 |
|
|
Joshua June
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: May 14, 2007
Location: United States
Posts: 3
|
|
Review Date: Aug 28, 2007
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: $170.00
| Rating: 10
|
|
Pros:
|
Sharpness, nuances of focusing, performance in good lighting, Macro capabilities
|
|
Cons:
|
... at $170 I'm not sure I can complain about a very very slightly slower focus.
|
|
|
I actually sold off my MK I 50mm 1.8 after getting this guy. Why? because its zoom is faster, more accurate and clarity is close enough were I cannot tell a difference in sharpness, and I can get closer by far to my subjects and get accurate focusing in lower lighting then the standard 50mm.
Something I should also note: This lens has the finest tuning focus dial on any lens I have ever owned, it practically can be turned 3 full times around just for focusing as opposed to most zooms that only give you 90-270 degrees of rotation. This allows extremely fine tune adjustment of focus subject.
Also, any wash out of color or bokeh, I drop it 1/3 a stop, this gives me those deep colors, IF NEEDED I photo shop my image a little lighter or more saturation, I really prefer this lens over the nifty fifty.
I own an Xti, and am on a mission to try every Canon lens new and discontinued.
|
|
 Aug 28, 2007
|
|
Dinkar Singh
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Aug 25, 2007
Location: United States
Posts: 0
|
|
Review Date: Aug 25, 2007
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: $230.00
| Rating: 10
|
|
Pros:
|
Sharp, fantastic colors
|
|
Cons:
|
Slow focussing
|
|
|
Amazing color. Tack sharp images. Some of my best photos have been taken with this lens.
My only gripe with the lens is that focussing can be somewhat slow, and the build quality is so-so. But that's what keeps the price down. If you care primarily about image quality this lens is a real steal.
|
|
|
Aug 25, 2007
|
|
CS Ong
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Mar 29, 2007
Location: United States
Posts: 20
|
|
Review Date: Jun 26, 2007
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: $160.00
| Rating: 9
|
|
Pros:
|
tact sharp, cheap
|
|
Cons:
|
noisy AF, slow at low light, color not as saturated as L, but hey this is not an L!
|
|
|
Bought this lens used from ebay for only about $160 with shipping. Used it to shoot my kid, and some general macro (non-life size) shots.
So far the sharpness is comparable to the Carl Zeiss lenses I own, however the color rendition and saturation is a little wash out compared to the CZ lenses and L lenses. Buy hey this is only a $160 lens and the sharpness just blows me away.
Definitely value for money, and a keeper!
|
|
|
Jun 26, 2007
|
|
rossmehan
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Apr 9, 2005
Location: United States
Posts: 0
|
|
Review Date: Apr 25, 2007
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: $210.00
| Rating: 9
|
|
Pros:
|
Cheap, decent autofocus, excellent contrast, color, and sharpness at all focus distances
|
|
Cons:
|
None for the money
|
|
|
I had to give my 2-cents on this lens--BUY IT! Really sharp and contrasty. Excellent lens for the money. I bought it to replace my 50 f1.8 as a normal lens (which is a decent lens in itself) because I wanted a little more sharpnness and was not expecting the high image quality I got. Canon sometimes shines with their non-"L" lenses, and this is definitely one of them. Macro works great too. Not the greatest build, but at this price it's disposable if damaged!
|
|
|
Apr 25, 2007
|
|
Geisterfahrer
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Dec 1, 2006
Location: Italy
Posts: 0
|
|
Review Date: Dec 29, 2006
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: Not Indicated
| Rating: 9
|
|
Pros:
|
Not expensive; small and lightweight; no need for a hood; excellent sharpness; "natural" color rendition
|
|
Cons:
|
Feels somewhat fragile; no 1:1 magnification; manual focus can be tricky; slow AF
|
|
|
A light, small and unobtrusive lens, even when fully extended, the 50 mm f/2.5 Compact Macro is one of the oldest Canon EF lenses available; the archaic design makes the lens feel somewhat fragile - though not as "plasticky" as the 50 mm f/1.8 II - and features a small manual focus ring that can work fine on, say, the 35 mm f/2, but is difficult to use properly with a macro lens, made for shots where accurate focusing is critical. Should you want to use AF, you will need to be patient, since it is slow and prone to hunting, especially at shorter distances.
However, when you manage to close the lens as much as possible to get your main subject in focus, the results are surely worth your efforts. The ability of the lens to reveal the details, even very small ones, is truly amazing; excellent microcontrast and natural (i.e. not too saturated, but neither "washed") color rendition are the strong points of the lens. Moreover, the optical elements are deeply set inside the lens body, making the use of a hood not necessary.
