I find a lot of comps between the 50 1.4 and the 1.8 but not really much talk about the 2.5. If macros are generally designed to be sharper, other than giving up some of the speed to get to 1.4, would the macro not make a nice all around lens? By nature of being a macro would it also not give a better bokeh effect when used properly? Would it be sharper at 2.5 and upwards? Unfortunately I can find 1.4 vs 1.8 comparison shots but not 1.4 vs the macro 2.5. I want to see those two duke it out!
From what I have read from the posts here, an average macro lens is best up to about 100' away, so not a great choice for landscapes. There are some exceptions, the Leica APO Macro 100/2.8 is superior at all ranges.
After reading the test report from AP, I bought the EFS 60 mm macro, that one is wonderful for me. Of you are using 20D, I think you may consider it, sharp all the way from 20 cm to "infinite".
was thinking about the 60, but I am pretty sure I eventually go to a full frame sensor so am trying not to go down the efs route - although I already have a 17-85 efs but I will sell it when I figure out what I plan on doing at the wide angle part of the spectrum.
how about correcting the barrel distortion with software?
I find the focus on the 50mm f2.5 macro lens is so slow that it is not so good for general purpose use. I've taken to carrying the Canon Lifesize adaptor I originally bought with the macro, and when I have need of closeup work, put it on either the 50mm f1.4 or the 85mm f1.8. I often need the quick focus capabilities of the faster lenses as well as their low-light level capabilities. Since picking up the 50 f1.4, I've rarely had the occasion to use the macro.
Yes, I have been very reluctant to buy any EFS lens.
However, the report was so positive, it even said the lens' capability is beyond the resolution of the camera, i.e. 300D in that test.
I bought a used one for my 20D, for about one month, my experience was so good that I prefer to have it on the camera all the time
Anyway, the lens is not that expensive, you may sell it when you upgrade to FF.
I agree with JMShort, the focus on the 50mm f2.5 is slow. In practices, I am not fond of 50mm for macro because it is a bit short, even on 1.6 crop cameras.
The 50mm f1.4, 50mm f1.8, and 85mm f1.8 also open up faster available light photography (indoor) and allow you to get more selective on DOF and think they are overally better options.
BTW, I got my 50 f2.5 because of reasoning very similar to yours, it just did not work out that way, I ended up getting a dedicated macro and a 85 f1.8 anyway.
I own the 50 f/1.4 and I've tried the 50 f/2.5 at a store. My copy of the 1.4 is super sharp at f/2 and beyond so I don't need the macro due to the fact that by f/2.5 my lens is as sharp, or sharper. And when I need the super low light shooting ability, it's there for me. Not to mention the much faster micro-USM motor. I know it's no ring USM but it's way faster, and much, much quiteter than the f/2.5 focus motor.
As for the 100mm macro: It's my favorite lens. Sharper than any of my lenses and the focusing is very quick. Maybe I have a better copy than most but I find the focusing speed to be faster than my 135L. I've owned two copies of the 135L so I know that the thing isn't broken. Maybe it helps to set the focus limiter on the 100mm. It will not focus down to life-size but I don't need it to for 98% of the time anyway...
Canon 50mm F2.5 Macro is incredibly sharpest
One of the sharpest Canon lenses ever used.
I never used Canon 50mm F1.4 USM.
But price point, 50mm f2.5 is much better choice for landscape.
For portrait, 50mm F1.4 would be definitely better choice.
I expect the EF 50/2.5 Macro is an excellent landscape lens, although 'macro bokeh' does not necessarily translate to subjects at a longer distance (i.e. the DOF at macro distances is so shallow, that everything not in critical focus looks pretty smooth). I have owned the 50/2.5, and it's very sharp, although its focus speed is slower than the faster fifties (esp. in lower light). OTOH, the low-light performance of modern cameras is becoming flat-out amazing.
The f/2.5 is probably sharper than the faster ones at common apertures, and 'cleaner' too (less CA), but it will always have less-shallow DOF, than those wider apertures (which is why some people buy them). I think I've owned all Canon EF fifties prior to the STM (probably have all but the f/2.5, ATM). About the only 'mistake' you can make, is to pay too much for one.
