jon_austin Posted February 17, 2005 Share Posted February 17, 2005 This looks like a waste of development effort to me, as well. Sure, it goes to 100% on 1.6x bodies, but the 50 f/2.5 CM goes to 80% on the same cameras. Why not just redesign the 50mm CM to feature ring USM, and make it work on all EOS bodies? The 50mm CM ain't big or heavy by any definition, and the 10mm FL difference is virtually meaningless. To me, this is a clear and blatant effort to stimulate demand for dRebels and the 20D. Well, I have a 20D, and I'm not buying (*any EF-S lenses). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dogbert Posted February 17, 2005 Share Posted February 17, 2005 If it is really priced at $400 I doubt canon will sell many. They are really gouging the DSLR market with the EF-S lenses, which in theory should be cheaper to make. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
asaf_tzadok Posted February 17, 2005 Share Posted February 17, 2005 DO NOT BUY ONE ! unless we want to forget from a 1.3 crop factor DSLR under 2k. If it were wide (under 20mm) - OK. BUT .... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
topher Posted February 17, 2005 Share Posted February 17, 2005 <kevin kline voice> DISAPPOINTED! </kevin line voice> Well, I may be one of the few who was actually hoping for this lens. Almost. I have been looking at getting the 50 2.5 Macro. My problem with it is basically no ring USM. I can live without 1:1. I think it would make a nice portrait lens on a 1.6 crop camera. And encourage me to fill the frame with faces (one of my failings in portraits). I didn't think I had much reason to hope that Canon would upgrade this fine lens with one only slightly better. Sigh. So against all hope, I get a 60mm macro with USM. Yippee! EF-S? for something longer than normal? why? oh well, I can live with that I guess. They want HOW MUCH? I do hope that is a mistake. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dogbert Posted February 17, 2005 Share Posted February 17, 2005 I think I have to agree with others that I can see no reason other than marketing for not making this an EF lens. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jim_larson1 Posted February 17, 2005 Share Posted February 17, 2005 Huh. Yahoo article quotes a $450 street price. Right inline with the 100/2.8 Macro. Makes perfect sense, until you realize that this is a 60mm lens (real easy to make -> with much less glass than a 100/2.8). Total ripoff. Question: How does "1:1 Macro" work when you are dealing with a FOV crop? Is the 50/2.5 (which is a 2:1 Macro) become a 1.25:1 Macro or so on a cropped dSLR? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jon_austin Posted February 17, 2005 Share Posted February 17, 2005 Topher: Don't hesitate to buy the 50mm f/2.5 CM over this new EF-S 60mm macro! My only concern when I bought mine over a year ago was the lack of USM, too. Guess what? I rarely miss it! Jim: "Is the 50/2.5 (which is a 2:1 Macro) ... a 1.25:1 Macro or so on a [1.6x] cropped dSLR?" Yes! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
christian_patton Posted February 17, 2005 Share Posted February 17, 2005 No, it's still a 1:2 macro. Magnification ratio, like true focal length, is irrespective of sensor size/fov crop. On a 1.6x reduced frame, the 50 macro retains a maximum 1:2 magnification, but with the same field of view as an 80 mm 1:2 on a full frame. -Christian Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jon_austin Posted February 17, 2005 Share Posted February 17, 2005 Christian: technically accurate, but not informing. (I love pedantics!) Jim asked his question and I replied, both with full knowledge and appreciation of the crop-not-magnification phenomenon. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jim_larson1 Posted February 17, 2005 Share Posted February 17, 2005 OK: You guys have me confused. I admit I never shoot Macro. But after posting this thread, I now understand: http://www.robgalbraith.com/ubbthreads/showflat.php?Cat=&Number=311902&page=0&view=collapsed&sb=5&o=&fpart=1#Post311925 So, the big deal is: 50/1.8: Minimum focusing distance = 18" 50/2.5 Macro: Minimum focusing distance = 9.6" 60/2.8 EF-S Macro: Minimum focusing distance = about 4" And just for giggles: 100/2: Minimum focusing distance = 36" 85/1.8: Miniumum focusing distance = 33.6" 28-105: Minimum focusing distance = 19.2" 100/2.8 Macro: Minimum focusing distance = 5.9" Hmmm. I think for this work I would still go with the 100/2.8 -> same price and full size EF mount. And someone would still have to convince me that the 50/2.5 would not be a better buy :) But I still want the 24-70/4L. :) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
topher Posted February 17, 2005 Share Posted February 17, 2005 Looking at the press release, I am struck by two things: 1) "An EMD (electromagnetic diaphragm) barrel aperture helps to create attractive, even background blur when the photographer minimises depth of field to isolate a subject." Anyone have any idea what this means? Some high tech diaphragm might explain the price. 2) "In keeping with Canon's stringent environmental policy, only lead free glass is used in the lens' optics." Whose twisted idea of environmental policy is it to make silicon wafers but not put lead in glass? I mean glassifying is a current plan for disposing of RADIOACTIVE waste. Putting existing stores of lead into glass would be a BENEFIT to the environment. Making silicon wafers is a hugely toxic process. Not to mention, aluminum, magnesium, plastics, and on and on... Thank You Kindly. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
patricks Posted February 19, 2005 Share Posted February 19, 2005 very interesting lens, IMHO. APS-C sensors are here to stay. One of the main issues with FF or 1.3x is that the body gets large and heavy. The only reason that I want a FF body is because I want a 50/1.4 to be a 50/1.4, a 85/1.2 to be a 85/1.2 etc. But is the start producing high quality prime lenses in APS-C bucket, there is little need to go to a larger sensor-sized body. Why should 36x24 continue to be the standard? Why not standardize and bring out really nice lenses in for the APS-C? Sigma has noticed this market and are introducing a very interesting 30/1.4. I say more APS-C prime lenes! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jim_larson1 Posted February 19, 2005 Share Posted February 19, 2005 Your assumption is that the 60/EF-S will be a high quality lens. That is an assumption that should not be granted without evidence. While the 10-22/EF-S is a good lens from what I have seen, the 17-85/EF-S is *not* the equal of a 28-135/IS. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
daryl_sullivan Posted February 19, 2005 Share Posted February 19, 2005 I'm with you Topher, I've been waiting for this lens for years. I've had the 50mm macro, and I've constantly wished Canon would come out with a more ruggedly built, USM motor, 1:1 macro. Now its announced, ands it's a !*@%#$^ EF-S? It does me no good. Won't work on 1D's. I'm very P****D with Canon on this one. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
h_goering Posted February 20, 2005 Share Posted February 20, 2005 Boycott the overpriced EF-S. the only EF-S worth buying is the 18-55. If you need 1:1 on 50mm, there's still the Sigma 50/2.8 which as far as I know is very sharp and priced much less Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ryanjoseph Posted February 21, 2005 Share Posted February 21, 2005 The Canon 50mm F2.5 macro is the equivalent of a 80mm 1:0.8 lifesize lens on a APS-C DSLR... I would rather get the 50 in this price range. Boo to Canon for another lackluster EF-S lens entry. All DSLR owners that want the "low cost and light weight" of EF-S lenses should just get the Vivitar macro lens. Super low cost and light weight, high image quality. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now