50mm 1.4, 50mm 2.5 Macro, or 24-70 2.8?

Hi guys,

I'm looking to you helpful people for some assistance again for my next purchase! I currently have the Tokina 12-24 and the Canon 70-200, plus my kit lens (18-55). I'm looking for something now to fill my gap and more or less replace the kit lens. I've heard great things about the 50mm prime and understand the benefits in investing in prime glass. During my research, I stumbled across the 50mm Macro, which is slower but the macro feature is attractive, as I've considered going down this path too (although it is not a big priority). Here are my questions:

1. Is the Macro worth looking at as a general purpose lens?
2. Apart from the drop in speed from 2.8 to 1.4, will I notice many other differences in performance for general purpose work such as portraits and landscapes?
3. Would any of you lean towards the 24-70 instead for more versatility? I found this review: http://www.fredmiranda​.com/24-70/ and was quite startled by the difference in clarity in shots between the 24-70 and the 50mm. So this has further confused my decision!

When I'm travelling (which is pretty often) I love to shoot landscapes and urban shots. I'm documenting as much as I can (for memories) while I'm living in the US. When I'm not shooting travel shots, I'm asked at home by lots of people to take their portraits, so I've been looking for a shorter lens to achieve this sort of work too.

Anyone's advice and recommendations would be greatly appreciated.

-Michelle

I don't have the 50 f1.4 but do have the 50 macro and the 50 1.8 and I found that the macro is a little better. Just as the 1.8, AF is slow, understandably for a macro and no USM. Eventhough the it says 1:1 when it zooms out, it can only do 1:2 macro. I'm tending to use it more as a potrait lens for a better comparision with the 50 1.8

Some sample pics
@ f3.5

HTTP response: 404 | MIME changed to 'text/html' | Byte size: ZERO

HTTP response: 404 | MIME changed to 'text/html' | Byte size: ZERO

HTTP response: 404 | MIME changed to 'text/html' | Byte size: ZERO

Note that the 50mm macro will only go to about half life size, this is only about twice the amount many zooms will provide. There is a teleconverter type add on for it called the life size converter to get to the full life size magnification and the start of the real macro range (1:1 to 10:1 magnification). I don't have this lens but I understand its AF is slow.

I would normally recommend the EF 100mm f2.8 Macro, life size reproduction, beter working distance and fast (accepting the focus range) USM with internal focus.

I do have the 50 1.4 and for a fast lens it is fine wide open and very sharp once stopped down. A good choice for a fast short tele on a crop camera.

If you are looking for a compromise many choose the 60mm f2.8 macro is often suggested, no good if you plan to go full frame. As a macro lens it has no option for a tripod mount adaptor and there is no AF rang limit switch like for thr 100mm.

The 24-70 is a completly different lens, a zoom is versitile but so is a macro lens for being able to deal with inifity focus to life size magnification.

You need to surface your requirements and decide what you need. In here we have:

1. Fast Prime ( do you really need the speed, do you need the stopped down sharpness)
2. Macro lens (what are you going to shoot with it, a close focussing zoom will be enough for large flowers but useless for insects etc)
3. On a crop the 24-70 is a normal to medium tele zoom, good rep but what do you plan to use it for.

It may be you have need of all three, if so my suggestion is to try and get the best you can get in each area, even if this means a wait, rather than try and force one lens to do several jobs.

Another way of looking at this is what can one of these lenses do that another you already have can't. Is it speed, magnification or versitility.

Thank you for your info and pictures guys. It gives me more to think about.

50 1.4 is the best 50 of the group. On a 1.6 cropped camera it has a field of view of 80mm so it can be limiting to you possibly.

24-70 is more of an all purpose lens. This would be a good one lens(if you could only have one) to use for what you describe.

The 50 1.4 is very good for portraits but too long for most of landscapes on a 1.6 crop factor camera.

Given what you describe (landscapes + portraits), I would use the versatility of the 24-70.
Actually, I am more or less in the same situation and the 24-70 is my next move.