50mm 1.8 vs 50mm Macro 2.5

[su719]

I have been seeing interesting reviews between these two lenses. The macro seems to be incredibly sharp and I was wonderin what people thought between the two lenses.

[DaveG]

I have been seeing interesting reviews between these two lenses. The macro seems to be incredibly sharp and I was wonderin what people thought between the two lenses.

The macro would be much better built than the 1.8 which has a plastic lens mount rather than a metal one. Yet the 1.8 is very inexpensive and that has to be taken into consideration.

My problem with the 50mm macro is that I don't see much use for it. Copying two demensional objects like art or stamps would be done infinitely better with a $70 flatbed scanner. If the object is to big for the scanner then you don't need a macro lens. My suggestion would be to think about the 100mm macro, which will give you 1:1 reproduction without an extension tube while maintaining infinity focus. The 50 will require either the very expensive Life Size Converter EF which gets you to 1:1 and maintains infinity focus. Or you could choose the simple extension tube that gets you 1:1 but loses that same infinity focus. As soon as you add the expensive tube to the mix you're paying the same for the 50 + LSC as the 100mm macro.

The 100 will give you a greater lens to subject working distance, which I've found very useful when I'm trying to use reflectors to push a little light into the object. F2.8 is also a very reasonable aperture when thinking about a 100 mm (or 160mm on a 10D) lens, while f2.8 on a 50 (80) is slow.

I'd suggest the 1.8 (or better yet the 1.4) and then the 100 macro. I own the non USM version of the 100mm macro lens and am more than happy with it. Normally I'd really push the USM since it focuses faster, but AF on a macro lens tends to get shut off anyway. I neded up with an exceptionally sharp lens and saved a few bucks too.