# Which 50mm Macro lens is a better buy?



## jeremymerriam (Aug 8, 2011)

Hello everyone

I am a food photographer and I shoot most of my food shots with my 100 and sometimes my 50mm 1.2 but i wanted to add a new dimension to my work by having closer shots done with a 50mm macro. The 2 options I have found is the Zeiss and the regular canon 50mm macro (non- L series). does anyone have experience with either lense or know someone who does?

Thanks for the help in advance

Jeremy


----------



## Macadameane (Aug 8, 2011)

Sorry this isn't an answer, but is there a specific reason you are limiting your choices to 50mm?


----------



## awinphoto (Aug 8, 2011)

I had the 50mm 2.5 macro... it's a great lens depending what your expectations are (and noisy if you are used to USM)... I dont think it's as sharp (overall) as my 50 1.4, but the 1.4 is not a macro per se. The 60mm ef-s macro gets good reviews from what I see. The zeiss i'm sure is a superior lens optics wise but so is the price point and manual focus for that matter of fact.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Aug 9, 2011)

What body are you using? I'll second the question - why 50mm? FWIW, both 50mm macro lenses can't deliver true 1:1 magnification, they stop at 1:2 magnification (Canon sells an extra 'life size converter' for their 50mm macro to bring it to 1:1).

The 100mm f/2.8L Macro IS is a wonderful lens. The older non-IS version delivers equivalent IQ, and can be had for a lot less $/Â£/â‚¬.


----------



## jeremymerriam (Aug 9, 2011)

I currently shoot almost exclusively with the 100mm 2.8L macro but sometimes I would like to include flatware, glassware and other interesting props as part of the dish. I saw the 50mm canon macro but it seemed a bit flimsy (the focus ring). Does anyone use it? Or does anyone have the Zeiss. I am hesitate to spend 1300 on a lens if the $400ish one has basically the same results and is pretty sharp.


----------



## jeremymerriam (Aug 9, 2011)

jeremymerriam said:


> I currently shoot almost exclusively with the 100mm 2.8L macro but sometimes I would like to include flatware, glassware and other interesting props as part of the dish. I saw the 50mm canon macro but it seemed a bit flimsy (the focus ring). Does anyone use it? Or does anyone have the Zeiss. I am hesitate to spend 1300 on a lens if the $400ish one has basically the same results and is pretty sharp.



I have a 5D


----------



## neuroanatomist (Aug 9, 2011)

On TDP, you can compare Canon 100mm f/2.8L Macro IS vs. Canon 50mm f/2.5 Compact Macro, and Canon 100mm f/2.8L Macro IS vs. Zeiss 50mm f/2 Makro-Planar T*. Photozone.de also has a review of the Zeiss 50mm f/2 (and the Canon 100L, but not the Canon 50mm macro).


----------



## awinphoto (Aug 9, 2011)

TDP is a great resource. If you are using the 100mm L I think you will be slightly disappointed with the 50mm overall. The build is similar to the 50 1.4... small manual focus ring... lots of play in the ring... AF is kinda slow and noisy... Optically, compared to standard regular primes and zooms, it is very very good. Compared to many of the L optics, it isn't as good. Ziess is very nice but you pay the premium. With the 5d, the 60mm ef-s is out, but perhaps if you have other primes are happy with you can try extension tubes... Also if you feel adventurous you can try sigmas offering or others but be aware of sample variations.


----------



## Mt Spokane Photography (Aug 9, 2011)

jeremymerriam said:


> Hello everyone
> 
> I am a food photographer and I shoot most of my food shots with my 100 and sometimes my 50mm 1.2 but i wanted to add a new dimension to my work by having closer shots done with a 50mm macro. The 2 options I have found is the Zeiss and the regular canon 50mm macro (non- L series). does anyone have experience with either lense or know someone who does?
> 
> ...



I'd also look at the TS-E45mm lens if you think the TS-E 90mm is too long. It will focus closely, you can use a TC as well. A TS-E will help you get more of the object in focus.


