Canon EF 50mm f/2.5 Macro : Specifications and Opinions

Reviews

What do you think?

Do you want add your opinion? You do it by joining JuzaPhoto, it is easy and free!

There is more: by registering you can create your personal page, publish photos, receive comments, join discussions and you can use all the features of JuzaPhoto. With more than 259000 members, there is space for everyone, from the beginner to the professional.

The following opinions have been automatically translated with Google Translate.

Cesare Previtali

sent on 22 Aprile 2020

Pros: Sharpness, brightness, lightness, sophisticated optical design.

Cons: Noisy autofocus.

Opinion: Every now and then I go back to photograph with this little gem snubbed by many. The optical yield is excellent and can be used as standard on FF and medium canvases on Aps-c where it becomes an 80 mm. great for portraits. On macro photos with not too small subjects I subscribe to the Canon EF12 II reaching discrete results, even if I am not a fan of the macro. Brava Canon for taking it out of production, making it a unique object for his optical design.

Valerio Turchetti

sent on 10 Maggio 2017

Pros: Absolute cost, detail and sharpness, weight and grip really limited

Cons: Slow and noisy auto focus.

Opinion: I have bought this optic for a few months, paying it a stupid thing. It is worth all the money spent. The magnification on ff arrives at 0.5 X even if the body indicates the notches 1/1, but to get them I was told it was necessary to mount the special converter. Without it's great for Still Life and "set" macro of subjects not really tiny like snails, large grasshoppers, lizards, flowers, etc. Assembled on aps-c the crop factor makes it much more interesting for insect photos. R Very bright and light. The only flaw The autofocus naturally of the old generation is noisy and slow. However, it is a great fifty that is well defended for generic use. RnrnSu 5d is disproportionately small on 7dii and it's definitely cooler. RnrnThe diaphragm closes a lot so you do not have great depth field problems. rnrnConsigliatissimo. You can always keep it in the ready-to-use bag.

DiegoD

sent on 15 Aprile 2017

Pros: Sharpness - lightness

Cons: the old generation noisy AF

Opinion: Hard to explain to those who have not used or not he uses this goal. You see it and you feel in low-quality plasticized, touch it and try to focus on something mettta in AF and you think back to the 90s with an annoying noise, clicks and you wonder why you have not installed the new 50 1.8 STM. Look at the picture and understand! For me it's exciting a lens, period. This macro there to have a ratio of 1: 1 requires the extension tube, is the autofocus is very old, but at the bottom of a picture do we want? Emotions and to me this sense, the da! Suitable for all kinds, for the pockets of anyone ... well a perspective that opens the picture at all. Try it in life!

Gran Papà

sent on 10 Dicembre 2016

Pros: Photographic quality, light, closes up to F32, a standard focal that lends itself to many photographic genres.

Cons: I don't know, just knowing what it lends itself to.

Opinion: It lends itself with great satisfaction to the photography dedicated to the food: catalogues, cookbooks, packaging, gastronomy and cocktails both in the studio and with the natural light. It is part of the old generation and you can not expect to compare it to new technologies for the speed of autofocus but in manual is nothing short of fantastic. The manufacturer has noticed the "error" qualitative of this gem: With little you get great photographs, and is removed from production, no update, no change makes you think only of this.

RobertoFoveon

sent on 03 Aprile 2015

Pros: Optics with Sharpness for the quality / price ratio better than Canon.

Cons: Not excels in many things ... in the relationship macro, nell'autofocus, the focus in the points of light, a bit 'plasticky ..... yet it has something that fascinates ... I can not describe it but I can understand those who possess .

Opinion: Despite the cons ... I consider this view especially for its price .... very underrated ... if you want to know what can be sharper a photo taken with your SLR canon (with an optical below 400 euro), you only one way, use this strange lens ..... but beware, after, you can not mount a 17-85 or similar .... and see the photos at 100% ...:-) I avvertiti.rnrnAlla the end of this test you can see the difference in sharpness between 17-85 (which is not really an optical throw:-)) and 50 2.5, there is just no comparison on nitidezza..per other things. .Type autofocus ... is.etc..ma are born to optical requirements diverse.rnrnhttp: //fotorealis.jimdo.com/2012/09/01/pixel-binning-canon/

Donato Romagnuolo

sent on 13 Giugno 2014

Pros: weight, size, sharpness, build quality.

Cons: noisy autofocus, macro ratio is not 1:1

Opinion: good optics considering the price, even if you have to be pretty much stuck to the subject to get something good .... good sharpness ... away from high-end macro but interessante.rnconsigliato to those who approach for the first time in this stile.rnmai used on full frame so I have no idea how to behave ...

