50 mm macro & Live View & light cases for 5DII?

[alan_hogg1]

<p>Hello People,<br>

I am trying to find a way to include macro in my lens kit and reduce weight at the same time. I have a 5DII and use it mainly in forests, backpacking etc.<br>

Can anyone tell me how well the older Canon 50 mm macro works using manual focusing and live view?<br>

Also, can you still buy the older style camera cases, we had 30 years ago (am I really that old?) which would fit a 5DII and 50 mm macro? I want something as small and light as possible to suspend from the front pack straps.<br>

Thanks, Alan</p>

[kerry_grim]

<p>In the film days I normally did my hikes with a 100 macro. Eventually, to save weight I bough a 50. But, I found that lens far less useful...too wide of an angle and you had to get far too close to the subject. My macro photography went downhill as well.

<p> <br>

Then with a crop body, I bought a 50 compact macro. I did buy the 100 L macro and just love it. A bit big and a fair amount of weight. But it has proven amazingly useful and I can often use it for a telephoto and thus save the weight by not carrying a 70-200 and a tripod.<br>

 <br>

This is not addressing most of your questions but I am suggesting that maybe a 100 macro could be a good and more useful alternative than the 50 macro, especially if you can substitute it for another lens.<br>

 <br>

If you are doing just occasional macro photography you could add extension tubes or close-up lenses to a telephoto, assuming you are carrying a telephoto. If you are serious with you macro photography, I would not consider less than 100mm with a full frame camera. What are you subjects? You may get away using a 50 macro for something like mushrooms, flowers etc, but for reptiles, amphibians and butterflies, a 50 macro would be nearly useless.

[tommyinca]

<p>If you want macro 50s with EOS mount that requires no adapters, you may have to limit to the EF50/2.5 macro, a real good lens but hardly any respect or a third party sigma 50 macro. But if you talking about old Canon FD macro 50/3.5, the bad news is it does not work too well. It won't fit and an adapter will limit its range of usefulness. Check out an 55 micro Nikkor, Olympus OM50/3.5 macro or a 40mm kilfitt macro classic lens, all using adapters.</p>

<p> </p>

[arie_vandervelden1]

<p>I went with this camera bag<br>

https://www.thecamerastore.com/products/bags-cases/camera-cases/holster-bags/clik-elite-large-slr-chest-pack-grey<br>

Spendy but it's really nice.</p>

<p>If you're looking to save weight over the Canon 100/2.8, be sure to check out Sigma 70/2.8 and Tamron 90/2.8. I have the Tamron and its weighs much less than the Canon lens.</p>

[paddler4]

<p>I agree with Kerry--50mm is short for macro on a FF. I use a 60 and a 100 on a crop sensor, the former for indoor flower shots and the latter for bugs and other outdoor use. This is equivalent to 96 and 160mm on your camera. Also, the Canon 50mm macro is only 1:2, not 1:1.</p>

[PuppyDigs]

<p>I've owned the EF 50 2.5 CM and Life Size Converter for 20 years. It's one of the few lens I haven't horse traded. It's that good. Sharpest 50 I have owned--and I've owned many--and virtually distortion free edge to edge. I mainly use to for shooting small products and artwork where accurate reproduction is paramount. I rarely need the LS converter as 1:2 fine for most of my work. However the LS converter is also excellent, making it into a 70mm 1:1 optic. 1:1 on a plain 50 would be silly as working distance is so close light wouldn't hit your subject! I also owned the Sigma 50 2.8EX and although it had 1:1, working distance it was too close for practical use. Looked good on the spec sheet tho'. Plus it stopped working every time I bought a new camera...</p>

<p>The main advantage of the 50 2.5 (aside from low cost) is its petite size. I never think twice about keeping it in my bag. Although I also own the 100 2.8 macro, it gets far less use. Why? I often find myself backed up against a wall, rock or at the end of my tripod with the 100 2.8. The 50mm allows me to shoot in close quarters. Oddly the 100 2.8 reduces to 70mm at full extension (bellows effect?).</p>

<p>Although the 50 2.5 CM's manual focus ain't as silky or fine as my old Nikkor 50 1.4 AI. it's actually much smoother and fine geared than most of my primes and zooms. I don't use LV--camera screen is too small to be useful--unless tethered to my Cinema Display but the 50 2.5 is one of the few EF lenses I can easily focus. However AF is good enough--albeit buzzy-- I rarely need to use MF save for fixed tripod shots in the studio.</p>

[philip_wilson]

<p>I don't own the 50 F2.5 (I do own the 5DII) but I have owned the FD 50 F3.5 for a very long time. In terms of usefulness it depends what you shoot. For flowers etc... the 50mm is fine on full frame for the very small then you do need a longer lens. The old FD 50mm is razor sharp (sharpest FD 50mm lens) so I assume the newer EF is also very sharp.</p>