----------



## te4o (Aug 9, 2011)

A year ago I wanted to upgrade to FF. Borrowed a 5DII and the EF50/1.4 from a friend. The results were very much average or below - center was OK, all the rest was astigmatic, full of haze, I can't name all these optical deficiencies here. Shot >500 test shots - deleted 90%. 
With the Zeiss there is a big a--ha effect. Now I keep 90% of the shots with the 50 (which on APSC is 75 unfortunately). MacroPlanar f2 is nearly perfect. You don't need AF for macros really, not for food (which is not moving...)
Food was part of my interest too. I tried macro with the ZE 35/1.4 (goes down to 30cm from chip) - richer colors and more fine contrast, OOF much better, smoother than the 50. The 50/2 is unforgiving sharp and renders very much better than the Canon line IMO. Besides it is a versatile brush - macro, MFD, distant landscapes, architecture (zero distortion), portraits get very sharp though, had to reduce in-camera-sharpness) not to mention video...& MF, in case you upgrade from 5D to a video-capable DSLR. 
Until I bought the 35/1.4 the 50MP was my general purpose lens. Strongly recommended.


----------



## UncleFester (Aug 9, 2011)

jeremymerriam said:


> I currently shoot almost exclusively with the 100mm 2.8L macro but sometimes I would like to include flatware, glassware and other interesting props



I'd back way up and use a telephoto instead of a macro. Like a 70-200.


----------



## KBX500 (Aug 9, 2011)

If you're stuck on a 50mm don't overlook the 
Sigma 50mm f/2.8 EX DG 1:1 Macro. 
It's routinely highly rated for sharpness, color, bokeh
& value. Also, except for the AF, it has a nice build 
overall and the focus ring feels right.

The AF is slow and hunts in dim light, but that's not 
unusual for a Macro. Besides, you'll be using manual
focus anyhow.

The price is about $360 - 370, but it shoots like it
costs three times that amount.

I don't own one, but I have used one a few times and 
loved the IQ. I'm not a big fan of Sigma, but this lens 
is a great alternative to the Canon EF-S 60mm or the 
Canon 50mm Macro. 

www.amazon.com/Sigma-50mm-Macro-Canon-Cameras/dp/B0002P19PS/ref=sr_1_1?s=photo&ie=UTF8&qid=1312788963&sr=1-1

www.fredmiranda.com/reviews/showproduct.php?product=133&sort=7&cat=38&page=1


Keith


----------



## lol (Aug 9, 2011)

I have the Zeiss 50/2 makro. Outside of macro uses it's roughly comparable to the Canon 50mm f/1.8 in image quality in the middle, but it is better corrected as you go further out so maintains it better. For macro, again it is still well corrected. Not very good with glare. Bokeh is nice and round and flat. Touch of longitudinal CA to worry about. And if you want to use it through the viewfinder, I found I had to use AF micro-adjust on the 7D to get focus assist in the right place. It back-focused otherwise. Yes, I know it's MF only! 99% of the time I use it in live view so that's not a big issue.

I do wonder at times if I should just have got the Canon 50/2.5... can't be that bad, and a LOT cheaper... obviously the Zeiss is rather unique in speed and macro abilities, while not being over-specified in either.


----------



## jeremymerriam (Aug 9, 2011)

Cool

Thanks guys for all the feedback. I never thought about the Tilt shift either. I will have to take a peak it it's minimal focus length. I wonder if there is a newer 50mm macro L in the works? It would be a nice thought. I really like my 50mm 1.2 but it just doesn't get close enough for food applications


----------



## Edwin Herdman (Aug 9, 2011)

Macadameane said:


> Sorry this isn't an answer, but is there a specific reason you are limiting your choices to 50mm?





jeremymerriam said:


> I am a food photographer


I think that answers the question...you need a somewhat wider field of view to put the food "in your face." It also works nicer at normal distances for a full table view (at least it should on full frame).

Personally I would consider the TS-E 90mm f/2.8 - while you have to get on top (literally) of a tripod (and put the subject on the floor) to get a full frame image of something around a foot wide, the view is still flattering enough at near-macro distances, even on APS-C. The angle of view should be somewhat easier to work with, IMO, due to the slightly improved decluttering effect of the narrower angle of view.

Keep in mind that the tilt part will be of pretty minimal use for near-macro use...I've never been able to get much use from it at distances of less than a couple meters. It simply doesn't tilt far enough to really throw the area of focus nearly perpendicular to the sensor...on the other hand I suppose it would be easier to deal with on a larger sensor than APS-C (where some of that effect is limited to the cut off edges of the image plane).

