Battle of the Prime 50's (1.4, 1.8, macro 2.5, Sigma 2.8 Macro)

See head - see wall, see Layston beat head against wall....

I already know that my next two lenses are a prime (30, 35 or 50mm) and the Sigma 12-24 (if I get my way). But I'm beating myself up about which prime to pick up first. I've owned a 50mm f1.8 FD for a long time and love the lens and focal length. I don't have a prime yet for my Canon EOS cameras. Yes I could go and pick up the 50mm f1.8 without really hurting my wallet, but I'm trying to be judicious in my lens purchases. I also want a macro, but I'm thinking that will have to wait until I can afford the fabled 100mm f2.8.

So if you were going to buy ONE prime, what would it be. The nifty fifty, the 50mm f1.4, the 50mm f2.5 macro or Sigma's 50mm f2.8 macro (which does 1:1)?

50 f/1.4 and some tubes. Assuming I didn't already have a macro (first EF lens was a Tamron 90 f/2.8 macro).

50 1.4 all the way

I used to have the 50 1.4 - never used it so I sold it. I have the 50 2.5 compact macro - hardly use it.

I'm more of a zoom guy.

Save with the 50 f1.8, and get a 3rd party macro(sigma or tamron).

50 1.4 all the way

50 1.4 is a little brick piece of glass that will make you sigh every time you see how sharp your picture turns out. Love mine!

Jon wrote in post #2577442
50 f/1.4 and some tubes. Assuming I didn't already have a macro (first EF lens was a Tamron 90 f/2.8 macro).

Jon - can you get 1:1 with tubes?

Layston wrote in post #2577821
Jon - can you get 1:1 with tubes?

with a set of kenko or other tubes you can get past 1:1. you will be REALLY close to the subject, but it works.

While my 50mm f/1.4 is quite sharp, my Sigma 50mm f/2.8 Macro is one of the three or four sharpest lenses I've ever used (see equipment list for past and present gear). If I could only take one, I'd give up two stops and faster AF for lower cost, 1:1, and superior sharpness

Although I own the 50mm 1.8, I voted for the 50mm 1.4, as I would love to own this lens but am saving for a tripod first.

The 50mm 1.8 however has been keeping me quite happy in the meantime

I have the 50 1.8 and 1.4 and both love them, i dont need two versions though so i'm selling my 1.8. The 1.8 is such a bargain but the 1.4 gives me nicer bokeh.

But, buck for buck, the 1.8 wins for the bang-for-the-buck.

Never used the other two macros, but macros are nice to have.

Out of those choices I'd pick the 50 1.4. The 50 1.8 sucks (believe me I've owned several), and I don't see a point in having a 50 Macro (at least not for me). But if you need a macro, get a macro. Don't waste your time with the 1.8 or 1.4 if speed isn't what you need.

Since I have the 50 1.4 that has my vote. I'd add some tubes if I wanted to play in the macro world.

I used to have (in a galaxy far, far away...) the 50f1.8, and currently have both the 50f1.4 and 50f2.8 EX Macro. You can see a little of how they perform here: http://www.pbase.com/l​ightrules/50s

Short of it is that the f1.4 is slightly sharper at f2.8 (being 2 stops down already) over the EX. However, the EX is simply untouchable at the borders. Very different lenses with different uses though. I use the 50f1.4 more day-to-day. But the Sigma is a very sharp and high quality optic.