PDA

View Full Version : Thinking of buying this lens, any input?


turtle
2008-11-28, 22:13
Canon EF 50mm f/2.5 Compact Macro (http://www.usa.canon.com/consumer/controller?act=ModelInfoAct&fcategoryid=155&modelid=7323)

It's price of $235 (http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/12145-USA/Canon_2537A003_50mm_f_2_5_Compact_Macro.html) is very appealing along with my desire for it is Macro use rather than portrait is why I'm think of this one over the Nifty Fifty (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canon_EF_50mm_lens#EF_50mm_f.2F1.8_II). Sure I can't get the aperture as wide, but I think I can handle this drawback for the ability to get in close with macro.

I'm also looking forward to getting the Life-Size Converter (http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/12311-USA/Canon_2818A004_Life_Size_Converter_EF.html) to pair with it for true 1:1. I've seen some examples (http://photography-on-the.net/forum/showthread.php?t=413694) of the images from this lens and like what I'm seeing. Any one have any other images used with this lens or another lens in mind I should look at? Thanks for any input too. :)

atomicbartbeans
2008-11-28, 22:26
It's still only half of a macro lens. ;) The "macro" label on a lens incapable of 1:1 seems like silly false advertising to me.

Have you considered buying a higher-spec non-macro prime lens, such as a 50 mm f/1.4, and using it with a reversing ring for macro work? You'll get more light if you need it and probably better-quality optics while retaining macro ability.

Though admittedly, the really short depth of field with a reversed 50 mm lens is a little hard to work with...

PB PM
2008-11-28, 23:22
I don't know Canon's lens line that well, but I think you might be better off getting say the Canon EF-S 60 mm f/2.8 Macro USM. A real 1:1 macro lens without having to buy a converter. If price is an issue though, I guess you'd have to go with the 50mm F2.5 Macro.

turtle
2008-11-28, 23:22
It's still only half of a macro lens. ;) The "macro" label on a lens incapable of 1:1 seems like silly false advertising to me.

Have you considered buying a higher-spec non-macro prime lens, such as a 50 mm f/1.4, and using it with a reversing ring for macro work? You'll get more light if you need it and probably better-quality optics while retaining macro ability.

Though admittedly, the really short depth of field with a reversed 50 mm lens is a little hard to work with...

Exactly one of the reasons I'm not too worried about the DoF being a bit deeper in this one as compared to a f/1.4. Yeah, I've thought about reversing, but it's too sloppy of a method in my mind. I'd rather just have a lens dedicated to macro. Admittedly, I don't want to invest in a converter to make it true 1:1. :\
I don't know Canon's lens line that well, but I think you might be better off getting say the Canon EF-S 60 mm f/2.8 Macro USM. A real 1:1 macro lens without having to buy a converter. If price is an issue though, I guess you'd have to go with the 50mm F2.5 Macro.

I was looking through the reviews on this lens after your recommendation and the only thing that has me concerned is the ever prevalent comment of having to be too close to the subject. If I were to do insects and other moving/skittish targets this could be the greatest downfall of the lens for me.

Now at this point I don't have any one macro subject in mind other than flowers for my wife. She loves those shots and I have enjoyed some of what I've taken with my kit lens. I just don't want to be limited more than I have to without breaking the bank either. I currently have about $500 to put into this lens for me so that's the line I'm needing to stay under without waiting a few more weeks.

Edit: I also just noticed that this the 60mm is limited to EF-S and that's not going to work because I'll be getting the 5D MKII in the not too distant future. I'm pretty sure EF-S lenses don't work with the full frame bodies.

PB PM
2008-11-28, 23:32
Right, distance is an issue. I know on the Nikon side many macro shooters like their 85mm F1.8D or 105mm Macro lenses, but as I said, I don't know Canon's line that well.

chinesebear
2008-11-28, 23:47
if $500 is your limit, why not the 100mm f/2.8 macro? larger working distance, and a great portrait lens, especially when you move up to the 5dII. That's my next lens on my wish list.

turtle
2008-11-28, 23:50
Right, distance is an issue. I know on the Nikon side many macro shooters like their 85mm F1.8D or 105mm Macro lenses, but as I said, I don't know Canon's line that well.

So I started looking into some of the other lenses and it looks like I can get the EF 100mm f/2.8 Macro USM (http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/194451-USA/Canon_4657A006_100mm_f_2_8_USM_Macro.html) for less than the 50mm and converter! Plus I would get the distance if I wanted it or up close (up to 5.9") if I want. This one also moves internally for focus so it's less likely to scare away some subjects I might have.