The 50 mm f/2.5 Compact Macro is a recommendable choice if you do not take a lot of macro shots and/or your main use for such a lens is to shoot flowers, plants, coins, stamps or still-life scenes. Yes, it is not able to give a full 1:1 magnification ratio, but the optical quality, light weight and low cost of the lens can make up for that. Surely it could be used for portraits, architecture and art, but the 50 mm f/1.4 is a better lens for similar needs, due to its richer color rendition and great "boke".
|
|
|
Dec 29, 2006
|
|
JoaquinQuerol
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Dec 22, 2006
Location: Spain
Posts: 0
|
|
Review Date: Dec 23, 2006
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: Not Indicated
| Rating: 10
|
|
Pros:
|
Great contrast,colour and very very sharp.
|
|
Cons:
|
Slow and noisy AF.
|
|
|
I think thatīs one of the more ugly lens,whith a little glass but its optical quatity is fantastic. Yes, its AF is noisy and slow but for my usually photo at this focal leng I donīt need fast AF.
I test this lens with the canon 50mm f/1,4 and 24-105 L. Between 24-105 and 50mm f/2,5 this macro lens beat in over apertures at 24-105 L series.
Between 50mm f/1,4 and 50mm f/2,5 in the middle allways is better macro lens, but in the corner 50mmf/1,4 lens is best to f/3,6 equal at f/4 and worst from f/5,6."This test is only valid with a full frame camera".If you had crop camera and don,t need extra aperture this is your lens.
I usually donīt use this lens for macro becouse I had 100mm macro, but if you need more than 1:2 use kenko extend tubes with 50mm f/2,5 you can get very good result.
Itīs one of more sharp lens I had, similar canon 200mm f/2,8L
|
|
|
Dec 23, 2006
|
|
Gaspar Avila
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Sep 7, 2006
Location: Portugal
Posts: 0
|
|
Review Date: Dec 20, 2006
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: $230.00
| Rating: 9
|
|
Pros:
|
Wonderful image quality, Sharp, Cheap (almost for free), Very light and small
|
|
Cons:
|
Noisy, Poor build quality, Not 1:1
|
|
|
I bought this lens after reading other people's reviews here and, in general, I agree with everything that's been said about it.
It's a great lens for closeups. I bought it mainly for photographing nature closeups and handicraft, and it's been great. I use it on a Canon 5D.
|
|
|
Dec 20, 2006
|
|
William Austin
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Sep 30, 2006
Location: United Kingdom
Posts: 0
|
|
Review Date: Oct 18, 2006
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: Not Indicated
| Rating: 10
|
|
Pros:
|
Sharp Sharp and light
|
|
Cons:
|
none
|
|
|
Paid Ģ103 for this lens used off ebay, It's a great little lens and is very sharp, focusing speed is good, not used it yet for macro photo's but I got it to replace my 50mm mk1 as I'd heard it was meant to be sharper, which I've found it to be true
|
|
|
Oct 18, 2006
|
|
ConorOSullivan
Offline
[ X ]
Registered: Sep 6, 2006
Location: United States
Posts: 21
|
|
Review Date: Sep 16, 2006
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: $230.00
| Rating: 8
|
|
Pros:
|
Pretty sharp, great money value. Best macro lens below $300 and maybe even more. Leaves you open with the life size converter option. Pretty good for portraits too. Very small and light.
|
|
Cons:
|
A little short and not true 1:1.
|
|
I love this lens, use it for all my macros now. Almost everything in my gallery was shot on it http://cpostudios.com All of the close ups were shot with it. A shot of a spider on a horizantal stem is focused down all the way with now life size converter. No crop on that photo except for the EOS 350D's crop. Good representation of what this lens is capable of in terms of quality, it's up to you to make the image count really.
|
|
|
Sep 16, 2006
|
|
gliphix
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Jan 9, 2006
Location: United States
Posts: 0
|
|
Review Date: Mar 28, 2006
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: $289.00
| Rating: 8
|
|
Pros:
|
definitely sharp, light and compact, cheap cost and can be a soft portrait lens too, colors wonder
|
|
Cons:
|
yeap noisy, slow focus, you need patiences, not recommended for none full-frame DSLR.
|
|
I have never really appreciated this baby until I started using it with my EOS-1Ds. I've used it a lot with the 350D but the photos didn't have the impact and clarity I was expecting with the exception of a few portraits that came out soft and nice. It could be better if the lens was 1:1 macro but its not.
