Canon EF 50mm f/2.5 Macro Lens vs. Canon EF 50mm f/1.4 USM

[JohnKoerner]

Hello;

I have a Canon EOS 50D that I primarily use for macro, but I am thinking about getting a basic 50mm lens for "street shots."

Since I already have a 100mm USM macro for my camera, and hence really don't need a 50mm for macro, any macro capability in a 50mm lens isn't my concern. My concern is the sharpness and resolution of a cheap lens on the newer 50D sensor, which I have read tends to really make "cheapo" lenses look cheap. I want the portraits and casual shots I take to be clean and sharp, yet the desire for quality in this area is not so great that I want to shell-out the $1600+ for the Canon 50mm 1.2L. I simply don't take enough "ordinary" shots to justify this kind of expense. Yet I still want to get acceptable quality photos when I take them.

Well, I have read some very good reviews on the budget Canon EF 50mm f/1.4 (non-L) USM lens, but have also noticed several opinions that the 1.4's weaknesses get exposed on the recent 50D's super-sensitive sensor, and the 50D is what I have. Thus I was wondering how the Canon f/2.5 50mm MACRO lens fared as a "regular portrait" lens when put on the end of the newer Canon 50D camera and sensor?

I realize this is quite a string of 50s (comparing three 50mm lenses on then end of a 50D LOL), but I hope that someone who has direct experience with comparing these two specific 50mm lenses (the EF 50mm f/2.5 Macro Lens vs. the EF 50mm f/1.4 USM) for portrait, specifically on a Canon 50D, would be able to help me with this question as to any noticeable qualitative difference.

Thank you,

Jack

.

[lisa_r]

The 1.4 is pretty bad wide open (milky-soft) but by 1.8 and 2.8 it'll be as sharp as the macro. The 1.4 will show more distortion, but will focus faster and more quietly :-)

[Tyler Mallory]

Like the other poster, the 50/1.4 is not sharp tack sharp wide open, and you will notice it. Nice bokeh though and you can't beat the light-gathering ability for the price. If low light performance comes into play for you, the 1.4 is the way to go.

[Misirlou]

The 1.4 is pretty bad wide open (milky-soft) but by 1.8 and 2.8 it'll be as sharp as the macro. The 1.4 will show more distortion, but will focus faster and more quietly :-)

I'm not so sure the problem with the 1.4 is unusual softness wide open so much as extreme curvature of field wide open. It has such narrow depth of field to begin with that with any field curvature at all, it's pretty much impossible to have more than one point in focus. But, that can be useful too. Sort of like a LensBaby. It sharpens up considerably with just a little tighter aperture, like lisa_r said. On a crop frame camera, vignetting won't be much of a problem either; I suspect the 1.4 would have fairly dark corners wide open on a full frame camera (although that's easy to deal with anyway).

I had a 50 1.8 for a long time. It was the original model that came out with the first EOS film cameras. It had a metal lens mount, and worked extremely well as a portrait lens on a crop frame camera. However, the 1.4 has better bokeh, better autofocus, and USM-type focus touch up. But, if you find a nice used 1.8, it might fit your needs very well, for a really low price.

I use my 50 1.4 with my 40D sometimes, but not nearly as much as some other lenses. I think my 17-55 f/2.8 is actually sharper at 50mm than the 1.4 prime, although it's obviously a good bit slower. But with the IS on the 17-55, unless I'm not looking for very narrow depth of field, or quick autofocus in really low light, there's no compelling reason to turn to the 50 prime.

[JohnKoerner]

Thanks for the feedback.

It seems the f/1.4 is a bittersweet feature if that is its weakest aperture.

Does anyone have a definitive overall verdict of the f/1.4 versus the f/2.5?


.

[RobertJ]

I have both lenses, but with the 20D.

The 50mm f/1.4 is by far one of my best Canon lenses, as long as you shoot at f/2 and beyond.  It's a very crisp lens.  I had a Leica 50mm f/2 Summicron, two copies of a Contax Zeiss 50mm f/1.7, and two copies of a Zeiss f/1.4, and I sold them all because I preferred my Canon 50 1.4.

Shoot it at f/2 and smaller.  Anything larger is not so great.  At f/2.8 it's killer in the center.  I prefer the 1.4 over the compact macro, but they both have their pros and cons.  The 1.4 is better for center sharpness, though corners aren't bad either.  I'd say the 2.5 wins for corner to corner sharpness, with no distortion, while being slightly less sharp than the 1.4 in the center.  If I had to keep one, it would be the 1.4.  And don't be fooled by the 50mm f/1.2L.  I think it actually has less resolving power than the 1.4 at f/2.8 and smaller apertures.

