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

I voted for the 50mm 1.4 if I could only have one.

I have both the 50mm 1.4 and 2.5 Macro. I only use the macro for document copy work which it is excellent for - virtually no distortions, no abberations and sharp from edge to edge. I wouldn't use the 1.4 for this kind of work as it suffers from some distortion and CA. Sharpness wise the Macro probably has the edge over the 1.4 at equal apertures but it's pretty close. As a day to day lens though the Macro is horrible - slow and noisy AF, feels quite nasty to use really. The 1.4 is just much nicer to use (although the focus ring could be better) and for anything other than copy work it would be my lens of choice out of your selection.

Hope this helps.

nitsch wrote in post #2580496
I voted for the 50mm 1.4 if I could only have one.

I have both the 50mm 1.4 and 2.5 Macro. I only use the macro for document copy work which it is excellent for - virtually no distortions, no abberations and sharp from edge to edge. I wouldn't use the 1.4 for this kind of work as it suffers from some distortion and CA. Sharpness wise the Macro probably has the edge over the 1.4 at equal apertures but it's pretty close. As a day to day lens though the Macro is horrible - slow and noisy AF, feels quite nasty to use really. The 1.4 is just much nicer to use (although the focus ring could be better) and for anything other than copy work it would be my lens of choice out of your selection.

Hope this helps.

This DOES help greatly. This is the exact kind of detail I'm looking for. I had already figured that I would get the 1.4, but I wanted some opinions based on real users.

In regards to trying to do macro with it, I do limited macro work, and it is on inanimate objects that I can take time to set up and light appropriately. I also thought this poll could help a lot of people who see the multitude of "FIFTIES" out there and didn't know why each existed. I will say though that I am tempted by the sharpness people claim the macros have

The 50mm f/2.5 Compact Macro is optically superior to the 50/1.4 lens: sharper, flatter field and less distortion. For subjects such as studio work, landscapes, architecture or other situation where you don't have to shoot at wide apertures it is the better choice. The same might be true about the Sigma macro, but I have no personal experience with it.

Well, looking my signature it's not hard to guess my opinion.

1.4 because it's sooo fast for that money, and at even f1.6-1.8 it gives very good results.

I love my 50 1.4 ... I wouldn't trade or sell it

greg20d - I'll trade you a 50mm f1.2 for your 1.4 J/K

I bought the 50mm f/1.8 because it was so cheap and would be a decent introduction to primes for me. But if I had the money to by any one of them on this list, it would be the 50mm f/1.4. I've heard nothing but rave reviews of that one.

SBCmetroguy wrote in post #2581041
I bought the 50mm f/1.8 because it was so cheap and would be a decent introduction to primes for me. But if I had the money to by any one of them on this list, it would be the 50mm f/1.4. I've heard nothing but rave reviews of that one.

I am considering the 50mm 1.4 and have been used to zooms (it would be my first prime)... just wondering if i would get used to that fixed length, but like you said, it gets RAVE reviews consisitently on here.

Any thoughts?

Although not a 50 or one of your choices I'd have to include the 60mm 2.8 macro EF-S in the list - reported to be incredibly sharp and if I wanted a shorter Macro lens for a crop camera that could do double duty as a great mild tele/portrait lens, this would be the one I'd get. Not really for the low-light sports indication though.

I'd pick the Sigma 50mm f2.8 Macro just to be different.

I just traded in my 1.8 for a 1.4 so far I am quite happy!

Wow, I thought this would have been more of a spread. I knew the 2.5 and 2.8 weren't going to be high in the numbers, but I figured the 1.8 would have more fans. This makes me feel like I should be ignoring the existence of the 1.8.

Thanks everyone for your input.

ilovemycamera wrote in post #2581880
I am considering the 50mm 1.4 and have been used to zooms (it would be my first prime)... just wondering if i would get used to that fixed length, but like you said, it gets RAVE reviews consisitently on here.

Any thoughts?

The 50mm 1.4 lens ca me in yesterday... YIPPEE!!!

I voted for the 50/1.4 because I have it and I think 50 or 60mm is too short for most macro applications.

For macro I mostly use the Canon 100mm macro and if I could only carry one lens this would probably be the one for many situations.

I originally owned the 50mm f1.8 and then upgraded to the 1.4 about 3 months later. I use it for portrait photography.