[g dan mitchell]

<p>Extension tubes are a great way to make many lenses work well for a lot of macro stuff - I use one of the Canon tubes on a 24-105 and it works great, and I've also used it with various other lenses I own. Having said that, 50mm on full frame would not be my ideal focal length for that sort of thing since you'll often have to get extremely close to your subject to make it work. </p>

<p>I have seen but do not use a very small number of those old school style cases. I, too, remember them well - typically leather and somewhat contoured to the specific camera. At first I was disappointed that they aren't as readily available, but I eventually decided that they provide less utility than certain other cases. Today I use a Lowepro Topload bag that I can carry with a chest harness - it holds a bit more, is more protective, and affords very quick and easy access to the camera and other gear.</p>

[JohnMWright]

<p>I don't have the Canon 50mm macro, I use a 100mm for the reasons already stated in previous posts. I also have an inherited 55mm micro-Nikkor which isn't very convenient to use outside of the studio. But, regardless of the lens, live view from a tripod, mixed with 5x and 10x zoom, works very well to ensure precise focus. I personally cannot hold still enough for macros without the tripod. </p>

<p>When you say older style camera cases, do you mean the leather ones that were cut to fit a specific camera, and snapped on over the 50mm lens? I have not seen those for any modern cameras, but there are small padded bags that will work similarly. You might take a look at tamrac or lowepro bags.</p>

[sarah_fox]

<p>Dan, how funny reading your post. Mine would be pretty much identical.</p>

<p>Yeah, extension tubes -- lightest and cheapest "macro" option. Get the more recent Kenkos with the electrical contacts.</p>

<p>Old-school cases: Me too. Used to use them. Momentarily disappointed. Now happy not to have to fiddle with them. One new-school protective option might be Camera Armor.</p>

<p>Lowepro Toploader bag for me too. I have this one:</p>

<p><a href="http://products.lowepro.com/product/Toploader-Pro-75-AW,2131,8.htm">http://products.lowepro.com/product/Toploader-Pro-75-AW,2131,8.htm</a></p>

<p>Perfect size for a full frame body, long lens, short lens, filter, general "stuff." I drop the un-mounted lens to the bottom of the bag, and the camera with the mounted lens hovers above it. It's got useful pockets/pouches and even its own raincoat. Unlike Dan, I wear mine Bandolero style. ;-) It's very comfortable.</p>

[yakim_peled1]

<p><a href="http://www.photozone.de/canon-eos/161-canon-ef-50mm-f25-macro-test-report--review">Canon's 50/2.5</a> only goes to 1:2. <a href="http://www.photozone.de/canon-eos/299-sigma-af-50mm-f28-ex-macro-dg-test-report--review">Sigma's 50/2.8</a> does to 1:1 so it's a better bet. There's also <a href="http://www.photozone.de/canon_eos_ff/559-sigma70ff28eosff">Sigma's 70/2.8</a> which also goes to 1:1 and will allow you a bit more working distance.</p>

<p>Happy shooting,<br>

Yakim.</p>

[alan_hogg1]

<p>Many thanks Everyone for all of your comments - they have been much appreciated.<br>

Perhaps I should have been clearer as to what i want to do.<br>

I presently carry a 5DII, Canon zooms 17-40, 24-105, 70-200 f4 L, plus 1.4 converter plus tripod. When I last looked it was over 6 kg and that is a lot (on top of normal camping gear) when you are walking for a week. I want to try Dan's trick of carrying the body + 24-105 hanging off the pack straps for rapid access whilst walking, but I fear the nearly 1900g weight might be too much. I thought I might be able to substitute the 24-105 with a 50mm macro for access whilst walking. I am not interested in getting 1:1 for insects etc (the 100 macro is just much too heavy for me) but would like a macro occasionally for patterns in nature - cobwebs, or flax in the sun, or backlit leaves or coloured rock etc. I thought if I carried the 5D with the 50 mm macro on the pack straps and leave the 24-105 behind, I could kill 2 birds with 1 stone, with the camera lens weight dropping by 400g or so.<br>

I have a trip next week and will try the 5D with a 50 mm 1.8 first, to see how it goes.<br>

Thanks again for your comments.<br>

Alan</p>

[bjscharp]

Remember that with the Life-size converter, the 50 CM becomes a 70mm (the LSC is a teleconverter and an extension ring combined), which gets you a bit closer to that 100mm macro.

 

I bought the 50mm CM for the same reason you described, as a combined macro and 50mm standard on a FF body (though in my case it was an EOS 30 film body). It works great for that, though manual focus isn't its strong point, since it's an old-style arc-form drive, meaning you have to flip the switch to go from AF to MF.