 |
|
|
peterstrong
Offline
[ X ]
Registered: Dec 21, 2016
Location: United States
Posts: 0
|
|
Review Date: Dec 21, 2016
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: Not Indicated
| Rating: 9
|
|
Pros:
|
Amazing IQ at a bargain price!
|
|
Cons:
|
|
|
|
I was hoping this little lens would be a standard lens, with the possibility of 1/2 macro. The vignetting on my 5D mark II is heavy, but correctable. Not a big problem, sometimes even beautiful. But the big disadvantage for me is the bokeh. I simple do not like it, never smooth. So I still take my Sigma 50 mm F1,4 with me, witch deliver very smooth bokeh. But a little big.
|
|
 Dec 21, 2016
|
|
majadero
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Mar 3, 2015
Location: France
Posts: 0
|
|
Review Date: Mar 5, 2015
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: Not Indicated
| Rating: 8
|
|
Pros:
|
Very sharp and contrasty from f/5.6 when used as regular 50. Very sharp through all apertures in macro range.
|
|
Cons:
|
When used as a regular 50 edges dissapoint at f/2.5-4.0
|
|
Images are sharp from corner to corner starting from f/8.0.
F/5.6 is not bad although we can see little softness not only in the corners but also in the edges.
At f/2.5 softness of the edges is very visible.
When I use this lens in the studio shooting full body shots I have to close it to f/8.0 or at least to f/5.6.
Contrast is very high through all the f/stops.
In my opinion this lens performs best in macro range unless stopped down.
Few photos I have made with this lens:
http://canoneoslensesreview.blogspot.com/2015/03/canon-eos-ef-5025-compact-macro-review.html
|
|
|
Mar 5, 2015
|
|
drzhao
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Feb 17, 2014
Location: United States
Posts: 52
|
|
Review Date: Jun 18, 2014
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: Not Indicated
| Rating: 10
|
|
Pros:
|
Extremely sharp, low cost,
|
|
Cons:
|
|
|
|
This lens is amazingly sharp. It's as sharp as my 24-70mm II 2.8 if not sharper. When sharpness counts and bokeh doesn't matter, this is the lens to get. I don't have a 50mm 1.2L, but comparing images I've seen, the sharpness is definitely in par. Fantastic for museums and art galleries.
|
|
|
Jun 18, 2014
|
|
chets954
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Aug 9, 2012
Location: United States
Posts: 21
|
|
Review Date: Jul 5, 2013
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: $200.00
| Rating: 10
|
|
Pros:
|
IQ, Sharp, nice color and contrast, cheap, small, consistent autofocus
|
|
Cons:
|
Noisy AF (macro), tiny focus ring, Bokeh very busy, hunts in low light
|
|
|
Excellent IQ. Very sharp. Great Colors. Highly recommended.
|
|
|
Jul 5, 2013
|
|
Gunzorro
Offline
Buy and Sell: On
Registered: Aug 27, 2010
Location: United States
Posts: 14575
|
|
Review Date: Sep 26, 2012
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: $200.00
| Rating: 10
|
|
Pros:
|
Amazing IQ at a bargain price!
|
|
Cons:
|
Older EF lens design: slow, noisy AF, tiny focus ring.
|
|
|
One of my favorite Canon lenses. Superb IQ from 1:2 to infinity. Plenty fast enough to use as a general lens. Loved the look on a 1D-series 1.3X crop -- great for detail shots and vignettes.
The AF is a bit creaky, but it is precise and that's what counts in my book. I want keeper shots, and this lens supplies them.
Of course it would be nice if it were updated and had IS, but he cost would go up to $700 then, instead of the pleasing $200 it can be found for used or refurb.
|
|
|
Sep 26, 2012
|
|
LeoJan
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: May 26, 2006
Location: Netherlands
Posts: 0
|
|
Review Date: Mar 23, 2012
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: $100.00
| Rating: 7
|
|
Pros:
|
Sharp, nice color and contrast, cheap, small, consistent autofocus, a sun cap not necessary, keeps it small.
|
|
Cons:
|
Bokeh ugly very busy, vignetting
|
|
|
Amazing lens, sharp wide open, insane sharp from F4.0. Usable until F16. I bought this lens second hand for 100 euro, like new.
I was hoping this little lens would be a standard lens, with the possibility of 1/2 macro. The vignetting on my 5D mark II is heavy, but correctable. Not a big problem, sometimes even beautiful. But the big disadvantage for me is the bokeh. I simple do not like it, never smooth. So I still take my Sigma 50 mm F1,4 with me, witch deliver very smooth bokeh. But a little big.
