Which 50?

I'm sitting here with a 17-40 and 85 1.8 as my normal combination. I've got a 24 2.8 as my mini walkaround lens. I've got a 70-200 4 as my long lens. All on a Rebel D. As the gap between 40 and 85 is a fairly significant one I'd like to fill it with a prime (no more zooms wanted at all).

I've previously had a 50 1.8 and was pretty bored with it and used the 85 instead. I'd like a little better low light ability (the 1.4) and also some macro ability (the 2.5). Can't make up my mind though to go for the fast 1.4 or the multipurpose 2.5. I'd like thoughts on either please, particularly the 2.5 as there isn't too much info out there on it.

And no, I really don't want another 50 1.8

Thanks in advance

I used to own a 55 nikor macro which I think I got to do double duty as a normal and a macro lens. I just had a chance to see it the other day at a friends house. I had sold it to hime about fifteen years ago. Anyway after picking it up again and rolling the focus ring back and forth a few times, I remembered why I sold it. The dang thing just about doubles in size when you go to focus it and just really wasn't the perfect small double duty lens that I thought it would be. I really never shot macro much with it, so basically I just had a very slow 50 mm lens that had a very long barrel. Now I have never held the canon AF version in my hand, however, I have read that it tends to hunt a bit, because of it's close focusing function. I have also heard that if you don't try to go from extreme close ups to infinity it might not be too much of a problem.

I just got the 50 1.4 and just love it. However I am not much help on the other lens. I used it inside a museum that was dimly lit and the shots were better than I would ever have hoped. Clear, sharp, color seemed to be good and the background blur I was able to make hid a ton of 'junk' that I had no interest in . . . most likely you know this already. Oh, and I thought it focused quick as well.

I have the 1.4 and wouldn't trade it for the macro. If you want Macro badly, the 1.4 is not the lens to get, but for that low-light capability, the 1.4 is unbeatable.

After trying 3 50/1.8 and having the macro50 for a week...

1.8's bokeh sucks... Macro 50's working distance is way too slow for "practical" macrophotography (non chloroformed insects)

1.4 is the only way.

What's so wrong with a zoom? It's pretty hard to have a prime walk-around lens. 28-75 or so is just so handy for walking around. Seems kinda silly to me to be so hard set on a prime for everthing. I'd rather get the shot and apply a little USM than miss the shot because my lens was too long or not long enough.

I'd say find a good copy of the Tamron 2.8 zoom. It takes as good or better shots as my 50 1.8, and it's a helluva lot more flexible.

Simply said: The 50 1.4 is the "L" of the 50's.

The bokeh of the 1.8 does not "suck", but it is significantly less desireable than the 1.4. The 1.8's bokeh can be a bit chunky as it only has 5-blades as opposed to the superior 1.4 version that boasts 6-blades.

The 1.8 is as sharp as the 1.4 and is a very good value. The 1.4 also has the standard distance meter that other high-quality Canon lenses have.

I have the 1.8 and never use it. It is a cheap, plastic lens but the color, contrast and sharpness are second to none. But the bokeh is a weak point for sure.

I have not purchased a lens in awhile, but the 50 1.4 will be my next.

Actually, I think that the 1.4 has a sharpness edge on the 1.8 below f/2.8, though it probably isn't much. Stopped down beyond that, they're very close.

I'm new to this board and see this often. What does the slang "bokeh" stand for? I've been a working pro for 20 years and never heard or seen this slang before.
Pete

Bokeh is the out of focus area behind a subject. https://photography-on-the.net/forum/showthre​ad.php?t=56972 Is perhaps the quickest way to show you. I suspect that you know, just not the term used here.

I have the 50 F/2.5 macro. I use it quite a bit, both for macro and normal shots. It's pretty good in low light but the 1.4 would definitly be better. I don't really do much macro work with insects, but the AF on the macro can be a little slow close up and some time it seeks in and out several times before finally focusing. Thats doesn't really bother me since most of the macro stuff I shot doesn't move. However I have had it as close as 4 inches from what I was taking pictures of which is a lot closer that you will get any of the other 50's. The 1.4 is only about $60 more than the 2.5 at B&H. I would use the 85 f/1.8 for low light and get the 2.5 for the macro capabilites and to help fill the gap.

Moments,
There was just a thread about that. https://photography-on-the.net …p?t=57113&highl​ight=Bokeh

50mm f/1.4 is normal lens with way better build quality than 50mm f/1.8.

100mm Marco f/2.8 is marco with very sharp and long range.

100mm Marco f/2.8 can replace 50mm f/1.4, but not 50mm replace 100mm.

100mm marco cost more than 50mm.

50mm f/1.4 is good for low light hand held than f1.8 or 100mm Marco.

So you can figure out the choice now.

Please check with these (no post process just re-size and save as web to reduce below 100K size in PS save for wab):

1st JPG is from 100mm Marco f/2.8:
2nd JPG is from 50mm f/1.4 shooting from my car's windows in midnight when I was driving (power of f/1.4.):

HOSTED PHOTO
please log in to view hosted photos in full size.

HOSTED PHOTO
please log in to view hosted photos in full size.

Hard answer!!!

I have the 50 1.4 and I love it!!! But looking at your set up I would go with the macro. It is fun to do and will get you into other areas of photography.

I have the mulitplier for the 50 but dont use it very much. If I get a macro it will be the 180.

Go for the macro 50!!!

50/1.4 is a great lens. Go for it! It also shares filter size with your 24 and 85, which may be of use. For macro, I suggest Kenko or other tubes and use them with your 85 and/or 70-200. You get more working distance than with 50 macro, which may be useful for living creatures.