Difference between 50mm and 50mm macro

Forgive me ... another probably dumb question ... what's the difference between 50mm and 50mm macro lenses ... I see there's a difference in price and size but what's happening with the optics, is the macro only good for macro or is it OK for still life and portraits or walk around ... (and there's a EF-S 60mm f/2.8 USM to add to my confusion) - many thanks for your help - Roger

50 macro is only kinda macro!

0.5:1 magnification.

Vast majority of true macro lenses achieve twice that, 1:1 magnification.

There's never been anything appealing about the 50 macro to me.
Someone may be able to point out it's advantages.
Seems a bit of a left over to me.
Vast majority would just buy 50 1.4 and get either 60 or 100 macro if they wanted macro.

I'd assume it would be great walkaround, but much slower than 50 1.4 for a bit more magnification?

60 Macro is EF-S (for crop bodies) and true macro so more different than just 10mm.

Thanks Dave ... I see the regular 50mm 0.5:1 magnification but the 'macro' version has optics to increase the magnification, this lens business is soooooo confusing, I want to be able to shoot still life subjects (table top stuff) but I'm finding my 50mm 1.8 sometimes doesn't get close enough (to a glass of wine for instance) nor does my 28-135mm (and it tends to be a bit soft for this sort of subject) - I'm waiting on a set of manual tubes to try on the 50mm - I'll see if that helps me get a bit closer and if I decide to try some real 'macro' stuff I'll look at a dedicated macro lens ... good of you to take the time ... Roger

rogertb wrote in post #12474663
Thanks Dave ... I see the regular 50mm 0.5:1 magnification but the 'macro' version has optics to increase the magnification, this lens business is soooooo confusing, I want to be able to shoot still life subjects (table top stuff) but I'm finding my 50mm 1.8 sometimes doesn't get close enough (to a glass of wine for instance) nor does my 28-135mm (and it tends to be a bit soft for this sort of subject) - I'm waiting on a set of manual tubes to try on the 50mm - I'll see if that helps me get a bit closer and if I decide to try some real 'macro' stuff I'll look at a dedicated macro lens ... good of you to take the time ... Roger

Might just be typo but:
Regular 50 has 0.15x Mag
The 50 Macro has 0.5xMag.

In reality it's more than 3 times the difference.
If my maths are correct, with a regular 50 on a 1.6 crop body an object about 34cm wide would fill the frame at minimum focus distance.
With 50 macro you'd move in closer and fill the frame with just 4.6cm subject. (ie 2 x 23mm sensor width)

I have a Sigma 50mm f2.8 macro and it goes to 1:1. I also have the Canon 50f1.4 macro. Once you stop the Canon down to f2.8 you won't see much if any difference in how sharp the 2 lenses are.
The macro lens will focus so close that the front element of the lens is perhaps 1.5" from the object being photographed. It has a much closer minimal focusing distance and is corrected to be sharper than a normal lens at these short distances. At these close distances, you can get an image that is sharp across the field, but you don't usually get that with a fast lens, even with small apertures.

macro lens typically corrected for good close shooting performance (as well as at conventional distances)
macro lens typically flat field corrected, to photograph flat art/documents

All of Canon's macro lenses except the MP-E can focus at infinity and be used for "walk-around" lenses. They're not the best for that, but if you're idea of walking around involves getting really close to things, then they're ideal.

bior wrote in post #12476999
All of Canon's macro lenses except the MP-E can focus at infinity and be used for "walk-around" lenses. They're not the best for that, but if you're idea of walking around involves getting really close to things, then they're ideal.

Just reverse mount a 2x TC to the MP-E and it can focus to infinity... but the MP-E is manual focus anyways, still not ideal for walk around

Canon's 50mm macro is a f/2.5. It's not a true macro without the lifesize converter, which is almost as expensive as the actual lens. As far as image quality's concerned, it's super sharp. super super sharp. If you want a decent 50mm lens that will give you the ability to get close (perfect for flowers, coins, etc...not so good for insects) jump on it! The lens has an older arc driven focus (bit noisy) but it works well. I just sold one for 210. A mint 50mm 1.4 is going for 360 or so used now so they represent a decent value for someone that's trying to be a bit more cost effective, but doesn't want to sacrifice image quality.