Canon 50mm F2.5 macro

I have noticed that this lens seems to get skipped when one of the digital photo mags does macro lens comparos. I bought two of them, one for me and one for my daughter and I like the Iq and cannot figure out why it's never mentioned in macro reviews. Any ideas why not? I see them in the ads of B&H.

Generally speaking when mags and people talk of macro they are talking of 1:1 magnification - true macro - where the lens reflects an image on the cameras sensor which is the same size as the subject is in real life (eg a 2mm bug would be reflected 2mm in size on the sensor).

The canon 50mm f2.5 macro is only a 1:2 macro lens (half life size) on its own. Optically I've never heard anything bad about it, but the fact that its only 1:2 makes it generally less popular than other options like the EFS 60mm macro which is 1:1 capable.
You can of course get the lifesize adaptor for the 50mm f2.5 macro lens which brings it to a 1:1 (true macro) capable lens - but the price of the lens and the adaptor generally ends up being more than other options like the Sigma 50mm macro, Canon EFS 60mm macro and sigma 70mm macro.
Add that to its short focal length (and thus shorter distance from the lens front to the subject (working distance)) and its generally not as ideal an option for those after full macro from a single lens when there are lenses of the same price range that do more without the hastle.

I should have stated that several of the macro tests involved other 50mm macros like the Sigma 50mm f2.6 and the Tokina 35mm f2.8 All lens tested had magnification factor of 1.0 the same as the Canon 50 mm f2.5. that is the reason for the question. I was assuming it was an old version and being phased out or????

As commented above the canon 50mm lens does only do 0.5:1 magnification whereas the others you mention do a full 1:1 magnification. Agree though there do not seem to be many users of the shorter focal length lenses I suspect because the working distances are very short. As I've said many times I've yet to hear of a bad macro lens from a major manufacturer so I suspect they are all very sharp optically.
Brian v.

I also think b/c it's an old lens, that it isn't sexy as a newer lens and hence not reviewed as much as newer macros.

I appreciate yalls clearing me up on this lens. I made the assumption( I know I know) that a macro lens was a macro lens, but this is not the case. I have found it is suitable for portraits I just need to acquire the adapter to get 1:1 magnification to use it as a true macro. Thanks