[kaelaria]

I have both lenses and just did a test of the 1.4 for someone else.  Yes it is a bit soft until really 2.8.

I would never consider the 2.5 macro for anything but studio use.  It's slow to AF, slow AND clunky to MF and LOUD.  Non-USF remember.  Old skool.  I have no idea if the macro is sharp at 2.5, it lives at 16+.

Here's the 1.4 test:

http://pixelburners.com/viewtopic.php?f=6&t=671

[sojournerphoto]

I shoot a 50 1.4 on a 5D and 1Ds3 and I really like it. It's not absolutely sharp at 1.4, but it's better than it's usualy credited to be. Plus, I really like the way it behaves wide open - very narrow depth of field, some distortion that I think suits these images and probably not a flat focus field (as pointed out above). Although it's not the current perceived wisdom, protraits don't always need to be as crispy sharp as a crisp thing and you can always stop it down a couple of stops if you want that. It's also a nice smallish lens.

The only downside is the build quality - the manual focus is not really very nice in feel and it doesn't have the substantial feel of some of the L lenses.

Mike

[JohnKoerner]

I have both lenses, but with the 20D.
The 50mm f/1.4 is by far one of my best Canon lenses, as long as you shoot at f/2 and beyond.  It's a very crisp lens.  I had a Leica 50mm f/2 Summicron, two copies of a Contax Zeiss 50mm f/1.7, and two copies of a Zeiss f/1.4, and I sold them all because I preferred my Canon 50 1.4.
Shoot it at f/2 and smaller.  Anything larger is not so great.  At f/2.8 it's killer in the center.  I prefer the 1.4 over the compact macro, but they both have their pros and cons.  The 1.4 is better for center sharpness, though corners aren't bad either.  I'd say the 2.5 wins for corner to corner sharpness, with no distortion, while being slightly less sharp than the 1.4 in the center.  If I had to keep one, it would be the 1.4.  And don't be fooled by the 50mm f/1.2L.  I think it actually has less resolving power than the 1.4 at f/2.8 and smaller apertures.

Thank you very much for your time and perspective. I have also read (after the consumer loses the stardust in their eyes over the superior build quality and focusing ring of the $1600 1.2), that at the end of the day it is not appreciably better at taking photos than the $350 1.4 ... but your comments about the Zeiss really surprised me. That is nice to hear. I also noticed that in this month's copy of Digital Camera, that the 1.4 placed first in a square-off with Nikons, Sigma's, and Sony's equivalents also. Seems like a hellva value in a lens.

I have both lenses and just did a test of the 1.4 for someone else.  Yes it is a bit soft until really 2.8.
I would never consider the 2.5 macro for anything but studio use.  It's slow to AF, slow AND clunky to MF and LOUD.  Non-USF remember.  Old skool.  I have no idea if the macro is sharp at 2.5, it lives at 16+.
Here's the 1.4 test:
http://pixelburners.com/viewtopic.php?f=6&t=671

Thank you very much. It looks like I asked this question at exactly the right time

I shoot a 50 1.4 on a 5D and 1Ds3 and I really like it. It's not absolutely sharp at 1.4, but it's better than it's usualy credited to be. Plus, I really like the way it behaves wide open - very narrow depth of field, some distortion that I think suits these images and probably not a flat focus field (as pointed out above). Although it's not the current perceived wisdom, protraits don't always need to be as crispy sharp as a crisp thing and you can always stop it down a couple of stops if you want that. It's also a nice smallish lens.
The only downside is the build quality - the manual focus is not really very nice in feel and it doesn't have the substantial feel of some of the L lenses.
Mike

Thank you as well for your input.

You know, what you said about sharpness I am finding to be very true, more and more, also with macro. I have been taking a lot of photos of flowers, insects, and such ... with a macro ringlight flash for absolute clarity ... and yet when I have decided not to use the flash (which sometimes makes it harder to nail the focus, as well as forces me to incur a much more shallow DOF in using bigger f/stops) I have noticed that the resulting photos can be much more beautiful when slightly blurred and with some of the edges slightly out-of-focus.

In fact, the buttery bokeh and the slightly-blurred effect of the edges almost evokes a dream-like quality about the images ... that is totally lost with razor-sharp images ... so point noted and well-taken.

Thanks again,

Jack


.