Hi everyone, I’m thinking to get new lenses. I’m trying to figure out the differences between the macro lenses and the low f-stop lenses. I just want to know how different they are in term of the outcome in the pictures. Right now, I’m interested in

Canon EF 50mm f/1.8 II Lens
Canon EF 50mm f/2.5 Macro Lens
Canon EF 50mm f/1.4 USM Lens
Canon EF 100mm f/2.8 Macro USM Lens

I’m kinda interested in the middle two of the list. I know the differences are the f-stop and the lens type (macro vs. standard). Does anyone using these? Could you please explain what are the differences and if you had pictures to show, that would be wonderful. I’m just thinking about a long term investment. I like the 50mm/F1.8 but I’m afraid that if I decided to buy, I’ll later want more of the f-stop. lol.

Anyway, thanks for the comments in advance!

The main difference on #4 from everything else is the 100mm is longer and slower by a LOT than the other three. Doesn’t mean it isn’t an awesome lens – it’s something I’ve used before and also my next purchase. The zoom on a 1:1 macro lens rocks.

As far as the 3 50mm lenses, the difference in #1 and #3 is whether you need the extra light from 1.8 to 1.4 – I would say 95% of people don’t. If you want a 50mm macro I guess the 2.5 would work but why? It’s funny you say you’re interested in the middle two when I own #1 and want #4 and have no interest in #2 or #3 at all. haha

#1 is a cheap 50mm low light lens. #4 is the best pure macro closeup lens for Canon. I’m confused what you’d want the other 2 for.

#1 is a cheap 50mm low light lens. #4 is the best pure macro closeup lens for Canon. I’m confused what you’d want the other 2 for.

I give one very good reason. PRICE!!!

I can’t afford almost $1000.00 for a lens, but the f/2.5 can be found for under $300. And it was recommended to me by a friend who is a digital imaging specialist by trade, so I’ll trust her on this one.

When I’m rich and famous I’ll be able to afford the f/2.8, but today ain’t the day! LOL

Thanks Matt. I also do agree with Cheryl….it’s all about the price. LOL. So, between 1.8 and 1.4, are there much of the differences? Well, I know 1.8 is inexpensive and 1.4 is kinda double of that. So, for a beginner who just graduated from school with no job…that might be a better option. lol. But, I do like 1.4 since I have seen so many beautiful photos from other bloggers who use this.

@cheryldlee said:
I can’t afford almost $1000.00 for a lens, but the f/2.5 can be found for under $300. And it was recommended to me by a friend who is a digital imaging specialist by trade, so I’ll trust her on this one.

The two I recommended cost $100 and the other isn’t the $1000 it’s the $520.

http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/194451-USA/Canon_4657A006_100mm_f_2_8_USM_Macro.html It’s a $200 difference to get the best macro lens available or a 50mm version that isn’t as good.

I would rather have the $99 and $520 for $620 than the $450 and $300 for $750. Of course if price is the ONLY concern then you have to get the two cheapest lenses on the list but if the question is what’s the difference – well the 50 1.8 and the 100 2.8 macro are by far the two highest quality lenses on this list and should be must-want.

As far as trust, you can trust who you want – I’m a full time photographer and make my entire living taking photos. You may not be able to afford the lenses in question but the advice I’ve given is on point.

The 50mm 1.8 is a great cheap lens for under $100 – perfect for everyday shooting.

The 50mm 1.4 is similar to the 1.8, though the optics are a little better and you’ll get a bit more flexibility with depth of field. This is more of a pro lens than the 1.8.

The 50mm macro 2.5 is a perfect lens for beginning macro photography. Remember that the closer you to get something, the shorter your depth of field is – so in a macro lens, 2.5 is fine, lest you have literally a millimeter of your subject in focus from front to back.

The 100mm macro lens is a wonderful lens, but pricey.

