50 f1.8 versus 50 f2.5 CM

[dogbert]

<p>Anyone wish to comment on the focus speed and accuracy of the EF 50 f1.8 versus the 50 f2.5 compact macro?<br>

I have the latter and, while I intend to keep it for casual macro work, I find its focus a bit slow and inaccurate for casual snap shots of my kid. Also how is the focus speed of the 50 f1.8 compared to the EF 35 f2, which I also have?<br>

I have a bunch of expensive L zooms but want a prime to limit the weight I carry about. The 50 f1.4 USM is more expensive than I am willing to pay.<br>

So the 50 f1.8 interests me, but only if its focus speed and accuracy is a decent step up from what I currently have.<br>

I have a 60D and a 5D.</p>

[nathangardner]

The 1.8 focuses faster than the macro. Not sure how it compares to the 35, probably slower. Some people will say

it's loud and slow, but I like it just fine. It's not awfully slow, but not USM either. I'd either go try one in a store or just

buy one, they're cheap enough. I got a used one three years ago as a temporary fix until I could get the 1.4. I still

don't have the 1.4 and don't really lust for it either.

[ejchem101]

<p>Geoff,<br>

In regards to the focus speed of the 50 1.8 to the EF 35 f2 I would assume they are relatively the same speed. I have been happy with my 50 1.8, and about 2 years ago I found that this was one of my favorite focal lengths, so I "upgraded" to the 50 1.4. It is nice, and I still use it to this day, but it is soft at anything under 1.8... the biggest difference to me is a slightly softer blurred area (bokeh). So don't let that bother you. Build is better, but nothing major.</p>

[sking]

<p>Geoff,<br>

I have owned and used all three of the 50s you mentioned: the 1.4, the 1.8 and the 2.5. I liked all of them, but the one I kept in the end was the 2.5. The 1.4 version was a little soft between 1.4 and 2.8, so what is the point of keeping it? The 1.8 was sharp and contrasty, but it broke when taking a hit straight on. Cheap enough to replace, but I decided that the 2.5 was the sharpest and best lens of the lot. On film, the 2.5 might be considered too slow to use indoors, but with digital, the ISO can be raised a little to compensate. I think of the 50s, the 2.5 is the best of the lot.<br>

By the way, I use my gear every day as I work full-time as a newspaper photographer on a daily. My gear gets used a lot!<br>

Regards,<br>

Steven</p>

[jim_j2]

<blockquote>

<p>"I have a 60D and a 5D."</p>

</blockquote>

<p>The "Nifty Fifty" can be acquired about anywhere for under $150.00! So it seems pretty obvious that it would be worth "just buying one!" They also seem to hold their value pretty well on the used market.<br />Or, if you have any sort of Camera Retailer near by (I know, they're being replaced by the Big Box type.) maybe you can take one of your bodies and try one.<br />I have both the 1.8 and the 1.4, and as Erik indicates, the 1.4 can possibly produce a little better bokeh, and the build is a bit better, but that's about it! And probably not worth the $300.00 difference in new price.<br />I kept my 1.8 when I "upgraded" to the f/1.4 because the value was only around the $100.00 mark, and I keep it mounted on one of my older EOS film bodies, or at least in the bag that I keep the film stuff in so it's ready to go!<br />The EF 50 f/1.8 is a good lens for its cost!</p>

<p> </p>

[digitmstr]

<p>A MACRO lens has greater travel than a normal lens, that might be what makes it appear as though it is focusing slower but, in reality it may not be. Obviously, a macro lens is not made for journalistic style shooting (i.e. snapshots of kids, etc...) - since you are not willing to pay for the f/1.4 your only other choice would be the f/1.8 - as for the AF speed, what I said above remains true. <br>

Finally, accuracy and snapshots don't necessarily go together. A lot has to do with technique, lighting conditions, etc... However, IMO, it's always best to capture a unique moment than to worry about super precise focus.</p>

[PuppyDigs]

<p>I too own all three lenses and have to say they have slow and iffy focus by modern standards, and the difference between them comes down to a bit of hair splitting. The EF 35 2.0 is the fastest of the three but no speed racer. The 50 1.8 and 50 2.5 are close and if there is a the tiny gain in AF speed isn't worth the bother. However, my impression is the EF 50 2.5 focused slightly faster than the EF 50 1.8 at non-macro distances. It is also a wee bit more surefooted and doesn't rack back and forth in low light quite as much.</p>

<p>I also I agree 100% with Steven's assessment: the 50 2.5 is the sharpest and best overall lens of the lot. I've owned my 50 2.5 since 1994 and it has never let me down. On the other hand, I have owned three EF 50 1.8 and they were underwhelming optically and not very dependable.</p>

<p>If you want a fast focusing prime you might consider the EF 85 1.8 USM or EF 28 1.8 USM.</p>

[jamie_robertson2]

<p>I've settled on the Sigma 50mm f1.4. The image quality really is a notch above the Canon 1.8 and 1.4. It's a big lump of glass comparable to the 50mm f1.2L at a fraction of the cost. Unfortunately you have to play the usual Sigma lucky dip game until you get one that focuses perfectly. My new one has just got back from Sigma after I asked for the the focus to be re-calibrated under warranty. Now it's a beauty. It was so far out when I got it that my camera's focus adjustment settings could not take up the slack.</p>

[jack_nordine]

<p>I've had both lenses (the 1.8 and 2.5 CM). The focus speed was about the same. The 2.5 CM was slightly sharper and focused closer, so for me it was a better lens.</p>

[JDMvW]

<p>I have the 50mm f/1.8 and the 35mm f/2. I like them both, but neither are whizzes at fast focus, but they work swell in dark places. They focus at least as fast as I do manually with my old eyes.</p>

<p>You should be aware that these were among the very first lenses ever released in the EOS EF mount, and they have undergone very little change (except for a little plastic here and there) since 1987.</p>