50mm confusion

  • Thread starter Thread starter DTB
  • Start date Start date
D

DTB

Messages
30
Name
Don
Edit My Images
Yes
I'm considering buying a new lens - my first not-included-in-the-kit piece of equipment but I'm puzzled...

Can someone please explain what the differences between a 50mm/2.5 compact macro and a normal 50mm/1.4? I understand there's a difference in aperature but in terms of application which is the more versatile lens? Being relatively (read as extremely) new to photography I want to only spend money on equipment which will allow me to explore different types of photography so I can find what I enjoy most. I don't want to buy something and find I rarely use it!

Or should I be looking at an 85 or 100mm instead?

Thanks
 
The macro will have a much shorter minimum focus distance.
Which lens really depends on the crop factor of your camera, your existing lens and what type of photos you like to take.
 
There is another 50mm lens which you might consider, the 50mm f1.8.

It is exceptionally sharp and exceptionally cheap and is small and light.

If you're looking for a macro lens the 50mm f1.8 coupled with a set of extension tubes can give outstanding results:

http://www.flickr.com/photos/20926615@N05/sets/72157625975281497/

.
 
DTB said:
I'm considering buying a new lens - my first not-included-in-the-kit piece of equipment but I'm puzzled...

Can someone please explain what the differences between a 50mm/2.5 compact macro and a normal 50mm/1.4? I understand there's a difference in aperature but in terms of application which is the more versatile lens? Being relatively (read as extremely) new to photography I want to only spend money on equipment which will allow me to explore different types of photography so I can find what I enjoy most. I don't want to buy something and find I rarely use it!

Or should I be looking at an 85 or 100mm instead?

Thanks
Click to expand...

I think most people suggest the 50mm 1.8 because it is cheap, sharp, works well in low light and allows those lovely shallow depth of shield shots that can make the dullest of portraits come to life.

Once you get into 50mm 1.4 territory, you're spending a fair bit more dosh so you'd want be fairly sure that you need that low light/shallow DOF ability.

If you can only buy one and fancy a go at macro, the macro lens is the way to go. The reason I say this is because a 50mm 1.8/1.4 isn't much use for macro (unless you want to faff around with tubes) however a 50mm 2.8 macro lens will do a pretty decent job of portraits in low light and still give you pretty shallow depth of field should you need it.
 
As said, a macro lens will allow you to focus much closer than a non macro lens. However... the Canon 50mm f2.5 is not a true macro lens. Macro lenses normally give 1:1 (or more) magnification but the f2.5 only does this when coupled to the lifesize adapter.

I have a Canon 50mm f2.5 lens and it's a cracking lens, some say that it's Canon's sharpest 50mm and I could believe that. Although it isn't a true macro lens it will still focus closer than an ordinary non macro 50mm and is therefore useful as a general 50mm lens which can also be used for psudo macro shots of flowers etc.

If you want more working distance so you don't scare off any bugs etc a longer lens might be a good idea. I have a Siggy 150mm f2.8 that I think is a very good lens.
 
Last edited:
The 50mm 1.8 was the first lens I bought for my 600d and I can't recommend it enough!

It's very cheap for the quality you get out of it, although it isn't a macro lens but lovely for shallow dof
 
I have often seen the 50mm/f1.8 mentioned while trawling through this forum and it does sound like very good value for money, but I also like what I have heard about the 50mm/f2.5 and it sounds like a versatile option, albeit at triple the price. Thanks for replies.
 
There is a Sigma Macro 2.8 which is hugely underrated. Very sharp, full 1:1 macro and quite nicely built. No idea about Canon fits, but Nikon ones seem to go for around the £110 mark. It's a bargain.
 
I plug the 50mm 2.5 whenever I get the chance, it's a cracking little lens & the one I use the most. I find the closer minimum focus distance so versatile. It is a bit noisy as it doesn't have a silent motor which still makes people look up but the pros more than make up for that one & only con
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top