 instead of 1:2) and many say it's even sharper. I own the Sigma and can say it's a ridiculously gorgeous lens. Even wide open, it's very very sharp. It utilizes close-range correction to keep macro shots crisp as well. Mine was $170. If it broke or was stolen, I'd buy another one before the end of the day.

 

Outside of that, I hear great things about the newest version of the Tamron 90mm macro.