do I need a 50mm 1.4 and 50mm 2.5?

[Duncreavy]

Just bought the macro 50mm 2.5 and wonder if I need the 50mm 1.4. I've heard it is a great portrait lens but does not get close up for macro work. Is the quality of portrait work on the 2.5 macro high enough for me to sell the 1.4? If anyone has experience with both of these lenses, I'd appreciate hearing from you. Thanks. Oh, and I also have the kit lens so suddenly I'm up to my f stops in 50mm range.

[rdenney]

Just bought the macro 50mm 2.5 and wonder if I need the 50mm 1.4. I've heard it is a great portrait lens but does not get close up for macro work. Is the quality of portrait work on the 2.5 macro high enough for me to sell the 1.4? If anyone has experience with both of these lenses, I'd appreciate hearing from you. Thanks. Oh, and I also have the kit lens so suddenly I'm up to my f stops in 50mm range.

I don't think any of the 50's are going to be radically better than the Compact Macro in terms of bokeh, except that the 1.4 allows a much wider aperture with consequently much less depth of field. Thus, I think the improvement will be real but marginal, if 2.5 is fast enough to get the shot. All the Canon normal lenses are double-gauss designs highly corrected for sharpness and contrast, but not necessarily optimized for smooth rendition of out-of-focus areas.

If you want a dedicated portrait lens, think about the 85/1.8 instead of the 50/1.4. It's longer, of course, and on the long end for portrait lenses with the small sensor. But it is fast and the bokeh is quite nice as well. It will expand your capabilities much more than adding another 50.

You can also try the approach I've taken. I bought a $30 M42 adaptor, and a $40 Pentax Super Takumar 50/1.4. Optically, it's on a par with the Canon. You give up auto aperture, but for any aperture other than 1.4 or 1.8, you'll use the Compact Macro anyway, and you can just leave the lens in shooting aperture. And you give up autofocus, but it's quite easy to focus at 1.4 or 1.8. Most good 50's are also double-gauss designs, so you'll get an idea of what to expect. If you the go with the Canon, you'll be able to sell the other one for what you paid, so it's a free experiment if it doesn't work.

But even though I have that option, I find that if I want a 50, I just pull out the Compact Macro and use it.

Rick "jonesing for an 85/1.8" Denney

[Chazs]

The 50mm f1.4 really isn't a macro lens, but I was playing around with it today (got one last week, and today was the first sunny day) and took a shot of some apple blossoms. This photo is an unsharpened photo with VERY minimal processing in RAW. I've never had to not sharpen a photo, but the 1.4 allows you to forgo USM. Plus the bokeh is fantastic. (First time I ever used that goofy word) :) It's a little pricey, but worth every penny. I just can't compare it to the macro.

Here's the photo. WARNING large file. ABout 900KB
http://home.wavecable.com/~stevensc/photos/appleblossom.jpg