But for the money a bargain and if you are looking for a cheap lens witch can deliver very very sharp photo's with nice colar and contrast. The build quality is comparable with the much more expensive Canon 50 mm F1.4, a lens witch I never liked.
|
|
|
Mar 23, 2012
|
|
sehdata
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Apr 22, 2007
Location: Denmark
Posts: 0
|
|
Review Date: Feb 20, 2012
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: Not Indicated
| Rating: 10
|
|
Pros:
|
So incredible sharp at 2.5 - cost near nothing from new
|
|
Cons:
|
no what so ever
|
|
|
My favorite lens at alle time on both crop and fuldframe - i always carry this lens together with my 28 1.8 and 85 1.8 - on my trip to urban cities around the world -
I use to have a EF-S 60 mm but need one i could use on both full frame and crop therefore i tried this one and feld in love with it - color is stunning - sharpeness is incredible and I'm i love with the sound of the old focus engine - its just fun
get a copy of this before it vanish -
|
|
|
Feb 20, 2012
|
|
RobertLynn
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Jan 5, 2008
Location: United States
Posts: 12551
|
|
Review Date: Aug 30, 2011
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: $200.00
| Rating: 10
|
|
Pros:
|
Sharp. Affordable. 1:2 macro capabilities right out of the box. Ability to buy adapter to make it 1:1. Close focusing distance.
|
|
Cons:
|
Slow focusing (it's actually not that bad). Must buy adapter for 1:1 (I think there's other macro options for 1:1 rather than buying a dedicated adapter and a lens for it).
|
|
|
This lens is incredibly sharp at f/2.5. I couldn't believe it. I wasn't actually expecting an incredible lens. I was previously using a 50 1.8 and tubes for my detail shots...no wonder I had to stop down. That was a terrible combo. With this, I can shoot f/2.5 and the subject isolation is out of this world!
This lens is an incredible value, and I'm exceedingly pleased with my purchase.
|
|
|
Aug 30, 2011
|
|
joho35mm
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Jun 1, 2010
Location: United States
Posts: 0
|
|
Review Date: Jun 1, 2010
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: Not Indicated
| Rating: 10
|
|
Pros:
|
VERY sharp, accurate focusing, good color rendition, lightweight but sturdy, inexpensive
|
|
Cons:
|
Loud focusing, sometimes hunts in low light
|
|
|
|
|
|
Jun 1, 2010
|
|
highway0691
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Dec 14, 2005
Location: Australia
Posts: 0
|
|
Review Date: May 29, 2010
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: Not Indicated
| Rating: 6
|
|
Pros:
|
Sharp & compact
|
|
Cons:
|
Poor colour
|
|
|
It might be just my copy but I do feel this lens is overrated. Although it is very sharp I find the colour very harsh esp on skin tones which seem very cold, contrasty & white balance is out very often. Converted to B&W or sepia toned works well to escape the colour issue. Focusing in low light is maddening, I will probably buy abetter macro befor too long.
|
|
|
May 29, 2010
|
|
misterphil
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Jan 14, 2009
Location: United Kingdom
Posts: 466
|
|
Review Date: Feb 4, 2010
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: Not Indicated
| Rating: 9
|
|
Pros:
|
Sharp and light. Well priced.
|
|
Cons:
|
|
|
|
A great 50mm choice with the added benefit of 1:2 macro ability.
Although an older design lens it offers good sharpness and contrast. Its a keeper even if one day I buy a dedicated macro L lens. Highly recommended.
|
|
|
Feb 4, 2010
|
|
dwainasaurus
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Jan 22, 2010
Location: United States
Posts: 0
|
|
Review Date: Jan 22, 2010
|
Recommend? no |
Price paid: $75.00
| Rating: 6
|
|
Pros:
|
Sharp when not wide open.
Mechanically well built.
Affordable for a macro.
|
|
Cons:
|
Wide open not as sharp.
If focus misses, it hunts for a long time.
|
|
This lens isn't horrible. But it wasn't a good fit for me.
When I was using this lens for my lens review site I also had the original EF 50mm 1:1.8 on hand. The Compact Macro gives up a full stop of speed compared to the 1.8. My testing also seemed to indicate that the EF 50mm 1:1.8 was sharper at 2.8 than the Compact Macro. Both of these 50's are well built (Remember, I had the original metal mount 50, not the current 50mm 1.8 II). But the 1.8 is shorter and more portable. Focus performance was good unless it missed focus in low light. It was a long wait for the Compact Macro to run through it's long range.