For what it's worth, I saw a very nice image shot of some small items on a table with the 50mm f/1.2L - it doesn't focus at macro (or near-macro) distances but still seems very usable and the DOF provides the opportunity for some nice effects.


----------



## jeremymerriam (Aug 9, 2011)

Yes, it is to make the food have strong attention, while allowing some use of other details. the 100 macro is just too flat for that purpose. After some thought, there isn't much sense in getting any TSE lens unless for architecture (which i do but for lower paying clients). Once I go with either the new Canon pro body or a digital back, I am going to invest in a rail to get large depth of field for advertising related work, etc


----------



## Kernuak (Aug 9, 2011)

jeremymerriam said:


> Cool
> I really like my 50mm 1.2 but it just doesn't get close enough for food applications



Have you thought about trying out extension tubes? With a set of Kenko tubes, you'll get pretty close to macro. In fact without looking at the calculations, you may not even need to use all three to get what you need. Also much cheaper than a new lens and still useful if you decide to get a 50mm macro afterwards.

Edit: With 68mm extension tubes (the full Kenko set) you should get over 1:1 magnification on the 50mm f/1.4.


----------



## Edwin Herdman (Aug 11, 2011)

jeremymerriam said:


> After some thought, there isn't much sense in getting any TSE lens unless for architecture (which i do but for lower paying clients).


I have shot some plate-sized items where the tilt function allowed me to use the TS-E 90mm wide open while keeping everything in focus despite not being set up directly overhead (obviously, for sharpness, I would stop down a bit). I would not dismiss its usefulness without having tried it out firsthand.

My favorite TS-E style picture, that I saw somewhere or other, is of a single line of chess pieces in focus on a chessboard, with everything else out of focus. It translates to the other direction as well - wide open the 90mm should be able to put the food on top in focus, but throw the place setting underneath out of focus.


----------



## ReyMorlu (Aug 11, 2011)

I had a 50 / 2.5 makro and have the worst quality in vigneting / construction / autofocus... I've ever seen by far!!
If I were you for this special kind of pics, I'll look up for 90 ts or 45 ts (close up capabilities , scheimpflug and a big image circle with less vigneting than the 50 macro)


----------



## rashomon (Aug 12, 2011)

I use the Canon 50mm macro a lot professionally, and own two and the extender. One continual problem with this lens is that auto/manual focus button breaks. I've had it happen three times over half a dozen years of use.

I would love a 50 macro/L.


----------



## Crackson (Oct 21, 2011)

If you haven't bought a lens yet. 

I have the Sigma 50 f2.8 macro on my 5D. Its a great lens. Not as plasticy(sp?) as the canon 50 f2.8 macro and the glass is super crisp. Only gripe I have about the lens is that you can't have the lens hood on, then snap the lens cover on it. The lens hood screws onto the lens or filter and there's not enough room for the cover to lock in.

Otherwise its a great little lens if you do a lot of macro which you are doing or going to be doing. I also use it to do some street shots when I don't feel like freaking people out with a larger lens.


----------



## Old Shooter (Oct 22, 2011)

I bought a 50mm 2.5 Macro with my first EOS body; a 10s film camera. That was 20 years ago and I still have the same lens. It is still one of the sharpest lenses I own; especially if you stop it down to f/5.6 or so. Every wedding I ever shot it came out of the bag to get a great shot of the rings; cheesy, but couples expect it... It's effectively an 80mm lens on a crop body, and I have used it for portraits in a pinch. It is almost too sharp; you can see every pore and glitch. You can still get the same lens today at B&H for $284. It will get you to 1:2 out of the box and 1:1 with the extender. The focusing is NOT USM and very noisy for those not used to it; but I don't think the food will mind...


----------



## taxi (Dec 8, 2014)

jeremymerriam said:


> Hello everyone
> 
> I am a food photographer and I shoot most of my food shots with my 100 and sometimes my 50mm 1.2 but i wanted to add a new dimension to my work by having closer shots done with a 50mm macro. The 2 options I have found is the Zeiss and the regular canon 50mm macro (non- L series). does anyone have experience with either lense or know someone who does?
> 
> ...



Hi Jeremy,

I just saw this post and I am in the position you were in. Did you purchase the Canon 50mm macro or Sigma 50mm macro? I am a food photographer as well, and shoot mostly with 100mm macro which is my favourite lens for food and portrait shoot. I need a wider lens to get more of the table setup in the frame, so I'm looking for a wider macro lens. Anyone has any input?


