 |
|
|
mariusg
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Sep 22, 2004
Location: United States
Posts: 0
|
|
Review Date: Dec 19, 2005
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: $240.00
| Rating: 10
|
|
Pros:
|
The sharpest lens under 85mm. Sharp corners for full frame. I wish there exist at least one other Canon lenses in this price rage and with this sharpness (but for a different focal).
|
|
Cons:
|
the filter size.
|
|
|
Only 2 Canon primes are sharper than this, 135mm f2 ($1000) and 85m 1.2 ($1500).
I got this as an upgrade for Canon 50mm 1.8 - it's a bit sharper and it can be handheld by adults (I have average size hands, but I simply could not handheld 50mm 1.8 properly).
The focal length is perfect for both APS and FF sensors, it's more usable than any other prime. I started using it on APS first, now I use it FF (and generally much more than on APS).
I did not intend to use it for macro, at 1:2 is not enugh, and the 1:1 adapter is more expensive than the lens itself, besides, for $500 there much better macro lenses (better focal length, I don't know about sharpness). I played a few times with it, it's ok for large insects and small flowers, but that's about it.
For a non-L lens, this thing has a really nice bokeh.
Compared to zeoom lenses, at F2.5 it's sharper than all zooms at F4 (I tried Canon 18-55, Sigma 18-50, Canon 17-40, Canon 70-200).
The auto focus is slow, yes, and sometimes gives up when the subject is really close but at this range it should be focused manually anyway. The manual focus is a lot slower than most lenses because it's a macro and the drive is 3-4 times longer than normal lenses (it's a bit more than a complete turn, let's say 1.1 turns)
|
|
 Dec 19, 2005
|
|
smac
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Sep 28, 2004
Location: United States
Posts: 11
|
|
Review Date: Dec 10, 2005
|
Recommend? no |
Price paid: $229.00
| Rating: 8
|
|
Pros:
|
Sharp
|
|
Cons:
|
slow, noisy AF, only goes to 1:2
|
|
|
I couldn't get past the slow focus and the noisy AF drive. It sounded like a coffee grinder. It is sharp, but the necessity of adding an extension tube to get to 1:1 made it inconvenient. I so want to like this lens, I've actually had 2 of them.
|
|
|
Dec 10, 2005
|
|
jjarecki
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Nov 22, 2005
Location: United States
Posts: 0
|
|
Review Date: Nov 30, 2005
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: $200.00
| Rating: 10
|
|
Pros:
|
A really great lens. Very sharp, light and not to expensive.
|
|
Cons:
|
None really
|
|
|
|
|
|
Nov 30, 2005
|
|
beaucroft
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Oct 25, 2005
Location: United Kingdom
Posts: 0
|
|
Review Date: Oct 25, 2005
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: Not Indicated
| Rating: 10
|
|
Pros:
|
Build quality, sharpness, price
|
|
Cons:
|
Size, weight, not 'true' macro, not an 'L'
|
|
|
Although I love my 24-70 2.8L, it's not the sort of lens that you just chuck in the bag, so I needed something that had slightly less presence than a house brick. Using a 10D with a small sensor, I was tempted by a 35mm lens for wider coverage, but this 50mm comes Macro and in the end, is far more versatile for my needs.
Having had this lens for a month now, I am very pleased with it. The 2.5 apeture is plenty wide enough for me, and gives excellent blur. It is good and sharp and makes for excellent portraits.
The Macro won't get super close, so I end up cropping my close-ups a bit to achieve full frame.
It's bigger than the 1.8, but the versatility and price makes it a winner for me.
|
|
|
Oct 25, 2005
|
|
jamach
Offline
Buy and Sell: On
Registered: Jan 31, 2005
Location: United States
Posts: 6104
|
|
Review Date: Sep 24, 2005
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: $220.00
| Rating: 10
|
|
Pros:
|
sharpness, color, size, high F32 performance
|
|
Cons:
|
none
|
|
|
This lens is a must have. Why? Because it is sharp, produces great color, and can do people. When you absolutely need the picture sharp or an outstanding short portrait lens, this is it. Yes, it is not usm and the design is old, but it does perform very well. Need sharp F2.5-32? You got it, for about $200.
|
|
|
Sep 24, 2005
|
|
eeyore
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Aug 15, 2005
Location: Australia
Posts: 5
|
|
Review Date: Aug 16, 2005
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: Not Indicated
| Rating: 9
|
|
Pros:
|
Small size. Excellent results.
|
|
Cons:
|
No 1:1. Noisy and slow autofocus.