Unless you’re shooting pro, the 50mm macro and 50mm 1.8 lenses will treat you just fine. If you had to choose one over the other, think about how close you want to get to your subject; the 50mm 1.8 focuses to about a foot and a half.

Matt, the 50mm 1.8 is not one of the highest quality lenses in the list. I think you meant the 1.4.

100 2.8 F/S
$455 http://www.fredmiranda.com/forum/topic/886983/0?keyword=100,2.8#8338852
$450 http://www.fredmiranda.com/forum/topic/885550/0?keyword=100,2.8#8323044
$410 http://www.fredmiranda.com/forum/topic/885016/0?keyword=100,2.8#8318318

According to Photodo they both score about the same:

Canon EF 50mm f/1.4 USM Reviews 4.4
Canon EF 50mm f/1.8 II Reviews 4.2

So yeah, the 1.4 is of slightly higher quality but the 1.8 is good enough for 95% of photographers I think.

I agree that the 1.8 is fine for most home photographers – such as I noted in my post above. But if you’re shooting pro, the better optics in the 1.4 will definitely do you right.

That said, I think that the Fa@whiskthepantry should get the 1.8, since spending a load on a lens doesn’t seem practical for home food shooting.

One last note – the Canon EF 50mm f/2.5 Macro Lens natively offers only 1:2 (.5x) magnification (vs. 1:1 (1x) in most true macro lenses). The Canon EF 50mm f/2.5 Macro Lens does not feature USM (Ultrasonic Motor) focusing. The result is somewhat noisy and medium-fast focusing.

I don’t think the at-home photographer shooting plates of food needs the 1:1 from the 100 2.8 macro. I think we’re pretty much in agreement all the way around. The right answer to all lens questions is “it depends” and of course, what your budget is.

Matt, I have no argument with your point. My saying I trust my friend did not mean I thought you were wrong. I did not mean to offend, just offer another perspective.

As I said for me it really comes down to price sometimes. I’m a single mom just trying to make a living, so $200 or $300 is a BIG deal to me.
I’m not a professional, so this is an area I have to skimp on for now.

But when I’m rich and famous…

Let me offer up my 2 cents

We do not have the 50mm 1.8 or the 50mm macro, but We do own the 50mm 1.4 and the 100mm macro. From what I have seen and read, the picture qualities and color rendition are a little better on the 1.4 than the 1.8. The 1.4 is also sharper at F1.8 when compared the 1.8 at F1.8. In most circumstances for food photography, you will not likely be shooting wide open, except in the case of dark restaurant where the 1.4 will be better. For the price I would go for the 50mm F1.8.

But looking through your site, most of your shots are close up of the finish product or ingredients. Then I would suggest you save your money and get the 100mm Macro. As the 1×1 can really capture the details where as the 50mm F1.8 cannot, due to the minimal focusing distance. This is one of the sharpest lens we own even when comparing with our other L lenses. With the introduction of the new 100mm Macro F2.8L IS series, you will probably see more of the older version on the used market. Check with your local Craigslist to see if there any available. Used can be bought for around $400. The only downside to this lens is taking overhead shots of your setup as you might need a ladder and extended tripod to get everything into frame. Definitely don’t think you will regret buying this lens in the long term.

If you want to see some samples, feel free to browse our site. Most of the photos are taken with the 100mm macro, the wider shots are taken with the 50mm 1.4 or the 24mm 1.4.

Hope this helps

Oh forgot to mention, you can also rent these lenses to try it out before deciding, or take your camera to your local camera store to try it out.

Renting a lens before you buy it is also a good option. If you live in a big enough city, you can usually find a place locally that will rent to you, but if you don’t, I’d recommend Lens Pro To Go. (http://www.lensprotogo.com) You can rent by the week, the prices include shipping, and Paul is super easy to work with. If you’re thinking about a more expensive lens but not quite sure yet – or wanting to try a certain camera before you upgrade, I highly recommend renting first. It’s worth it before you shell out $$$ on camera gear.