----------



## JonAustin (Dec 8, 2014)

Old Shooter said:


> I bought a 50mm 2.5 Macro with my first EOS body; a 10s film camera. That was 20 years ago and I still have the same lens. It is still one of the sharpest lenses I own; especially if you stop it down to f/5.6 or so. Every wedding I ever shot it came out of the bag to get a great shot of the rings; cheesy, but couples expect it... It's effectively an 80mm lens on a crop body, and I have used it for portraits in a pinch. It is almost too sharp; you can see every pore and glitch. You can still get the same lens today at B&H for $284. It will get you to 1:2 out of the box and 1:1 with the extender. The focusing is NOT USM and very noisy for those not used to it; but I don't think the food will mind...



+1

I have and regularly use the Canon 50mm f/2.5 CM; it and the 100mm f/2.8L macro IS USM are the only prime lenses I own. I've had the 50 for 11+ years, and it has always performed flawlessly for me. I'm not a food photographer per se, but have used this lens professionally to shoot a kitchenware gig.

Many here have called its AF motor noisy; I prefer to think of it as "buzzy." I first started using the lens with my APS-C EOS 10D; now that I've gone full frame, I use it more as a general purpose 50 than as a macro.

I'm very satisfied with its performance and small size & weight. I plan to keep it unless / until Canon releases a 50mm f/1.x IS USM that performs as well as the 35mm f/2.0 IS USM.


----------



## Mr_Canuck (Dec 9, 2014)

I first got a 50/2.5 and now also have a 100L. I was disappointed in the 1:2 focus of the 50. I enjoyed my Minolta 50 more when I had it and felt it was better built. That said, the 50/2.5 is great optically and that's where it counts. If you get one used it's worth having for $250 or less. The focus is whiny and particularly noticeable because of the long focus throw of the macro, but it works. So, it doesn't look pretty, it doesn't sound pretty, it doesn't really feel pretty, but it takes pretty pictures. I'm hoping Canon comes out with SOME new 50 sometime soon. They are really overdue. I wouldn't hold my breath for a new 50 macro though.


----------



## e17paul (Dec 9, 2014)

I have the Canon 50/2.5. I Have also read many great reviews of the Zeiss 50/2 makro planar, and would love to own that too. 

It's strengths are the large travel on the focus ring, low distortion, compact size and of course the ability to focus very close for a 50. It's weaknesses are autofocus which can miss and hunt on my 6D, and a slightly cheap feeling. However, it has much better build than my previous 50/1.8 ii. 

It will be a great complement to your 100L, which is another lens on my hit list. Unlike some here, I can see the point of a close focus 50. I just wish that Canon would release a 50 or 60 macro with both USM and IS. Meanwhile, the Zeiss is probably your best option. The misgivings I have about it are the lack of AF, which I sometimes want for non macro use, and the larger physical size which may block out light for close up photos. However, the Canon extends greatly when focussed close up. 

If you have a crop sensor, there are two other options. Canon's 60 USM macro, and the 35 IS which focuses very close. If you have a full frame camera, then the 60 is eliminated and the 35 is probably too wide.


----------



## Arty (Dec 17, 2014)

I have the Sigma 50F2.8 macro. It is very sharp. It is not a jewelry lens, but should be fine for food. AF is not as fast as the USM on Canons, but it is accurate. AF speed doesn't really matter for macro. It does go to 1:1, if that is a consideration.


----------



## taxi (Dec 17, 2014)

Arty said:


> I have the Sigma 50F2.8 macro. It is very sharp. It is not a jewelry lens, but should be fine for food. AF is not as fast as the USM on Canons, but it is accurate. AF speed doesn't really matter for macro. It does go to 1:1, if that is a consideration.



Thanks, Arty, I will try out Sigma F2.8 Macro.


----------



## Mt Spokane Photography (Dec 17, 2014)

taxi said:


> jeremymerriam said:
> 
> 
> > Hello everyone
> ...


 
You are replying to a 2011 post, and the poster is no longer a member, so don't expect hime to answer you.

With old posts like this, sometimes its better to start a new topic, since things may have changed in 3 or 4 years.


----------



## taxi (Dec 17, 2014)

I read the replies to my post. However, you are right, this post was started some years back. Better to start a new post altogether.

Thanks.


----------

