I'm very impressed. Great for portraits too.
I'm waiting for a colleague to return the Sigma 8-16mm zoom so I can play with that next.

The ƒ/2.5 is an old lens now, and it's a bit slow on auto focus. It can take a while to grind its way from one end stop to the other! It's brilliant if you're a manual focusser, though. I have a 35mm ƒ/2 EF as well, but for sheer close-up focussing, the 50mm wins each time.

I'm saving for a 18-50 or 18-70 ƒ/2.8. Need to get some more work in I think.

+1

Can the 50mm macro lens be used as a "nifty fifty"?

Chevrolet Corvette by Snaptophobic, on Flickr


Ford Mustang by Snaptophobic, on Flickr


Dodge Charger by Snaptophobic, on Flickr


Ford Corsair 1500GT by Snaptophobic, on Flickr

Possibly, but there are considerations other than focal length, such as price and max aperture, which this lens may not meet.

It's this one: http://www.amazon.co.uk/gp/product/B0000ACCMY f2.5 for £229.

I know that there is a 50mm f1.8 for under £100

Decisions, decisions...

Well, that's the lens I own. In fact, I own both that and the ƒ/1.8 50mm.

For just pootling about, the ƒ/1.8 is quick, sharp and has glorious bokeh, but doesn't focus down very far. The compact macro is well worth the extra if you want to do more macro work, but is quite a bit more expensive. It's also quite a bit slower on the autofocus for general photography.

If you can afford them both, get both. Otherwise, it's a tough decision to make.

Actually, if you can find a 35mm ƒ/2 then it gives you almost the best of both worlds. I bought a used one a couple of years ago, reasoning it would give me a nearly proper 50mm view in the APS-C camera. It was as nearly as expensive as the 50mm compact macro, but will focus down quite close to the camera, and I find it's the one attached to the camera most often when I am out with a prime lens.

What do you mean by focus down quite close to the camera? Is that to do with the crop factor on APS-C sensors?

Thanks

What I mean is the 35mm and 50mm compact macro can focus as close as 25 centimetres from the front of the lens. The "cheap" 50mm can't do that.

No macro used in this pic...



Al

Heather, I approve of your photos.

Mine is the the Sigma 50mm Macro f/2.8

It costs around £250 and although not as cheap or wide as the "nifty fifties" I also used it as one for all of Emily's baby portraits I did last year.

In an ideal world with more cash I'd chop the 50mm macro in for the two lenses I actually want. A combo of the Tamron 90mm f/2.8 or Sigma 105mm f/2.8 macro with either a fast 35mm or 50mm

Mark