Need opinions on EF 50mm 2.5 Compact Macro Lens

[lmelendez]

Hi there

Anybody with experience with this lens? How does it compare (mainly in terms of sharpness) to the 100mm 2.8? I know you can get closer to the subject and the 100mm has 1:1 ratio... but... is the picture quality the same?

Even better if somebody can post some pictures taken with that lens. I want a macro lens, but cannot afford the 100mm f2.8 USM yet.

Thanks in advance,

Leo.

[Jon]

In macro, closer to the subject's not necessarily better. A little more working distance is frequently an asset. The 50 (plus converter) will be 100 mm away from the subject at 1:1. The 100 will be 200 mm away from the subject at 1:1. The increased distance makes it easier to keep from casting shadows on your subject, or alarming it in the event of small furry or crawly creatures. This also means that the focus on the 100 is going to be slightly less sensitive to small movements back and forth. What other gear do you have now, and what camera are you using?

[lmelendez]

Thanks for your answer Jon,
You are 100% right about the distance to the object. I wonder if that is what makes the 100mm so popular.

I currently have a 20D, 420EX, 50mm f1.8 & 70-200 f2.8L

I mostly use the camera to take portraits (I think the 100mm can help me there too).

I played with the EF 100mm f2.8 Macro USM (from a friend) and really liked it, that's why I've been considering it as one of my next lens.

Leo.

[tim]

The Canon 100mm F2.8 has a minimum focusing distance of 6 inches/15cm from the lens, it's at that point that it will reproduce images at 1:1. I want extension tubes for mine, so i'd not even consider the 50mm lens.

[TammieO]

I like my 100mm USM better than the 50mm for critter pics. The 50mm lens changes in length as you focus and this movement will scare critters off.

[roanjohn]

I have both lenses......and I somehow feel that the 50 is more versatile. When you are using the 100 at 1:1, you pretty much need a good tripod to stabilize your shot....optically, they are both pretty much similar.........sharp with beautiful colors.

Ro1

[rdenney]

Even better if somebody can post some pictures taken with that lens. I want a macro lens, but cannot afford the 100mm f2.8 USM yet.


I've never compared it to the 100, so I can't comment on that.

I bought the 50 mostly for work on a copy stand, and for general-purpose short telephoto work on the 10D. Long working distances are useful with bugs and other critters, but it's a problem on a copy stand, where you want to be able to get over the camera and still reach the copy. The 50 is extremely sharp, and it has no distortion at all and as flat a field as a good enlarger lens.

You asked for pics; here's the best I can do from what I have on the web:

http://www.gmcmhphotos.com/gallery/photos/rdenney/1013_p11471.jpg

The brass fitting is a little less than an inch long.

Come to think of it, I have another one:

http://www.rickdenney.com/images/rock-flower-lores.jpg

This one isn't focused as close as the one above. This image is critically sharp at full resolution at the plane of sharp focus. Even at f/22, you can depth of field isn't enough to make the whole plant look uniformly sharp when viewed at actual pixels. But that ain't the lens's fault, of course.

Rick "whose macro subjects tend to be inanimate" Denney

[gasrocks]

Don't get the 50 - you already have a 50. Get some extension tubes and use on your 70-200 (for a start, you'll use them when you do get the 100 macro anyway.) Perspective - look at a good listing of used lenses - a lot of 50 macro for sale and not many 100's. The 100 is much better.

[rdenney]

Don't get the 50 - you already have a 50. Get some extension tubes and use on your 70-200 (for a start, you'll use them when you do get the 100 macro anyway.) Perspective - look at a good listing of used lenses - a lot of 50 macro for sale and not many 100's. The 100 is much better.

Hmmm. On ebay, I see one 50/2.5, which is new, and one 100/2.8 (an older model), which is used. KEH didn't have either one used. Midwest photo has a used 100, but no used 50.

Don't think I can verify your assertion with what is visible to me.

I won't argue that for taking pictures of bugs, the 100 is more useful. But I would argue that it is not likely to be much better.

Rick "whose 50 works just fine, thank you very much" Denney

[lmelendez]

Interesting comments guys, thanks a lot.

I really liked rdenney's pictures. Really similar (in terms of sharpness) that the ones I got from my friends 100mm. I'll keep doing more research...

gasrocks,
Having a 50mm already is a good point. I thought about that... but I've been trying to get descent shots with the 50mm MKII, but the focusing (manual or automatic) is killing me...

Leo.