I really like the 180mm f/3.5L but it's price puts it far from my hands for another couple of months. I'd rather get the 5D MKII first then start building an "L" glass collection.
if $500 is your limit, why not the 100mm f/2.8 macro? larger working distance, and a great portrait lens, especially when you move up to the 5dII. That's my next lens on my wish list.

Yep, that's where I'm looking now. This thread is really helping me get a better focus (no pun intended) on what I'm trying to get with my next lens.

PB PM
2008-11-28, 23:54
That is always a good idea. That said, if you do move up to the 5D, you'll want to make sure to have some full frame lenses, but I believe that the lenses you are looking at aren't optimized for the 1.6x sensor so that shouldn't be an issue. I have always thought the other way around, get some pro grade lenses and then move up to the D700 or whatever it is when I go to move up to full frame that way I'm not limiting the cameras abilities with crop frame lenses.

Swox
2008-11-29, 00:14
That 100mm f/2.8 lens is one of the ones on my wish list. It gets great reviews and is useful on both 1.6x and full-frame bodies. I haven't used one though.

turtle
2008-11-29, 10:50
Thanks for all the ideas and help figuring out which one I'm getting. I'm looking forward to ordering this lens but B&H isn't taking orders until almost 6 p.m. tonight and I have to be at work. I'll have to order it when I get home tonight. :)

Dorian Gray
2008-11-29, 10:52
It's still only half of a macro lens. ;) The "macro" label on a lens incapable of 1:1 seems like silly false advertising to me.
Some of the best macro lenses don't reach 1:1 without tubes. The most important thing is whether the optical arrangement is optimised for high magnification ratios, and that's ultimately what defines a macro lens.

Have you considered buying a higher-spec non-macro prime lens, such as a 50 mm f/1.4, and using it with a reversing ring for macro work? You'll get more light if you need it and probably better-quality optics while retaining macro ability.
The optics of a fast fifty are far from ideal for macro work. There really is a vast gulf between a fast fifty and a dedicated macro of much smaller aperture. My 50 mm f/1.8 has six elements optimised for infinity focus; my 60 mm macro has twelve elements, including two aspherical elements, optimised for much closer work. The difference in image quality when focused at about half a metre or closer is huge.

Though admittedly, the really short depth of field with a reversed 50 mm lens is a little hard to work with...
But at the same magnification ratio and f-stop, the depth of field is identical to that of a macro lens (I think you know this, but just clarifying).

On a related note, it's a myth that cameras with tiny sensors (like all the compact cameras with "macro" modes) have greater depth of field for macro than an SLR setup. At f/8 (typically the highest f-stop) they do have a large depth of field, but no more than an SLR with the lens set at an f-stop providing the same degree of diffraction (which might need f/45 or something ridiculous).

Turtle2472, I wouldn't rule out third-party lenses if you're looking for either a bargain or the ultimate quality. Zeiss will probably soon make their 50 mm f/2 and 100 mm f/2 macros in ZE mount (EF mount), and those lenses have unique qualities and speed. Tamron make the famous 90 mm f/2.8 which has excellent optical quality. This photographer (http://www.glenn-harper.com/) (see Flora gallery) uses the Tamron with a Canon EOS 5D. There are plenty of other third-party macro lenses for the EF mount too.

I wouldn't necessarily get a long lens either. You do get more working distance, but that isn't always a good thing. A long working distance creates an unfamiliar perspective for macro work, particularly if you're making a large print and/or shooting something that isn't so abstract that we can't recognise what it is.

It's also nice to be able to reach in front of the camera to adjust the subject without taking your eye from the viewfinder, which becomes difficult with a long focal length, particularly at common magnification ratios less than 1:1. In addition, it's often useful to get some background into the frame when shooting things about the size of a plate of food, which is more doable with a shorter focal length. When you see the quality that a good macro lens can deliver for objects about that size, you'll favour your macro over your other lenses for that kind of subject even though the others may also focus close enough.

Finally, unless you have loads of lenses you'll want to use your macro lens for distant subjects too, where a wider angle of view may well be preferable (depending on your other lenses, of course).

