50 2.5 macro vs. 50 1.8 (mk I) with tubes

[chachi_arcola]

To those who have experience with both, for shooting still-life macro

(no insects, butterflies, etc.) will there be a great advantage,

other than the convenience of not using tubes, to getting a 50/2.5

macro vs. using my 50 1.8 with extestion tubes? I have used the Kenko

tube set, and sometimes my 1.4 canon tc, with the 50 1.8 and seem to

get acceptable results for flowers, etc, with a single strobe, off-

camera set up (butterfly bracket type).

[PuppyDigs]

The EF 50 2.5 Compact Macro is one of Canon's sharpest lenses, not to mention its sharpest

50mm. Heck, it's even sharp wide open, something you can't say about any of Canon's other

normal lenses. Although its MF ring is small, it is silky smooth compared to the gritty EF 50 1.8.

Plus, it has F stops to F32 vs F16 I think for the EF 50 1.8.

 

Be advised the EF 50 2.5 Compact Macro can only focus to 1/2 life size. You need the life size

converter--sort of a specialized extender--for life size reproduction. However, with the life size

converter it becomes a 70mm optic (no infinity focus).

[yakim_peled1]

I personally believe that a 50mm macro is less useful than 100mm macro. You'll have to get VERY close to your subject to get 1:1 and this is both intimidating and causes severe lightning problems.

[beauh44]

Very true about the Canon 50mm only going to half life-size; however I like to look at it this way: That 50mm is an amazing "normal" lens that just so happens to focus pretty darn close. I wasn't sure if I liked my 50mm at first - until I scanned a chrome at 4000 dpi and blew it up really big (for me) in print. It's amazing. Anyhoo... I liked it so much I ended up keeping it even tho' I later bought the 100mm 2.8 USM too. In fact, I went how-wild, sold the farm and bought a 10D. I've made a few shots with all my Canon lenses and that little 50mm still stands out! Best wishes... beau