50mm 'Macro' Vs 50mm 'Standard'

[shafiq]

Any thoughts on 50mm Macro Vs 50mm 'normal' lens?

Can the Macro be used for 'normal' portrait work? and still have the macro for using if one ever decides to do close-ups?

Or should the non Macro be used for Portriat work?

Thx

[bluebomberx]

Look no further than down the page first page:

http://photography-on-the.net/forum/showthread.php?t=12444

[rdenney]

shafiq wrote:
Any thoughts on 50mm Macro Vs 50mm 'normal' lens?

Can the Macro be used for 'normal' portrait work? and still have the macro for using if one ever decides to do close-ups?

Or should the non Macro be used for Portriat work?

Thx

Based on the thread pointed to in the other response: Tests are underway. More in a few days. Initially, the 50mm 2.5 Macro looks like a fine portrait lens, but I'm still interested in how the blurry backgrounds look. I haven't printed or uploaded anything yet, though.

Rick "too busy keeping up with this forum!" Denney

[tzrider]

In case you weren't to: also have a look
at Sigma AF 2.8 50mm Macro EX.

It scores exceptionally well in tests !

[tzrider]

See this link and then 'Lense Test Guide':


http://www.photozone.de/bindex2.html

[rdenney]

tzrider wrote:
See this link and then 'Lense Test Guide':


http://www.photozone.de/bindex2.html



I took one of the surveys for that site just to see how well it might filter out noise, and I think it's likely to be influenced by systematic subjective bias. There are no standards for how the opinions are rendered other than they must agree generally with all the other opinions. For example, how does the Canon macro lens get rated to have a little distortion? There is NO distortion in that lens--I've checked in my copy stand. Straight lines are straight nearly to the pixel row.

But Photodo rates the MTF of the Sigma highly at 4.2 (versus Canon's slightly better 4.4), and that is for me a more objective test. Sharpness is probably overrated in many situations, but not in copy work for which these lenses are designed. It's actually a hair more expensive than the Canon, but it apparently focuses 1:1 without the additional converter.

Just be careful of opinion surveys when the standards are not objective and repeatable.

Rick "who largely guessed at his answers for lack of direction" Denney

[shafiq]

1 silly question, since I am new to SLR photography, what is the relavance of 1:1 factor and what is the role of an converter?

And thx to all for the many pointers to the various comparisions.

Thx

[rdenney]

shafiq wrote:
1 silly question, since I am new to SLR photography, what is the relavance of 1:1 factor and what is the role of an converter?



1:1 is when the thing you are photographing is the same size on the sensor (or film) as in real life. If youw ant to take a picture of a 23mm-long bug, then you'll need 1:1 if you want to fill the 10D frame with it. The Canon 50mm macro lens only does 1:2 without its converter, meaning that the smallest thing it will fill the frame with is 46mm long. I use mine for copy work, though, and have no need for 1:1. But I do have a need for incredible resolution and contrast when doing copy work, and this lens has it.

It also has a pleasing short-telephoto perspective on the 10D. If the backgrounds are smooth enough and if I can make depth of field narrow enough at f/2.5, then I'll be fully satisfied with it as a portrait lens.

Rick "not a bug photographer" Denney