Capture Stunning Details with the Canon EF 50mm f/2.5 Compact Macro Lens Review

A very good lens for a solid 4k. I bought many years ago as a macro + portrait. He copes with his tasks very successfully. Portraits are very interesting blur. Macros are pretty clear. When I wanted to make it bigger, I added macro rings + flash to compensate for the loss of exposure. Although without rings, you can photograph pretty good insects. I am quite satisfied.

It is not worth spending money on buying a new one, it is too overpriced. It is worth taking it from your hands if you want a makrushnik, but why it is not clear. On crop, it copes well with its duties, on FF - worse (scale 1: 2 affects). Different pros: Pleasant picture, sharp at short distances (up to 5m. ), Small XA, filters of the same diameter with 50/1.8 and 28/2.8 Has some cons: Unsharp at long distances (> 5m. ); scale 1:2, not the promised 1:1; noisy motor, on MDF the “trunk” travels…

the lens didn’t disappoint, but rather, on the contrary, I was pleased to change it, I’m definitely not going to change it yet, on the crop, an analogue of 85 mm is an excellent portrait lens in capable hands. take on think. Now I'm getting into shooting weddings and photography of shoe rings and other little things is very convenient with him) Got pros: An excellent lens, I use it as a staff lens, it is quite universal for me as a beginner photographer.Copes with shooting subjects and…

I use it as a staff member on a crop. Very pleased with them. You can easily shoot at aperture 2.5. It is not always convenient for macro shooting, you can’t shoot bugs and butterflies with it. the minimum focusing distance is about 20 cm. But for flowers and subject photography it is ideal! Well, there are no problems with portraits. everything is sharp) Pros below: Sharp on an open aperture, Good color reproduction and decent contrast (because Macro). Autofocus works well, only misses in very

I was very upset by this purchase. I hoped that I would learn to work with him, that maybe he was not as bad as it seemed at the beginning. Until I got a Sigma macro camera and almost at the same price. photo, a good approximation and there is no such crop. And the brightness of the photo does not suffer. In general, I will take sigma, and this is a miracle in the far corner. If you are interested, there is a photo on my page.

I bought it purely for macro photography, but the lens does not do well with it. Shooting beetle antennae and fruit fly wings from a distance of about 20 cm is too sophisticated a mockery of the photographer. And you can’t get closer - the glass doesn’t allow . And the trunk, by the way, extends so that the macro subject shied away in horror and fled into the sunset with a cry of “help”, without waiting for it to be focused on. In general, it's my own fault, I should have read the…

One of the first Canon EOS lenses, an interesting model, but rarely needed - either for shooting moderate macro, or for shooting without distortion. You can buy a Canon Life Size Converter and get a 1:1 macro, but then you will lose shooting at infinity and in general the ability to shoot non-macro. Taking it off and putting it on isn't that fast. Its pros: The lens differs from the usual ones by a very low level of geometric distortion. Modern devices often have their automatic correction, but

I bought it and have not regretted it. Pros: I use it as a standard lens. I'm not quite used to it yet, but it has a number of advantages over the Kit lens. Of course, it’s difficult to compare, since it’s still a macro lens, and a whale, no matter how something averaged . but I also use this lens when shooting portraits, mostly not groups of people, although the lens allows you to effectively highlight one person from the crowd =) So the main advantages are: sharpness, built-in lens hood (more