Pino Amabile

sent on 09 Novembre 2013

Pros: Exaggerated sharpness, manegevole, weight

Cons: MF slow and cumbersome, as well as noisy

Opinion: I bought this light just to have a 50 to use when I needed it, for many years had been set aside in the closet believing perspective from mediocre performance, given the price and quality of construction, then one day I mounted in front of my Mark 2, just for fun, it has since become my favorite optics, I am very enthusiastic, exceptional contrast and sharpness, I think it's a monster of optical quality, I know that even the canon expect such a result, otherwise the price would undoubtedly have been higher, what to say ... I'm not too happy, the only regret is that I kept abandoned too many years ... poor thing

Rosario Schettino

sent on 25 Aprile 2013

Pros: No doubt the quality - price ratio; sharpness; sizes.

Cons: Focus slow and a little noisy.

Opinion:

Maxqarl

sent on 02 Aprile 2013

Pros: Price, micro-great, low weight, no distortion, a few aberrations, blurred good wide open

Cons: Autofocus noisy, difficulty focusing in low light and high contrast, lack of full time manual focus, lack of focus limiter, quite visible vignetting on full frame

Opinion: Although the long list of counter viewpoint may seem flawed is my favorite lens, I keep it installed by default on 5D2. Compared to the 100 Macro optical quality and autofocus are slightly lower, but compared to other economic house 50 Canon (50 1.8 and 50 1.4) looks good at all, and I find the quality of blurred wide open better. The real benefit of this perspective is the ability to get close to the very subject, with the other 50 I find it really annoying the "block" to 45 centimeters, I find it limiting the possibility of framing. I hope the Canon update this model (the project in 1987), he did a USM version with the same optical quality would purchase the doubt.

Carlotaglia

sent on 28 Ottobre 2012

Pros: Optics compact price, the presence of the ring series to use MT-24EX, sharpness

Cons: I do not get to 1:1, slow AF (however, the autofocus on a macro lens is useless) and noisy

Opinion: It 'a great lens, very sharp and allows you to create close up of subjects' relatively' large (eg. Grasshoppers, mantids ...) while maintaining high image clarity and a background sfocato.rnPossiedo always this perspective (I am so pleased to have bought another one) and I can not find faults: in fact, the AF I find it completely useless in macro photography, in addition, you can solve the problem of non-achievement of the RR 1:1 's purchase of any extension tube (I have the Canon, but the Chinese are also fine 10 €). RNE 'also excellent optics for medical photography, especially if combined with the MT-24EX flash, which fits it perfectly to without the need for any ring road (remember that the flash will fit without rings 50 2.5, 100 2.8 IS and 65 non-MPE). rnInfine, is extremely solid perspective (the only flaw is the AF ring, a little 'plasticky) and I have never had any problems, despite being used daily and has suffered countless beatings or has tripped several timesunder the pioggia.rnrnQuindi, I absolutely recommend this respect, it offers a truly excellent quality with a very low price: it requires a bit 'of experience to be exploited better in some situations, but I'm really very soddisfatto.rnrnVoto: 9! rnNon 10, because of slow so perfect there are very few :).

Giallo63

sent on 13 Settembre 2012

Pros: Sophisticated optical design, high quality performance and constant at all distances - low price

Cons: construction is not up to the quality optics - AF quick and quite noisy - fuzzy structured

Opinion: And 'perhaps the lens with the best optical quality for the money. I would have no hesitation in preferring the 50/1.8 in all areas of employment, provided that the 50/1, 8 begins to have a decent yield precisely f: 2.8, while the small macro already at full aperture provides a performance benchmark, not only the center but also in the peripheral field of view. Simply absent light falloff at the edges and especially distortion. The focus is very structured, so it has a very pleasant bokeh, mercy diaphragm hex that does not allow much in this issue, which is not unique to the design of a macro lens. The excellent resolving power and micro-skills you keep this up to f: 8 then sloping down to smaller apertures; singular behavior for a macro "pure" but all in all better for normal perspective of general use. Best price for Canon at home, along with the 17-40/4 L.

Fastgiaco

sent on 01 Ottobre 2011

Pros: Optical light affordable and efficient. f not lightning.

Cons: Performs at a 1:1 ratio but stops at 0.5. To arrive at a 1:1 ratio needs a special converter but it costs almost as much as the optics.

Opinion: I've had this lens for a long time that I used mainly as "normal". At short distances is very sharp as indeed its definition is, even at medium distances and infinity sharpness and engraving remain tangible. It has aberrazionui color and distortion is virtually absent. While the focus is extended considerably without causing imbalances being very light optics. If you do not need a larger opening can be a good substitute as optical "normal" On occasions I regret having given it away, I think it's a perspective underestimated.