|
|
|
This is a great lens to do macro work, and to also use as a normal lens. With the 300D, it produces very nice, sharp and well balanced (contrast wise) photos. It is sharp to the edge and performs well at 2.5, but definetly improves from about 3.5/4 onwards. It is a good size, and is a nice fit for those travelling. As mentioned above, the only down side to this lens is the lack of 1:1 and also the loud and slow autofocus. I did purchase the 1:1 converter, and it does make it more useful, however, the size and weight approaches that of the 100/2.8. Optical quality seems to not suffer too much, though I have not had much opportunity to use the converter so far. Great lens, none the less.
|
|
|
Aug 16, 2005
|
|
Veronicah
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Sep 23, 2004
Location: United States
Posts: 68
|
|
Review Date: Aug 12, 2005
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: $300.00
| Rating: 10
|
|
Pros:
|
Great bokeh, sharp pictures, nice macro and great for portraits
|
|
Cons:
|
Autofocus sometimes slow, and focuses back and forth and few seconds, but once it finds its spot, it takes wonderful pictures.
|
|
|
I just broke down and bought the Canon 350D over the 20D because I wanted a compact SLR that I could throw in my bag with a small lens. After realizing the kit lens 18-55 was junk, I decided to put on this lens, which I formerly used only for macro back with my Rebel G film camera.
Boy was I impressed with this lens! I have taken absolutely beautiful portraits of my daughter, along with sharp macros of a ladybug, all with a beautiful creamy background.
I have decided to keep this lens on my body as a general purpose lens, though I may have to invest in the 85 1.8 for those low-light situations (school plays and ballet performances) when I need a faster lens.
I also purchased the Tokina 12-24 wideangle, and I will post my thoughts on this later.
All in all, buy the 50 2.5. It's a great lens!
|
|
|
Aug 12, 2005
|
|
Dajon
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Jun 8, 2005
Location: Canada
Posts: 6
|
|
Review Date: Jun 8, 2005
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: Not Indicated
| Rating: 9
|
|
Pros:
|
small and sharp -fast aperture macro
|
|
Cons:
|
no FTM
|
|
|
This lens is a simple design with no special features except: great close-ups that are extreemly sharp! i do wish it had a USM so that it could have full time manual focusing. This lens is my multi purpose lens on my DSLR. its a compact portrait lens and a great little macro.
I find the 1:2 macro close enough for me and if need closer I use a 12mm or 25mm EXT tube. I dont recommend the close adapter made for this lens (so you can get 1:1) -i find it to be a bit of a rip-off.
great little compact macro that works on my film bodies and digital bodies
|
|
|
Jun 8, 2005
|
|
benpaul67
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: May 29, 2005
Location: United States
Posts: 11
|
|
Review Date: Jun 7, 2005
|
Recommend? |
Price paid: Not Indicated
|
|
Pros:
|
Many.
|
|
Cons:
|
Fewer than I thought.
|
|
|
I just found out 'purple finging' is due to overvoltage saturation of a digital CCD, and has nothing to do with ANY lens. So my main beef with this lens is really with my CCD. However, PF is a LOT less with the 17-40, for whatever reason my XT likes that lens. I will say then that this is the sharpest lens for the $$ I've seen. Maybe sharper than my 17-40 by a hair, I think. But the 17-40 is just so NICELY IMPRESSIVE in every way. So the only one remaining complaint I have about this lens, that it doesn't seem 'right' compared to the 17-40, could be bokeh, but I know little about it and if someone else could post on this, it might well remove my sole remaining complaint. Other than 2:1 Macro. I'm getting a 60 2.8 micronikkor to replace the one I sold a few years ago when I went digital. At the time, it was considered the sharpest single period, and I think, 7 years later it still is. Got a nice adapter for my XT, and will slap it on asap. Will be a primarily Macro lens for me.
I would rerate this lens a 9.5 now.
|
|
|
Jun 7, 2005
|
|
benpaul67
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: May 29, 2005
Location: United States
Posts: 11
|
|
Review Date: May 29, 2005
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: $260.00
| Rating: 8
|
|
Pros:
|
Pretty sharp. Maybe best lens for the $. Can't fault it other than a bit of purple. BUT.....
|
|
Cons:
|
Purple fringing is the drawback. AND, this is based on using it on a EOS XT, 1.6 I think. Less demanding of the lens periphery I think. Uncomfortable FL for a 1.6. Macro is sharp but too little closeup. Lens is sharp, colors sat, 2.5 is nice, purple may not be too bad, maybe so. Can't tell. Decent lens, hard to fault, because it does almost everything 'technically' right, but it just looks WRONG, WRONG, WRONG compared to a 17-40L.
