50mm standard lens or 50mm macro lens for portraits

I have bought Canon EOS 500D with 18-55 kit lens few months back. My journey of owning cameras started from buying a Nikon SLR camera (went bad after 17-20 years of usage) to Sony compacts to this Canon DSLR. I do read about photography, but I get time only on a Sundays to use my camera (family & friends).

I am thinking of buying another lens to supplement kit lens. Basically I would like to use new lens for waist up portraits. I am considering buying Ef 50 1.8 II standard lens. My assumption is that it will give visibly better quality portrait than a kit lens. Other option I am looking at is to buy instead EF 50 2.5 M macro lens (again for portraits).

Considering that the macro lens price is 3+ times as compared to the standard 50 mm lens, will this macro lens deliver better photos than the standard lens.

I need help to figure out to whether I should go for 50 mm standard lens or 50 mm macro lens.

Thanks in advance for your help
Regards SS Manak

I would say yes , and so will the Sigma 50mm 2.8 macro. Both, will give you better AF also.

Yes to which option?

anthony11 wrote in post #10419317
Yes to which option?

Well since I also mentioned the Sigma 50mm macro, it's rather plain I meant the macro.

Why not the 50mm 1.4? Much of the portrait work I've seen has been done with this lens, it's great. It's actually the next lens I plan on buying.

I think it helps to be realistic about how often you will use the widest apertures for portraiture. F2.8 is often already pushing DOF limits for portraits. I do like having the fast apertures for full body portraits with cool seperation, but for the most part I end up shooting at f2.5-5 anyway.

I'd also consider the 60mm 2.8 macro. A tiny bit longer, but one of the best in it's class.

Just to clarify, "standard" has to do with the focal length relative to the diagonal length of the sensor. Much shorter than that length is wide, and longer is telephoto. 50mm is a standard lens on a 35mm sensor. They keep that name since the 50/1.8 and 50 CM were designed for 35mm. On a 500D, though, 30mm is standard, so 50mm is a telephoto.

tkbslc wrote in post #10419418
I think it helps to be realistic about how often you will use the widest apertures for portraiture. F2.8 is often already pushing DOF limits for portraits. I do like having the fast apertures for full body portraits with cool seperation, but for the most part I end up shooting at f2.5-5 anyway.

That. With a telephoto (50mm is a telephoto on APS-C), you'll probably be around f/2.8-4 most of the time.

Also, the 50 CM has much smoother blur.

If you can afford it, I suggest the 50 CM or the 50/1.4. Otherwise, the 50/1.8 will do fine.

Why not a 85mm 1.8?

mikejet wrote in post #10419812
Why not a 85mm 1.8?

That can be kinda long on a crop body if shooting indoors.

Are you planning to do some macro shots? Then the 60mm wil be a good option. Very sharp, also wide open.

+1.

bram1234 wrote in post #10419914
Are you planning to do some macro shots? Then the 60mm wil be a good option. Very sharp, also wide open.

I suppose if we are including 60's we might as well add the new Tamron 60mm f2.

Understood implications of ‘TOXIC’ observation now (with a good 24 hours delay). Does his observation imply that for 'APS-C' sensor camera I have one more option, that is to buy 35 mm lens and use it for portrait photography plus as a general purpose lens. Or should I stick my choice between 50mm 1.4 Vs 50mm 2.5 MACRO. Regards

It's a matter of taste. For purely formal portrait shots, people usually don't expect ultra-shallow depth of field shots, but for more dramatic portraits, beauty shots, children or basically anything else you can imagine, there's absolutely nothing wrong with having a very shallow depth of field portraits. As long as the eyes are sharp

Personally I find 50mm a little bit short on 1.6 crop, but very acceptable albeit on the short end of acceptable.