This is my favorite so far with this lens:
http://www.dpcprints.com/print.php?IMAGE_ID=310431
Some examples of the capabilities of this lens:
http://www.dpcprints.com/profile.php?&USER_ID=50935&GALLERY_ID=22
You can also visit my "In The Garden" gallery at PBASE to see what else I use this for at http://www.pbase.com/gliphix/inthegraden&page=all
In short, I like this lens for its sharpness and compact design but overall, it doesn't cost much.
|
|
|
Mar 28, 2006
|
|
andyjaggy82
Offline
Registered: Jan 25, 2006
Location: United States
Posts: 733
|
|
Review Date: Feb 6, 2006
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: $250.00
| Rating: 8
|
|
Pros:
|
Sharp, good colors, cheap.
|
|
Cons:
|
focusing speed.
|
|
|
This was the first lens I bought aside from the el-cheapo kit lens that came with my camera. this lens is sharp, and very usuable even wide open. the build quality is decent, not L quality but a huge step up from the cheap kit lens. focusing is slow and LOUD, it sounds like a grinding machine or something. I don't see the focusing speed as much of an issue though since this is a macro lens and I typically focus manually with macro stuff anyway.
|
|
|
Feb 6, 2006
|
|
sky_barker
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Aug 3, 2005
Location: United States
Posts: 497
|
|
Review Date: Jan 28, 2006
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: $230.00
| Rating: 10
|
|
Pros:
|
Very sharp, small, cheap.
|
|
Cons:
|
Build quality.
|
|
|
With both film and digital this is one of the best Canon lenses I have used. It's the only non L lens I have but it has a permanent place in my kit. It's an outstanding choice for pet portraits.
|
|
|
Jan 28, 2006
|
|
Stimphoto
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Jan 11, 2006
Location: Singapore
Posts: 0
|
|
Review Date: Jan 11, 2006
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: $250.00
| Rating: 9
|
|
Pros:
|
Sharp. Great contrast and colour. Small and flexible in usage.
|
|
Cons:
|
1:2. Not much other than that really. Oh yea, the bokeh is not quite as smooth as I would like it.
|
|
|
It's very sharp, for certain, but not as sharp as my 85/1.8. Gets even sharper when stopped down to f4, but that's it, you're not going to see any more change even if you stopped it down more and did test charts. Edge to edge sharpness.
Contrast and colour are on par with Ls I have played with as well as the 85/1.8. Very good.
I use this lens mainly for portraits and for abstracts so the 1:2 isn't an issue for me. I suspect it might be very good for flowers though. Focussing is fast enough on my 1dII and catching moments during events are not a problem.
My only complaint is that the bokeh produced by this lens looks a tad choppy and by far isn't the most pleasing.
|
|
|
Jan 11, 2006
|
|
peta32387
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Nov 29, 2005
Location: United States
Posts: 3
|
|
Review Date: Dec 28, 2005
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: Not Indicated
|
|
|
why on earth do some people even compare this to an L? i don't even own this lens, but i like to read reviews. seriously. this thing costs whatever, $230 bucks. of course it's not an L.
|
|
|
Dec 28, 2005
|
|
lotisb
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Dec 27, 2005
Location: United States
Posts: 3
|
|
Review Date: Dec 27, 2005
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: $210.00
| Rating: 8
|
|
Pros:
|
Sharp through all f-stops. Price.
|
|
Cons:
|
S-L-O-W, unpredictable and noisy AF.
|
|
|
I have used this lens for over a year and a half now for all applications (macro, still life, portraits) and I am happy with its versatility and image quality. Color, contrast and sharpness are all excellent. It's hard to beat the quality of this lens at any price range. At the negative end, this bad boy will HUNT for a focus point in anything but ideal lighting. Manual focusing does get some getting used to but once you have the hang of it excellent pictures await you.
|
|
|
Dec 27, 2005
|
|
gpfmartin
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Apr 13, 2005
Location: United States
Posts: 172
|
|
Review Date: Dec 26, 2005
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: $200.00
| Rating: 10
|
|
Pros:
|
sharp throughout the frame, price, dof scale, infrared dot, mf/af switch
|
|
Cons:
|
slow focus, loud
|
|
|
tack-sharp optics makes my photos pop with detail! This is really an affordable Canon lens. The build and autofocus aren't the best, but the price is great. My 50mm of choice was the 1.8-II, but this lens has replaced it except for when I *need* to shoot at f/1.8 - f/2.0.
|
|
|
Dec 26, 2005
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Reviews
|
Views
|
Date of last review
|
|
69
|
181027
|
Sep 26, 2012
|
|
|
Recommended By
|
Average Price
|
|
96% of reviewers
|
$224.00
|
|
|
Build Quality Rating
|
Price Rating
|
Overall Rating
|
|
8.17
|
9.57
|
9.2
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 |
