50mm 2,5 Macro OR 50mm 1,8 ?

[mantas]

Hello, i want to buy one of these lenses. The price is not the case,

althow i dont have millions.

 

The 50mm 2,5 Macro is attractive because it has a macro, and it also

is a 50mm lens that i want. It also is sharp (as people say, but

please tell me what you think).

 

The 50mm 1,8 is a bit brighter, cheaper, and also very sharp. But is

it sharper than the 50mm 2,5 Macro?

 

Please, help me decide.

[citizensmith1664875108]

You've pretty much got it covered yourself.

 

The f1.8 is exactly what you described, fast and sharp. It's negatives are no distance scale, a little bit of distortion, and a poor build quality.

 

The f2.5 is sharper, and shows no distortion. It's slower, but by no means slow (I use an f/2.8 as my every day lens and I'm fine with it). It's better built and has Macro capabilities.

 

If you really want the Macro and can live with losing a stop of speed then go ahead, it's a good lens.

[rajiv1]

You would need the f/2.5 only if you want to retain infinity focus and have macro capabilities without removing the lens et al... if you want to do macro with your f/1.8, all you need is to attach extension tubes (or reverse your lens) as appropriate. To get higher masnifications, even with your f/2.5 you will need extension rings... I'd guess, the choice of one or the other is dependant on your budget and personally, for me, the macro lens does not add much value even though I shoot many macro shots... I typically use extensions or reverse the lens fro macro. You need to ask yourself whether you make enough macro pictures to justify the increased cost. if yes, then I'd suggest the 105mm macro which gives you more distance from the subject... just my 2c... PS, check John shaw's book "closeups in nature" to get more ideas... cheers

[awindsor]

The 50mm is not really a general purpose macro lens because the working distance is

too short. If you are interested in macro photography I would go for a combination of

50mm f/1.8 and a 90mm/100mm macro (Tamron or Canon).

 

The 50mm f/1.8 is almost 1 stop faster than the 2.5 and this may be important.

Focused at short distances the 50mm f/1.8 shows noticeable distortion. The macro

lens uses a floating element that gives no distortion at close focusing distances (as

you would expect from a macro).

 

Neither the f1.8 or the f2.5 offers FTM but the f2.5 has a better manual focus ring

than the rather pathetic ring on the f1.8.

[PuppyDigs]

<P>I have the EF 50 2.5 CM and it's one of the sharpest and most distortion free lenses I have owned. The EF 50 1.8 and EF 50 1.4 USM show a whole lotta barrel distortion at distances under 5 feet (but are excellent otherwise). The 50 2.5 also has a distance scale, DOF scale, a smooth MF ring and a metal mount. I use it for product photography on my 10D with incredible results. I find I have plenty of working distance for frame filling shots of 3 to 5 inch music products (tuners, heads, etc.). It converts to a 70mm 1:1 optic with the lifesize converter, but 1/2 reproduction is good enough for most things I shoot.</P>

<P><A HREF="http://emedia.leeward.hawaii.edu/frary/toolbox5.htm

" TARGET="_blank">My Review of Canon 50mm Lenses</A></P>

[nick roberts]

I have the 2.5 and 1.8 - get the Macro unless you REALLY need the faster speed.

[mantas]

But is the Macro also usefull for normal photography, lets say landscapes? or is it only for macro. Maybe 1,8 is better for landscapes? What can you say about that?

[suman]

Oh Yeah. Usually all macro lenses can be used as normal lens but not the opposite. I think canon has a wallet melter macro that can not be used as a regular lens in all macro world of lenses.

[thomas_mok]

Either of these lenses is fine. Both are suitable for landscape, still, portrait, or many other things. Don't tend to over analyze it. Just go for it, and have fun shooting.

[jamiew]

I was faced with this same choice a few weeks ago. I went with the 50 2.5 for the following reasons:

 

- 2.5 vs. 1.8 is only about one stop. Not much of an issue since if I was actually going for speed I'd get the 50/1.4.

 

- Picture quality of the 50/2.5 is better (much less distortion, less flare, better bokah, etc... )

 

- 50/2.5 while not a true macro, is the best copy/still life lens Canon makes and focuses way closer than the 50/1.8

 

- I found that Auto Focus speed was the same for both lenses, except that the only issue with the 2.5 is that when it does hunt there is so much more room for it to hunt. This is never an issue with good light.

 

- The 2.5 has a real MF ring. Not like my old Nikon MF gear, but worlds better than the 1.8.

 

In summary it was an easy choice. The only possible reason to go for the 1.8 is price.

[wakeforce]

Just buy both, you won,t be disapointed... A used 50mm 1.8 can be found for like 30-40$

[nick roberts]

The Compact Macro is a great all-round lens - I use it for everything. The macro capability is really a bonus.

[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 (that is, after you bought a special adaptor) and this is both intimidating and causes severe lightning problems so a dedicated macro flash and a tripod are often a must.

 

I think that the 100/2.8 USM + 50/1.8 is a much better choice. You get 1:1 without anything attached, more working distance, USM (when using it as a portrait lens), and internal focusing (for better balance).

 

Happy shooting ,

Yakim.

[beauh44]

I think Puppy nailed it. I have the 2.5 Macro and use it all the time. Sure, if you're *just* shooting macro, the 100mm is better, but IMHO it's not noticeably sharper. Out of all my lenses, the 50mm 2.5 macro and my 70-200mm f/2.8L IS are my two sharpest lenses. On my 10D, the 2.5 macro makes a great "80mm" portrait lens that I use quite a bit. I've said it before, but I'll say it again, this is a great "normal" lens that just so happens to take great close-ups too. Best wishes . . .<div></div>

[jamiew]

Yakim, while I think just about anyone would agree with you that the 100 makes a better macro lens than the 50, I do not think that was the question. I'll put aside your reccomending a US$600+ solution to a US$240 or US$70 question. The question was "50mm 2,5 Macro OR 50mm 1,8 ?"

 

I say 50/2.5

[nick roberts]

Actually, Yakim's wrong. The 100mm, because of its internal focusing, is actually about a 70mm focal length at 1:1. The 50mm, because of the LS convertor, is very similar - so the working distance is close to identical. Don't get me wrong, the 100 is more covenient as it has a faster max. aperture than the 50 + convertor, and usable AF - but based purely on working distance, there's nothing in it. For less than 1:1, I personally find it really useful to have both options to allow for different working distances and lighting options.

[robin_sibson1]

I use both the 50/2.5 (both with and without LSC) and 100/2.8USM macro lenses. The 50/2.5 is an excellent all-round lens, and for field botanical work (which is most of my close-up work) it focuses close enough, gives enough working distance, and works better with the MR-14EX. Main disadvantage is the clunky old AFD mount with no FTM focusing.

 

We know the 50+LSC is (about) a 70mm combination because that is what the -1v reports when you download data. Also, it is possible to do an elementary thin-lens optics calculation from the figures that Canon publish for the effects of putting an extension tube on the 100/2.8USM, and show that it is working at about 70mm focal length at 1:1. But it is NOT true that the working distances (distance from the filter thread to the plane of focus) are the same at 1:1 (You don't believe me? Go ahead, try it for yourself, measure them). The 100/2.8USM has a much larger working distance, so if you need working distance that's the one to go for. Why is this? Probably a combination of the deep recessing of the 50/2.5 in its mount, and the likelihood that on an IF lens as complex as the 100/2.8USM, calculations based on thin-lens theory don't work too well.