50mm for portrait

[Medic1]

I was planning on buying the 50mm 1.4 for natural light portrait stuff....but in a recent article in popular photography they recommended the 50mm 2.5 macro as a portrait lens.

Now, from everything I have read, I am really looking forward to the 50 1.4....but I also want to buy a macro lens in the near future as well. I had originally decided on the 1.4 because I will be doing alot of natural (lower) light photography of my friends baby over the next couple of years. The 1.4 gets good reviews, but mixed about low light photography.....and the 2.5 macro gets alot of cons for slow AF and noisy (non-USM).

So the question is: Do I buy the 1.4, and then the 50 macro as well, or the 50 2.5 macro only, or buy the 1.4 now and a different macro in the future?

A little help from anyone who has advice please!

[Drjones]

I have the 100mm Canon macro and have been very pleased with the results. I also bought the 50mm 1.8 because it was sooo cheap but the images are really quite wonderful. Read other peoples opinions. Many have favorable compared the image quality between the two 50's. The 100mm macro makes a great portrait lens too. Nice bokeh.
Good luck,
Steve

[davidfig]

You can probably do a search on this. But here's my two cents.

You get a 50mm 1.8 ( which is 50x1.6=80) because it is a portrait focal length and also for the DOF control. From 1.4 to 2.8 the DOF about doubles. So I guess it will depend on your needs. For example at 5 ft 1.4 is about 4 inches of DOF, 2.8 is about 8-9 inches. So if you are trying to get the eyes in sharp focus, but a little soft elsewhere you will have more control with a larger aperature (smaller fstop). What may be of additional importance is the number of blades in the lens which lends well towards good bokeh.

[genewch]

The 50mm focal length is good for portraiture in 1.6x crop factor cameras. But beware that a 50mm may still give some distortion in close distance. I have a 100mm macro too. It's very nice for portraiture, and you'll enjoy the real macro.

[grego]

The macro on that lens is 1:2 though. Generally though, macro lens are sharper, but they are slower. However, the 50 1.4 delievers great results.

If you want a macro lens that doubles for portraits, Canon's 100 f/2.8 will do that job better.

[SkipD]

I would suggest that you get the 50 f/1.4. It is the focal length that would be recommended for the APS-C cameras (300D, 20D, etc.) by a great majority of real portrait photographers. When I started using SLR cameras back in the early 1960's, the "standard" portrait lens for a 35mm camera was (and still is) an 80-85mm lens. When used on an APS-C camera body, the 50mm provides exactly the same field of view as the 80mm on a 35mm body. The absolute longest lens normally recommended for portraits using a 35mm camera was/is about 135mm. That is equivalent to using an 85mm lens on the APS-C bodies.

[Lenny_D]

I already own the 50mm f/1.4 (with a 20D) and find it ideal for portraits in relatively low-light situations. It is ideal for indoor use and photography of faces (without but also with flash). It is very sharp and has a nice colors and contrast. The use of flash boosts the color and contrast even more which I would certainly consider as well.
I personally think that the lense is of limited use for macro. It is fine for plants and flowers in the garden so if that's your intention you'll be fine. For insects, butterflies etc I prefer a larger working distance and a real macro lense. I've been comparing the canon 100mm f/2.8 and the sigma 150mm f/2.8. The latter also get's raving reviews and it's working distance is even larger. I decided to buy the Sigma and didn't regret it. Macro's of butterflies are possible at a distance of somehing like a meter distance easily which doesn't alarm the butterflies. Indeed the focussing is slower for a real macrolense and sometimes hunting happens but the lense has the possibility to limit the distances which it uses during focussing. My experience is that this effectively eliminates the hunting. The lense is very sharp and contrasty (no complaints on this).

At the time I compared both (100mm Canon and 150mm Sigma) lenses I used both in a shop and noticed that the Canon 100mm gives a cooler colors (high color temp) than the Sigma which is slightly warmer. That made me hesitate for a while but after buying the Sigma I hardly notice it any longer.

Apart from portrait photography and macro photography the 50mm is also quite OK for street photography and the 150mm is actually a nice medium tele with effective field of view on a 1.6x camera of 230mm. I do find this 230mm a bit loo long for portraits.

Concluding I am happy with my choices and can recommend buying the 50mm 1.4 as well as the Sigma 150mm.

[grego]

Here's some photos. :)
50 1.4

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v357/greg9683/CRW_0068-food.jpg (In low light-but I did want to blur out much of the background)
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v357/greg9683/MyPhotography/IMG_8735_500.jpg
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v357/greg9683/MyPhotography/IMG_9043_chair.jpg


Portraits:
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v357/greg9683/MyPhotography/CRW_8813.jpg
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v357/greg9683/MyPhotography/IMG_8423.jpg
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v357/greg9683/MyPhotography/IMG_8296.jpg

[Medic1]

Thanks for the opinions everone.......I was really set on the 50 1.4 until I read that recent article in POP photo......your opinions just helped to reinforce that.

Thanks again....anyone else has an opinion to throw into the ring feel free to post!

[4x4rock]

The 50mm is great for portrait. I use it all the time when shooting indoor.
I have the f1.8

http://www.dslextreme.com/users/sonnyc/sydney/week11/medium/0005.jpg

[Vega$50]

For what it is worth...I purchased the 50mm 1.4 for portrait work because a year ago I recieved this same advice. I was also told to pick up a 100mm as a secondary portrait lens. Due to cost, I settled on the Sigma 105mm macro DG, and have been very happy with results on both lenses. I found these two lenses are great for portraiture, general scene photogrpaphy, and macro work. Good luck with your choice.

[mbze430]

Yep for the 1.6x FOV crowd the 50mm is great. I personally have tested a friend's 50mm 1.8 MKII with my 50mm 1.4....the results...well let just say my friend returned the 50mm 1.8MK2 the next day and got a 50mm 1.4.

Unless you have side by side comparison, its going to be hard to tell which lens the picture were used.

Though 85mm is pretty much the best all around portrait lens. 85mm in FF is still your full lenght, 85mm at 1.3 FOV is 110mm perfect for full and 3/4mm, and 85mm at 1.6 FOV is 136mm perfect for close up/head shots.

But stay away from 50 Macro. it's only 1:2, and by the time you get the extension you can buy the super sharp 100mm MACRO. If you really want a 50mm MACRO, you can always get a 25mm Tube....which will make it 1:2 anyway :)

[hemuni]

I think u also have a third option to consider :D

You could get the 50mm 1.4 and an extension tube. This, In combination with your 1.4 teleconverter, turns the 50mm F1.4 into an 80mm macro lense. I don't know the quality or perfomance of the 50 mm macro, but I think what makes the F1.4 great is the F1.4 and with this combination u can have both.

I took this with my mobile:
http://www.hemuni.dk/gallery/50macro/DSC00225.jpg

You can also see some sample shots here... (http://www.hemuni.dk/gallery/50macro/index.html)
(all shots are handheld, no sharpening added)