1:1 with a 50mm lens gives almost no working distance. I think 1:2 is a non-issue for this FL. When a company sells a lifesize converter for their 50-60mm macros they also have a TC to increase FL for 1:1 use... yes I think they know what they are doing, even if Sigma and few others offer 50mm macro lenses that go 1:1... Leica doesn't.

mh2000 wrote:
1:1 with a 50mm lens gives almost no working distance. I think 1:2 is a non-issue for this FL. When a company sells a lifesize converter for their 50-60mm macros they also have a TC to increase FL for 1:1 use... yes I think they know what they are doing, even if Sigma and few others offer 50mm macro lenses that go 1:1... Leica doesn't.

I prefer short working distance. That way I can hold on to the flower when shooting insects.

Shot with the Zuiko 38/2.8 on 65-116 tube. Mag. 3.2x.

helimat wrote:
My point was that AF sometimes has it's benefits, the EF 50 CM fits the bill as a small 1:2 macro lens AND has AF for other uses.

Despite my seeing a time and a place for AF, I still use alt glass a lot, so I feel I belong in this forum.

I never denied its usefulness. I was merely replying to alexandre that when it comes to buying a lens for Macro, AF is irrelevant and as such shouldn't be a factor in choosing one over the other.

If someone just want to have a normal AF lens that he can sometimes use to dabble in macro then he wouldn't be discussing alternative manual focus macro lens here now would he?

helimat wrote:
And as well I will feel free to discuss anything I wish without first having to check with members from the big penile colony.

You could discuss about Canada being the 51st American state here for all I care, just don't quote my bloody post.

helimat wrote:
My point was that AF sometimes has it's benefits, the EF 50 CM fits the bill as a small 1:2 macro lens AND has AF for other uses.
Despite my seeing a time and a place for AF, I still use alt glass a lot, so I feel I belong in this forum.
And as well I will feel free to discuss anything I wish without first having to check with members from the big penile colony.


At first I was confused by your post, but then I realized that you still haven't clicked the "hide me" button on this contrarian.

Why anyone thinks they can just walk into a room a start mouthing off is beyond me. And then he starts making comments about Canada being the 51st state? We burned down their bloody White House but we're somehow no different than them. Just ask any American if Canada is different. Don't ask a Canuck, we'll go on all day about it.

nObO, I unhid you long enough to see what was going on, and I frankly don't care what your reply might be, but in conclusion, I'll leave you with a quote from the original post:

"Also, please include the Canon 50/2.5 in your comparison if you've used it."

So, we should avoid directly answering the OP's question because it does not suit you?

How well did this approach work with the kids in the playground?

Wtf's with you canucks ey? trying to pick a fight and now gang up on me? Did the fact that he took the first shot at Australia being a penile colony totally escaped you?

I already explained above, I was just replying to alexandre. I also explained that I'm not denying the the usefulness of AF, what more do you want from me ey? If you're not gonna bother reading my explanation, do me a favour and hide me again and stay the hell out of my convo with someone else.

n0b0 wrote:
[snip...] [censored acronym] with you canucks ey?.. [/snip]

..that would be "eh"

come on you guys. helimat, the "penile" comment was entirely uncalled-for. nobo, quit fanning the flames by responding in kind. both of you have excellent photographic knowledge to share here, much appreciated by many.

n0b0,

My intention was to compare equipment the OP already has.
I partially disagree with with you regarding AF uselessness w/ macro. You can use it with MF tuning so you don't lose any precious moment. For instance, a bee won't wait for you achieve the desired focus Anyway, all macro lenses I use are for migh-microcontrast effects and seldom for real macro pics, so you may be 'more right' than me regarding this specific application.

I like to come here everyday and discuss these things in a high level with you fellas. Let's avoid to upset ourselves unnecessarily!

siriusdogstar wrote:
come on you guys. helimat, the "penile" comment was entirely uncalled-for. nobo, quit fanning the flames by responding in kind. both of you have excellent photographic knowledge to share here, much appreciated by many.

I just had a different point of view, and was then asked to leave the thread because of it. The arrogance is outstanding, and it comes to light repeatedly from this member, or as Paul accurately described; contrarian. My comment was simply tongue-in-cheek, however it doesn't matter what colony this guy is from, he would be a wanker anywhere I suppose. We have several great contributors from down under, such as Pixel Perfect and Thrice, and I wouldn't want to lump them in the same category. So you are right, I did cross the line, and will apologize for that.

