I am thinking of bying 50mm lens for my EOS300 to replace the 28-90 the EOS300 came with originally. I've noticed at Photodo that both lenses EF50 1.4 USM and the EF 50 2.5 Macro have the same rating of 4.4. Which one is the better option ? better value for money? appreciate any other coments.. Wal.

-- waldemar wawrzyniak (w4w@telstra.com), April 09, 2002

Answers

The 50 mm 1.4 USM is one of Canon's better lenses--fast and sharp. The USM motor is quiet and precise, and you may need the wider aperture in low light. I live by this lens.

-- Preston Merchant (merchant@speakeasy.org), April 09, 2002.

what kind of photography you want to do. if you just need a standard lens 50mm 1.4 USM is fine.

the other lens (50 f2.5 macro) has macro capabilities to shoot at a closer focusing distance without any additional accessory. a Life Size Converter is available explicitly for this macro lens which give a image magnification of 1.0x from 0.26x at an increased working distances. but it can also be used as a standard lens just like the former f/1.4 lens. i don't know how does these lenses compare optically. both are ofcourse excellent but don't know which one is better. i doubt that both are equally good.

-- sajeev (chack74@yahoo.co.in), April 09, 2002.

The 50mm F2.5 is the better lens optically. The photodo result takes no account of distortion, which is much lower on the macro (the 50 F1.4 is well known to have a slight distortion to it).

My father has both lenses. For copy work, where optical quality is the priority (rather than focus speed, noise, size, weight, etc), the F2.5 is the lens of choice.

-- Isaac Sibson (isibson@hotmail.com), April 09, 2002.

Due to a weak moment in a used camera joint I ended up with ECF50 2.5 Macro (I already had the ECF50 1.4 USM).

First, they're both great lenses, albeit aimed at different needs. The 50 1.4 is the low light specialist and the 50 2.5 is designed for closeup or copy work. However, the ECF50 2.5 Macro is sharp wide open and throughout the aperture range and is extremely well corrected. The 50 1.4 needs to be stopped down to F5.6 to hit the sweet spot. Moreover, it has a bit of barrel distortion at close focus--the closer you get the worst it gets. Still I prefer the EF50 1.4 USM as a walk around lens.

-- Puppy Face (doggieface@aol.com), April 09, 2002.

I only have the 2.5 Macro, out of these 2 lenses, but I find this lense very useful because you can use it much closer than the normal 50mm, and it still has a quite wide max. app. The quality is excellent and I find that in low light, I don't often want to go down much below 2.5 for fear of not actually getting enough in focus. Hope this helps.

-- Sarah Needham (sarah.needham1@orange.net), April 10, 2002.

I have both these lenses. I prefer the 2.5 over the 1.4. Why? It performs just as well, if not better than the 1.4 and is a tad smaller, but does not really wiegh less. One thing to consider is that the filter size of the macro is smaller. Making a selection of screw-ins less bulky in a bag than the 58mm. On light trips that need a back up, I take a 28-70 and the 50/2.5 the back up can be used on a second body, do mcro stuff, and take up as little spae as possible when considering the extra filters needed to be carried to make it a real back up is the big one dies.

I would get th macro and see how you like it. It cost less than the 1.4 I think and performs excelelntly. The focusing is plenty fast on my EOS 5 and was pretty good on the Rebel as well.

-- Chris Gillis (chris@photogenica.net), April 11, 2002.

The 50/1.4 and the 50/2.5 Macro are equally sharp. So you really can't decide based on that. But if you consider other factors that are important to you, it will help you decide which is best for you.

The 50/2.5 is about $80-90 less expensive than the 50/1.4, is a bit smaller, and does macro up to half lifesize (or 1:1 macro with the optional Lifesize Converter EF, which is an additional $190). If you lean towards macro and want an excellent 50mm prime, this would be the best choice.

The 50/1.4 is more expensive, but it has a faster aperture and has USM/FTM. For someone like me who likes to shoot in low existing light, likes shallow depth of fields, and likes really diffused backgrounds, the fast f/1.4 aperture is prefered to the moderately fast f/2.5 of the macro. For my purposes, I chose the 50/1.4. I almost always shoot it wide open.

Even with the price difference, there is significant value in either choice, depending on your shooting preferences.

-- Peter Phan (pphan01@hotmail.com), April 13, 2002.