Tokina make a 35 mm macro lens, the AT-X M35 PRO DX (http://www.tokinalens.com/products/tokina/atx-m35prodx-a.html), that intrigues me (though it's expensive). Like you, I wanted a macro lens that will work on full-frame format in the future, so I got the Nikon 60 mm AF-S, but it's a bit longer than I'd like on crop-format. For insects I'm sure a longer working distance is useful, but you have to think how often you'll shoot insects versus things like your latest electronic gadget. :)

If money is no object there is only one choice: get a Nikon and this incredible lens (http://www.coastalopt.com/mmapomacro.html). :p It's designed by Brian Caldwell, a participant on several internet photography boards.

turtle
2008-11-30, 00:41
I pulled the trigger on this lens (http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B00004XOM3) and got two (http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B00004ZCJI) freebies (http://www.amazon.com/gp/promotions/details/popup/A3JZ0GI02VNWSP) with it! It ended up being cheaper at Amazon than it was at B&H so I went with them. The addition of the UV Filter and $5 MP3 store was another bonus. I signed up for my free trial with Amazon Prime so I could get free two day shipping too! I've already set my calendar to remind me in three weeks to cancel my Prime membership so I don't get charged.

They had the 1.8 50mm prime on sale for about $85 and I almost threw it in the cart too, but passed. I'll get that one another time because it would have thrown me over the $500 limit. I can't wait to get into some macro photography now. This is pretty cool as I'm thinking more about it. I haven't been taking many pcitures lately and I hate that. I so enjoy making good images that I just can't wait to see some new options!

Dorian, I looked into getting some of the other brands but they just didn't stand out to me. Maybe it's because I don't know their quality or that I'm just putting too much trust into Canon's name but I just wasn't pulled into moving from Canon lenses yet.

You mentioned the working distance and make very valid points, but as I thought through my intended plan with this lens (nature/insect) the ability to be at a greater distance really appealed to me. If it wasn't going to throw me over the $500 limit then I was going to go ahead and get the f/1.8 too giving my the up close for times when needed.

PB PM
2008-11-30, 00:59
The third party companies do make good lenses, but if you can afford it, the camera makers lenses tend to work better with the auto focus and metering systems, considering that they designed them to work together.

Congrats on the new lens! UV filters aren't really needed with DSLRs, and cheap ones can hinder auto focusing and metering, but since it was free, give it a go.

turtle
2008-11-30, 01:08
Yeah, I've actually removed the filters from my other two lenses too. I got tired of having the negative effects that come with filters. The idea of it protecting my lens wasn't worth it to me. Yeah, since I shoot in RAW I haven't missed not using filters too. When I do shoots at the beach I do use the filters though to limit the amount of sandblasting on the front element. :eek:

PB PM
2008-11-30, 01:18
Well, other filters are good to have, such polarizers, as they reduce haze from landscape images. There is a saying I see a lot though, why put cheap glass in front of your expensive glass?

turtle
2008-11-30, 02:17
I looked at some polarizers today but wasn't ready to pay the price for them. Partly because I've never really used them or any other filter aside from UV. Heck, I don't know which is better in which situation because I've never really looked into them. :\ I'm sure if I even remotely studied something about them I would want some of them though.

PB PM
2008-11-30, 02:40
Here is a site with some good basic information.

http://www.cambridgeincolour.com/tutorials.htm

turtle
2008-11-30, 03:15
Thanks for the link. There are some great overviews on there. I love the rollover comparison shots too. :)

Swox
2008-11-30, 03:56
I put a good UV filter on my Tamron 17-50mm lens because I'd rather lose the filter. I'd definitely be doing it with a more expensive lens as I've heard a number of stories of photographers having their lenses saved by them. Not that you have to too, but I'm mildly paranoid ;) .

Congrats on the new lens :) Let us know what your experience with it is - I'm thinking of getting that lens one day too :)

PB PM
2008-11-30, 20:18
Yeah, if you do use filters get good ones, like Hoya or B+W ones.

turtle
2008-12-02, 20:19
It came in today! I haven't really done a whole lot with it yet but I did take this one of my wife putting on makeup for a party tonight. No flash, ISO 200 and bathroom lighting so it's very cool.
http://www.turtle2472.com/an/IMG_2927.jpg

Swox
2008-12-02, 23:20
Very cool. When she's older, she won't let you do that anymore, though ;) .

turtle
2009-01-12, 01:18
Here's one I took recently.
http://turtle2472.com/an/lashes.png

It's my son's eye lashes. This is cropped in to 100%. It's a pretty good example of the lenses abilities if you asked me. ISO200, f/2.8, 1/60, onboard flash.

PB PM
2009-01-12, 14:38
Never knew that eye lashes could looks so strange. :lol: Looks a little soft, but it is a crop.

Yonzie
2009-01-12, 18:45
I didn't have any input, now I do. The input is: I think I'll be getting one as well :D