EF 50mm f/2.5 Compact Macro

Hello to all,
Has anyone tried the above lens for macro work, what do you think about it. Would be nice if somebody can post some examples.

Thanks

I looked @ this lens yesterday & for the price I thought it was pretty decent lens but I decided to go for the 100 macro instead. 1.1 ratio & the range of uses for the lens was the major reason for not getting the 50mm.

I have this lens. Let me find some pics with it.

To AzzKicker

While you are looking for some photos, do you like this lens and are you happy with it.
Thanks for the effort

I tried the Sigma EX 50mm 1:1 macro and found that I just had to get too close to the subject. The Canon will be the same plus with the Canon 50mm macro you need an adapter to get 1:1 macro as it is a 1:2 macro. I returned the 50mm and went with the Canon 100mm 1:1 macro.. I Love it. You can see a few macro's and a lot of flower closeups at my site. Ckeck out the dime in (MISC)

JZ

so far two votes for Canon 100mm macro.
Still awaiting AzzKicker response & opinion.

i'm still at work, but here are my opinions. THe lens is good, but as others have stated, you really have to be close to subject, I'm talking REALLY CLOSE as in 1,2,3 feet away. Its really picky with its focus points, I would recommend MANUAL on this lens, because being so close to objects especially flowers on a window day causes way too much movement that the Lens just keeps focusing, focussing and focussing. To be honest, I got this lens FREE and I use it more for portraits than I do MACRO work LOL...

Bottom Line, FOR STILL shots its good, as in, if your using it ot sell jewelry etc and take pics of them. But if your outside, wanting to get bugs etc, you're better off with the 100mm.

For copystand work being able to get close is sometimes an advantage and I find it works well for that. Wide open it is pretty soft, so good light is a must. With enough light it is tack sharp and an excellent lens.

Focused area is the center more or less

Byte size: ZERO | Content warning: NOT AN IMAGE

The 50 on a 10D or dRebel will give you an 80 mm lens which isn't bad for a macro lens. But in the future 1.3 or even full 24x36 mm cameras from Canon may be in your price range. That leaves you with a "normal" focal length lens that will do macro.

I used a Nikkor 55 mm macro for many years with great satisfaction, and I assume that the Canon lens is every bit as good. But here's the big change: I used to use the 55 for copying two dimensional objects, like photographic prints, stamps, and that kind of thing. I also used to use it in a copy stand. Well a $50 flatbed scanner would do a much better job than the macro would. If the object that you need to copy is bigger than the flatbed's glass size then it's big enough to copy with another lens. I used to copy large paintings at gallery's with my 35mm lens and the results were fine.

So that brings us to the 100 macro. It's effectively a 160 mm lens and that's way out there for a macro. But it will do 1:1 reproduction without an extension tube. You don't lose you infinity focus, and you can stay a reasonable distance from the subject on the off chance that they bite.

More to the point you have enough room between you and the subject so that you don't block out any light. I even have room to use a reflector to push a little light back into the subject.

The cost of the 50 macro is much less than the 100 until you add the fancy glass filled Canon extension tube. Then they're the same price. You might want to see if you can find one of the slightly older non USM 100's, as they'd be a lot cheaper than the USM's.

Fast AF in for macro isn't important at all to me and I prefer to use manual focus. I mean I barely know where I want to focus, how's the poor stupid AF going to figure it out? But if you do plan on using the macro as a action type lens (160mm f2.8 is pretty good) then the faster focusing USM lens is a wiser investment.

This mirrors my experience with the 55mm Micro Nikkors. You have to work too close to the subject. I recommend the 100mm, too.