In one image I was surprised to see a mild flare. That image was the exception.
Maybe if I did more macro work, having the Compact Macro would make sense. But if I was serious about macro work, I would look to a more serious macro lens.
Sorry Canon, this one isn't my cup of tea.
|
|
|
Jan 22, 2010
|
|
Fatal Sweets
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Nov 5, 2009
Location: Australia
Posts: 0
|
|
Review Date: Nov 5, 2009
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: $350.00
| Rating: 10
|
|
Pros:
|
very light and small.
|
|
Cons:
|
Slow on focus
|
|
|
very nice little toy, the colour are great. Also clear focusing and IQ.
can use as marco and portrait shoot.
Over all LOVE it.
|
|
|
Nov 5, 2009
|
|
Coltrane
Offline
Buy and Sell: On
Registered: Dec 2, 2008
Location: N/A
Posts: 1541
|
|
Review Date: Jul 9, 2009
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: $170.00
| Rating: 9
|
|
Pros:
|
small, light, sharp, very nice bokeh
|
|
Cons:
|
no complaints
|
|
|
This lens has decent sharpness wide open. Once at 3.2 it is VERY sharp. Easy to use, small and fun. The cost of the new and used ones are real bargains. I don't think many folks know how sharp a lens this is, plus it a macro. I know it doesn't go down to 1:1, but for most macro uses, its certainly enough. The bokeh is better than I thought it would be, which is great for portraits. But mainly its just a great everyday walkaround lens.
|
|
|
Jul 9, 2009
|
|
slide
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Jan 31, 2009
Location: United States
Posts: 16
|
|
Review Date: May 24, 2009
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: $239.00
| Rating: 9
|
|
Pros:
|
Good quality overall. Light weight, easy to use.
|
|
Cons:
|
If you are used to USM lenses, this focuses less quickly and with more noise. It's better than most other non-USM's though.
|
|
|
Perhaps quality varies from sample to sample with this lens as it seems to others. My one seems to be a very good one. From the first time I tried this lens, I was surprised almost to the point of being shocked at how good it was compared to what I was expecting from a roughly $200 new cost lens. I've not seen the quality of this lens exceeded in any lens costing anywhere near it.
The lens is decently sharp at 2,5 and once at 4,0, it's terrific all the way up. I have successfully used this in macro shots as well as general 50 mm use on my FF camera.
If given a choice between saving some money and the f 1.8, I'd go with this lens. If it was between this and the f 1.4, it'd depend upon my choice of low light or macro. I also think my example is better than the f 1.4 I had for a loan a while back.
Personally I'm very pleased with this lens. As my new 5d2 can shoot high ISO's well unheard of only a short time ago, the roughly 1.4 stops from here to the f 1.4 isn't relevant to my needs where the macro is of great use.
Of course, if you can have it all, then the 100 mm or 200 mm macros with the 1.2 are the way to go. For us, who are on a budget, this lens does a heck of a lot.
|
|
|
May 24, 2009
|
|
photo1a
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Feb 4, 2006
Location: United States
Posts: 518
|
|
Review Date: Aug 9, 2008
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: $250.00
| Rating: 9
|
|
Pros:
|
I have had this lens for more than two years and have used it for macro, portrait and landscape. I use it more for portraits than I do for marcro, and am very happy with it. It is tack sharp and gives good color rendition.
|
|
Cons:
|
Noisy when focusing, slow to focus.
|
|
|
This is a good utility lens at 50mm. It is good for macro, although I get better results using other prime lenses with extension tubes. I use this lens more for portraits and landscapes. If you want to travel light, and 50mm works for you, this lens is versatile. It is very sharp and has good IQ. The build is OK, but not robust.
The drawbacks to the lens are its slow focus, and the inability to go from close focus to distance focus quickly. For example, if I focus on something very close, then want to focus on something at a distance, I must focus on some intermediate object -- typically my hand -- to get the lens "started" on the way to a distant focus. The lens is not quick focusing, so it would not be good for action pictures.
Overall, for stationary objects, I think that this is a very good lens for the price.
|
|
|
Aug 9, 2008
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Reviews
|
Views
|
Date of last review
|
|
73
|
216784
|
Dec 21, 2016
|
|
|
Recommended By
|
Average Price
|
|
96% of reviewers
|
$223.53
|
|
|
Build Quality Rating
|
Price Rating
|
Overall Rating
|
|
8.14
|
9.59
|
9.2
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 |