|
|
|
|
|
|
May 29, 2005
|
|
gerrit p
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Jun 10, 2003
Location: Netherlands
Posts: 2
|
|
Review Date: Apr 4, 2005
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: Not Indicated
| Rating: 9
|
|
Pros:
|
sharp, no distortion
|
|
Cons:
|
wish it had usm
|
|
|
I use it for reproductions and architecture, if it had usm I would use it for general purpose also.
|
|
|
Apr 4, 2005
|
|
EOS20
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Mar 6, 2005
Location: Australia
Posts: 13408
|
|
Review Date: Mar 26, 2005
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: Not Indicated
| Rating: 9
|
|
Pros:
|
Cheap, Sharp, Small.
|
|
Cons:
|
Lack of USM, Only 1:2x Life without convertor.
|
|
|
A good compact general purpous lens.
Very sharp and contrasty, Works well for both macro and as a general purpous normal lens.
Canon should re-release it with a USM insted of the current DC motor which can be a bit slow.
Still it is highly recomended!
|
|
|
Mar 26, 2005
|
|
zonkola
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Feb 9, 2005
Location: United States
Posts: 194
|
|
Review Date: Mar 9, 2005
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: $200.00
| Rating: 10
|
|
Pros:
|
Razor-sharp macro, low price, decent portrait lens.
|
|
Cons:
|
AF isn't the best, manual focus ring feels flimsy, requires an extender if you need 1:1.
|
|
|
I bought this lens over the well-regarded f1.8 and f1.4 50mm lenses because I could only justify getting a single 50mm for my 10d. In my opinion, this lens is more versatile than the other two 50mm's. It's great for product-style macro shots and works nicely for studio portraits as well. For portraits I use it in place of my 85mm f1.8 when I'm backed up against the wall and need to get more of my subject in the frame.
I primarily use this lens in a studio setting with controlled lighting and slow or non-moving subjects, so the AF issues haven't been a problem. If I did more low-light or action shooting I might be tempted to get the f1.4 model, but for what I do this lens is a keeper.
|
|
|
Mar 9, 2005
|
|
shlomi
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Oct 11, 2004
Location: Israel
Posts: 12
|
|
Review Date: Mar 5, 2005
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: $230.00
| Rating: 7
|
|
Pros:
|
Sharp, no distortion, macro, no flare
|
|
Cons:
|
Very bad AF, washed out colors, not great bokeh
|
|
|
I bought this lens after reading the very positive reviews in this site. I was very disappointed and returned it after a couple of days of shooting, and got a 50/1.4 instead.
This lens is exactly what it looks like - an old compact macro. It is suitable for close range macro. As a general lens it is not really usable - it misses focus in *many* situations.
There are no complaints about sharpness. However colors are somewhat washed out, and bokeh is not great. For shooting people, there is no comparison between this one and the 50/1.4 - the latter wins hands down.
Get this lens only if the macro feature is its main intended use. If you want the full prime quality go for the 50/1.4 and you will not be sorry.
<A href="http://www.pbase.com/shlomi/image/40011850/original.jpg">Sample picture</A>
|
|
|
Mar 5, 2005
|
|
Powerdoc
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Feb 4, 2005
Location: France
Posts: 10
|
|
Review Date: Feb 6, 2005
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: Not Indicated
| Rating: 9
|
|
Pros:
|
tight sharp
neutral color
distorsion free
|
|
Cons:
|
only 1:2
Slow AF
|
|
|
I own this lens since 15 years. At a time I used on my EOS 10 (film) to shot only with this lens, and I was very happy with it.
It's also tight sharp on both my 10 and 20 D. This is a very good prime. I keep mine.
|
|
|
Feb 6, 2005
|
|
MikeK5117
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Dec 16, 2004
Location: United States
Posts: 85
|
|
Review Date: Feb 3, 2005
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: $185.00
| Rating: 10
|
|
Pros:
|
Very sharp, great contrast, incredible color. Perfect size to keep in a jacket pocket. Great bargain in a canon prime.
|
|
Cons:
|
Needs full-time manual focus.
|
|
|
I was trying to make up my mind between this lens and a 50mm 1.4 when a "like new" 50 macro came along on Ebay at a pretty good buy-it-now price. On impulse I bought it. Very glad I did. I've only owned it for a short while but it is already one of my favorites. Extremely sharp, contrasty and the DOF is very smooth, just what you need to shoot a flower blossum and have the petals and background fall into perfect out-of-focus highlights. The lack of USM doesn,t bother me much with my 1D, but full time manual focus would be nice.
|
|
|
Feb 3, 2005
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Reviews
|
Views
|
Date of last review
|
|
69
|
180910
|
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
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 |
