Reviews and Problems with Canon EF 50mm f/2.5 Compact Macro
Showing 1-10 of 11
I'm disappointed too!
1 May 2013
Summary: For me, I thought this would be an upgrade to a "niffty "fiffty" but it's basically the same thing but with Macro - minus the f-stop amount. Like the 1.8 the lens is very slow and sounds like a fisherprice toy from walmart. I had a real difficult time focusing with AF. The lens would only AF on areas with high contrast in textures, as for the fine details you are out of luck. To me, the AF on this lens is useless. MF is the way to go.
Summary: Having already owned the 50mm 1.8 and the Tamron 17-50 2.8, I wanted a real macro lens and decided to get this. Unfortunately the construction is shoddy (similar to the 50mm 1.8) and I could not get a much closer shot over the 17-50. Overall it was the worse of both lenses I owned. I would highly recommend the Tamron because it is also a zoom, it is more versatile, and can still do nice macros compared to this lens.
Summary: If you follow my reviews you'll see I've learned the hard way about cheap products. They say you get what you pay for because it's true. Now this lens is great for beginners who have no idea what they're doing and want to dabble with macro shots on a budget. Sure, knock yourself out. If you need professional quality macro shots and are using professional gear (im on a Canon 5d mark ii), then you need the L series lenses. Sorry to be that guy but it's true.
Summary: I needed a macro lens and thought I could save some money. That was my primary reason for buying this particular lens. But I'm kind of disappointed in it. Mine seems very noisy and slow focusing. And, while now I finally have macro capability, the overall quality is just so-so. I have only used it one afternoon, for about an hour shooting flowers in the back yard. Maybe my pictures will improve.
Summary: This is a great lense, with caveats. I prefer it to the nifty 50 since you can do everything the nifty can and get much closer to the subject. When you have focus dead-on, it just can't be beat (except by a better L macro lense). But, like another poster had commented, it grabs the wrong focus point at times. I find that anything lower than 4.5 simply delivers a fuzzy picture. Above 4.5 it is sharp as heck.
Too much chromatic aberration for the digital age, but the lens is of a good value
Ryuji Suzuki, Amazon
25 February 2010
Summary: For less than $300, this is a pretty decent 50mm lens, but it's not the best choice unless you do simple, straight-macro work. Why? In my experience, for 1:10 or smaller magnification (focusing distance of about 0.6m or 2 ft), Canon EF 50mm f1.4 USM Standard & Medium Telephoto Lens for Canon SLR Cameras provides better contrast and image sharpness than this lens at any aperture value. So, the only time this lens is the better choice is close distance macro work.
Summary: If you're wanting a sharp lens to photograph flowers, itdoes the job. But if you're wanting to shoot insects, I'dsuggest passing on this for one of Canon's other excellentlenses. The required EF 1:1 doesn't allow you to focus toinfinity, and costs a full f/stop of light. But in tightareas, it's a great lens for still life. Problems Encountered: Slow focusing in auto mode due to lack of USM.
Excerpt: I have had the opportunity to use this lens and Canon's 60 mm Macro for a week and while the 50mm is OK I was not impressed. Because it has an extending front element, and uses Canon's standard autofocus system, it takes an age to focus, whining all the w