EF 50mm 1.4 or 2.5 macro or Sigma 50mm f2.8 ?

[yvan_rochat]

Hi

 

I already have a EF 17-40mm 4L and 70-200 4L and EF 100mm 2.8 macro

and wish to buy a 50mm prime mostly for landscape, in order to have

the best contrast, colours and luminosity, even with lower light.

 

What would you recommend between following primes regarding my

concern:

Canon Ef 50mm 1.4

Canon Ef 50mm 2.5 macro

Sigma Ef 50mm 2.8

 

Thanks for your comments. If you had any comparision shot, it would

be great. Thanks, Yvan

[yakim_peled1]

<p> The macro lenses are <a href="http://www.thezeal.com/photography/2004/11/battle-of-50mms.html">far better</a> than the 50/1.4 (also see <a href="http://emedia.leeward.hawaii.edu/frary/toolbox5.htm">here</a>) but IMHO you should use your 17-40 at 40mm because for landscapes you usually close the lens to f/8-16 to get maximum DoF and because 40mm and 50mm FoVs are very much alike.</p>

 

<p>Happy shooting, <br>

Yakim.</p>

[chiswick_john]

"The macro lenses are far better than the 50/1.4" - yes well if you do a test of an object close to the camera a lens designed to work at close distances is likely to be better - for landscapes as the poster want's to use it for it may be a different matter.

[johnb]

Without any hesitation the 50mm f/1.4 (for me).

 

I was happy with the sharpness and low light capabilities.

Now its just my low light lens because the 17-40L took over but it still goes with me everywhere.

[gerry_szarek]

I went with the 50F1.4 mainly for the F1.4, you should realize either macro lens is much slower on autofocus (this was unacceptable for my kid photography). As for sharpness the F1.4 stopped down to F2.8 will be pretty close to either macro.

 

As for another solution you could buy the Sigma (it's cheaper than the canon with 1:1 adapter) and a canon F1.8 for those times you need the fast speed.

 

There is a review on photo.net of the F1.8 and F1.4, along with

 

http://194.100.88.243/petteri/pont/Reviews/g_Fifty_versus_fifty/a_Fifties_duel_--_f1.4_vs_f1.8.html

 

http://www.wlcastleman.com/equip/reviews/28_135zoom/index.htm

 

http://www.connect.ab.ca/~buddy/wntrwrks.htm

 

Have fun. Sorry I don't know how to make links.

[marcin harla]

<i>The macro lenses are far better than the 50/1.4 </i>

 

<p>Far better? I don't think so. We don't even know testing procedure he used comparing sigma vs canon 1.4 vs 2.5 macro. Besides one test says nothing (sample variation, focus error, etc).

<p>

Here is the image from <a href="http://www.thezeal.com/photography/2004/11/battle-of-50mms.html">http://www.thezeal.com/photography/2004/11/battle-of-50mms.html</a> after applying USM (over left image only)

<br>

Now 1.4 looks sharper. IMO the difference is minimal, and @2.8 either one can be sharper (sample variation). Since you already have great macro lens the choice should be simple - get 50 f/1.4<div></div>

[dogbert]

The test at thezeal.com showed that the macros were sharper. Perhaps "far sharper" was a bit of an exageration, but there have been a few posts with people indicating at least some mild discomfort with their 50 f1.4s while I have heard of no-one complaining about the Canon 50f2.5 compact macro wide open. Perphaps that fact the this can all be fixed with USM anyway suggests that paying exhorbitant amounts for ultrasharp lenses is a waste of time.

 

Personally I wouldn't bother with a fast 50 for landscape work. Using a cheap tripod and stopping down with the zooms you already have will look better in most shots than the shallow dof of a 50 wide open.

 

The Canon 50f2.5 is slow to focus when shooting macro because its barrel has to extend a long way for close focussing. But it is fairly peppy when shoooting at more conventional distances.

[bens]

they're all great, isn't that about it? you have to decide if you want low light capability or macro.

[sheldonnalos]

I'd say that you already have a superb macro lens, so you don't need to buy a 50mm macro just because it's a macro. Yes, both the 50mm f/1.4 and the 50mm f/2.5 Macro are very sharp. They are both rated at 4.4 by photodo.com. At f/8 or similar aperatures, I would venture to guess you cannot see the difference, even at 100% magnification.

 

What your entire setup is lacking is a low light lens. You may only be interested in landscape photography right now, but at some point you'll wish you had a fast aperature lens. The 50mm f/1.4 will do that for you, while the Compact macro is almost two stops slower.

 

Also, since you're interested in color rendition, I believe that Canon uses the 50mm f/1.4 as their benchmark for accurate color rendition. The Sigma glass will likely be sharp, but the color rendition just won't compare.

 

Personally, I bought my 50mm f/1.4 because it was the lens that Canon chose to put on most every camera body for every advertisement they publish. If it's good enough to put on a 1Ds Mark II, then it's good enough for my 10D!

 

Hope this helps!

 

Sheldon<div></div>

[brian ball]

I'd recommend the 50mm F/1.4. Is this a perfect lens? No, in fact images taken wide open are indeed rather soft, and the overall build quality, though not poor, doesn't match that of most L lenses. I don't know if I can assure you that this lens will be sharper than the others at F/2.8, but I can say with certainty that the other two can't hold a candle to this lens at F/2.2 or lower :-). If you didn't already have a good macro lens, and if you already had another F/2 or lower lens, then the macro would be an excellent choice.

 

This lens gets quite sharper as it is stopped down. F/1.6 is noticeably sharper than F/1.4. This lens is at its very finest between F/3.2 and around F/11 - F/16. It produces very crisp well delineated images, though as mentioned before, this is not the best choice for macro work.

 

***Personally I wouldn't bother with a fast 50 for landscape work. Using a cheap tripod and stopping down with the zooms you already have will look better in most shots than the shallow dof of a 50 wide open.***

 

True enough. In low light, a smaller apterture and a tripod may indeed give the best results for some shots, but even in unpopulated landscapes, you may still have some motion, and you may need a fast lens in order to avoid motion blur and/or ISO noise.

[artofseeing]

I am the guy at the http://www.thezeal.com/photography site. Let me state for the record that there could be sampling error, test setup issues etc causing the 50mm 1.4 coming out second best to the the macros. Is this important to you? Well, the answer as the answer is to a great many things in this world is that "it depends". For the type of photography I do, I was unhappy with the 50mm 1.4 (or atleast my copy). Your mileage might vary. If you can, try to take a few shots using these lenses to see how it goes before you commit.

 

However, for landscapes you should not have any problem with any of these lenses since as everyone has pointed out, you will be operating at f/8 and above.

 

Good luck!

[pbizarro]

The 50 macro will be the best in terms of colour reproduction, fltaness of field, and contrast. It will be sharp from f/2.5. For nature photography, that is what I would use.

[thomas t]

Yvan,

 

For landscape, speed is not as critical, tripod use is. The 50 macro is sharp from 2.5 wide open and will give you the sharpest results. It is a great lens, one of the gems of the canon lineup. regards

[stephen_w.]

Thomas T (*) knows his gear, trust me. ;*)