Marcel VanEerd wrote:
n0b0 wrote:
[snip...] [censored acronym] with you canucks ey?.. [/snip]

..that would be "eh"



lol I wasn't trying to mock Canadians with that. In Australia and NZ we do use ey or aye or however you want to spell that.

helimat wrote:
I just had a different point of view, and was then asked to leave the thread because of it.

Ok, looks like it's just a misunderstanding. My apology if you think I asked you to leave, really wasn't my intention.

First of all, when I said "I'm not sure why we're discussing this..." was because I thought we both pretty much agree that for macro AF is not important.

Secondly, my understanding is that "alternative" lenses are manual focus lenses that have to be adapted to the camera body unofficially and as such, I thought that anyone who wants an Auto focus lens wouldn't be here in the first place. My mistake was to use the word "you" and made you think it's personal. Again my apology, I'm not here to make enemies.

helimat wrote:
That being said, I wonder how the nFD 50 CM macro would do? Once converted, if infinity was not a concern, it would even better 1:2 and comes in @ 235g. Hmmmmmmmmmmmm...

I use my nFD 50/3.5 very often on a 40D and it handles very nicely with the low weight. Much easier than my heavy Tokina 90/2.5! The maximum focus distance is a limitation though. I am still thinking about trying an Oly 50/3.5 or Micro-Nikkor 50/3.5...

nOBO; apology accepted, a misunderstanding it was.

AhamB wrote:
I use my nFD 50/3.5 very often on a 40D and it handles very nicely with the low weight. Much easier than my heavy Tokina 90/2.5! The maximum focus distance is a limitation though. I am still thinking about trying an Oly 50/3.5 or Micro-Nikkor 50/3.5...

Were you just using it with a glassless FD-EF adapter? And what was the maximum distance? Curious if it would be worth adapting or better yet converting.

Yes, (obviously) with glassless/macro adapter, giving some ~10mm of extension.
Max. working distance is reduced to ~15cm (frame area = ~7.5x5cm). The Tokina 90/2.5 gives me ~40cm.

When I hold the 50/3.5 to my 40D without adapter I have about ~40cm (24x16cm area).
Looking at the rear of the lens it looks like it could actually give mirror clearance issues, but I'm no expert at lens conversions. I'd be interested to try it though.

Marcel VanEerd wrote:
Industar & a tube to get close. Not sure if it's good enough, but definitely very small and definitely cheap.

A pancake lens on a reversal ring is likely to offer better image quality (in comparison with an extension tube).

AhamB wrote:
Yes, (obviously) with glassless/macro adapter, giving some ~10mm of extension.
Max. working distance is reduced to ~15cm (frame area = ~7.5x5cm). The Tokina 90/2.5 gives me ~40cm.

When I hold the 50/3.5 to my 40D without adapter I have about ~40cm (24x16cm area).
Looking at the rear of the lens it looks like it could actually give mirror clearance issues, but I'm no expert at lens conversions. I'd be interested to try it though.

I figured the FD-EF adapter would really reduce the working distance, so that is why I was thinking of conversion. It it were done to maximize working distance although not all the way to infinity, it could work without mirror interference perhaps.

I love my Zuiko 50 f/3.5 macro. Super tiny, and extremely sharp, straight from wide open. Wonderful little lens. I spent $100 on mine, but it's absolutely pristine...mint condition.

Size comparison with my Sigma 150:

Jman, how about a similar comparison photo only with the 1:1 adaptor attached? Please?

I don't have the 1:1 adapter, but a 20mm extension tube is darn close. I can try and take a pic with a 20mm extension tube later today.

For 1:1 with this lens all you need is a 25mm extension tube. Easy enough to imagine without a picture I think?

Thanks for all the responses, I'm leaning toward just getting the Canon as it will double as a short portrait lens for those times when my kids won't stay still Which if we are on a hike is pretty much guaranteed.

Hi, if you're going AF let me say you should see the Sigma macro too... I heard its colors are warmer (if you prefer this way) than the Canon CM.

alexandre wrote:
Hi, if you're going AF let me say you should see the Sigma macro too... I heard its colors are warmer (if you prefer this way) than the Canon CM.

Second that. Unlike the Canon 50CM, The Sigma 50 macro actually goes to 1:1 magnification without any addon so technically it's more compact than the Canon 50CM at 1:1. There's also the Sigma 70mm macro if you prefer slightly longer distance.

I currently have a like new, Nikon, 50MM F4, El-Nikor on B/S. Very small, flat field, sharp lens, adaptable for macro.

alexandre wrote:
Hi, if you're going AF let me say you should see the Sigma macro too...

The Sigma 50/2.8 is bigger, heavier and have even slower AF. If 1:2 is enough I'd go for the Canon.

Happy shooting,
Yakim.