My two favourite 'landscape' lenses are both 'macros': Carl Zeiss Makro-Planar 50/2 ZE and 100/2 ZE.
P.S. the EF 50/2.5 Macro is included in the The Digital Picture comparison tool:
I've owned the EF 50 2.5 CM since 1994 and it's extremely sharpeven wide openand well corrected for distortion and coma. I mostly use it for small products on and art work my 6D or 6D2, but it's also a wonderful landscape lens if you need 50mm. I rarely use the Life Size Adapter, although it works great for copying slides. Focus is plenty fast enough for most use other than sports. I think part of the perception of slowness is due to the fact the motor has an audible "sheeeeeet" sound.
I owned the EF 50 1.4 USM and it was terrible closer than 2 meters due to strong barrel distortion. Open shot wide open or there about, it suffered horrid coma. Street lights looked like comets even with a rock solid tripod. Useless for night photography. Mine wasn't any good until F4 or so. Although USM, it wasn't faster at focus compared to the EF 50 2.5 CM, just inaudible.
I find a lot of comps between the 50 1.4 and the 1.8 but not really much talk about the 2.5. If macros are generally designed to be sharper, other than giving up some of the speed to get to 1.4, would the macro not make a nice all around lens? By nature of being a macro would it also not give a better bokeh effect when used properly? Would it be sharper at 2.5 and upwards? Unfortunately I can find 1.4 vs 1.8 comparison shots but not 1.4 vs the macro 2.5. I want to see those two duke it out!
The 50mm macros should be fine for general use. I feel like most of the problems on the faster regular inexpensive 50's are gone by 2.5 or especially 3.5. Although I'd rather be at 5.6-8+ if I needed good corners. Not sure how much difference between the two, really, at common apertures. Wouldn't expect a lot but maybe. I have the 50/1.8 v2 and it's quite good imo. Shot stuff at 2.5 on crop, not sure about the corners center looked actually really good imo on the lcd
I do a lot of macro and used to use the OM 50/3.5 macro as my 50mm.
Ducky, I think you kinda said it above with, "a nice all around lens".
First there's a reason why the 50, both 1.4 and 1.8 came std. on 35mm cameras for 50 years.
To me what makes a lens a good, "nice all around lens", is that it can be used in the day, indoors and at night and few other lenses can bridge the versatility of a 50 1.4 for it's sheer ability to be used in almost all conditions and still be light and compact.
I'm not trying to take anything form a macro but unless you're gonna do macro why get a macro? The same argument could be made for a TS lens, they too are sharp.
It's horses for courses. A 2.8 is ultra fast for a 400 but a 2.5 is ultra slow for a 50.
I've been using fast 50's for more than 50 years and except for bellows and tubes have never found a need for a macro but I don't consider myself a macro shooter. Your mileage may of course be quite different!
Good luck and happy holidays.
John
Letīs not forget the EF 40mm f/2.8 STM lens. I used it on my 2000D last week as the only lens on a rather tough trek with excellent results. Itīs appreciably wider than a 50mm which I find rather nice on a crop sensor. And the small size is now matched with a similarly low price. It is one of only two lenses I have got two copies of. It is that good!
Z250SA wrote:
Letīs not forget the EF 40mm f/2.8 STM lens. I used it on my 2000D last week as the only lens on a rather tough trek with excellent results. Itīs appreciably wider than a 50mm which I find rather nice on a crop sensor. And the small size is now matched with a similarly low price. It is one of only two lenses I have got two copies of. It is that good!
I have have the EF 40 2.8 USM and mine is extremely sharp and vivid. I bought it from Canon Direct as a refurb after I returned a brand new one with a soft left side. It didn't focus reliably on my old Rebel SL1 but works fine on my newer cameras.
I made this decision about 10 years ago and went with the 50mm 2.5. The 50mm 2.5 focuses much closer than the 1.4, and when stopped down, it has excellent corner to corner flat field performance.
