Actually, remember this is a crop factor. Although you’ll get a field of view similar to a longer focal length lens, you don’t really get the magnification. 85mm or better is more flattering for portraits.
Algher, look at the Canon 50mm 2.5 macro. It rivals even the L lens in image quality. I have this for my T2i and love it. And macro to boot!
On a C-sensor Canon the 50mm is equivalent to an 80mm lenses on a film camera. When you say you “don’t really get the magnification” I’m guessing you mean the same shallow depth of field. The magnification itself is usually unimportant-- enlargements bigger than 20" aren’t a challenge for modern DSLR using a 50mm.
However, I find that the depth of field provided by the 50mm is sufficiently shallow at f2.2 for fine portraits.
An 80mm lens on a C sensor would be equal to a 128mm lens. When I was learning the photographic ropes, the ideal portrait lens was considered to be a 105mm, and I tend to still accept that for tight portraits. However digital photography permits such ease of cropping that I prefer the looser framing of a slightly wider lens.
A good photographer can produce fine portraits with almost any lens, but a longer lens can flatten the features a too much, or force the photographer to stand so far away that the there’s less emotional connection between photographer and subject.
What I was getting at was distortion. Imagine trying to photograph someone H&S with a 20mm lens. Scary. 50mm is an improvement but approaching 85mm is better.
The crop factor is just that. A crop factor. 50mm becomes 80mm only as far as angle of view is concerned. Not magnification.
Hmm - 1.4 or the 2.5 Macro? Both are around the same price.
Look for reviews on the 2.5. That might help you.
The two lenses cover slightly different use, so only you can answer that question because only you know what features you need most. A macro lens is often slow in acquiring focus because of the long focus throw and often finer focus adjustment. They’re usually tack sharp even at close distances, while an ordinary lens often perform best at some distance. Then there’s the speed of the lens to consider.
Do you want close-up focusing and are you willing to accept slower focus? f/2.5 macro
Do you want 1 2/3 stop more light and fast focus? f/1.4 “non-macro”
ETA: Most 50s from good brands are generally very sharp, so you probably won’t regret going for either of the alternatives.
One theory on portrait shooting is that you want to be about the same distance away as you typically view people from. Maybe 5-7 feet. At that distance the 50mm will (in good light) give you plenty of magnification for serious enlargements.
Rather than extra magnification you’re much more likely to want some extra space around the person’s head to center the image or to show some of the clothing. So, when shooting solitary portraits with a C-sensor DSLR I’d prefer to use a 50mm than a 80mm lens. (And to get a similar f-stop we’re probably dealing with a f1.8 85mm rather than an 80mm)
If I wanted nothing below the neck I might go for an 85mm, or if I was shooting semi-candids. Otherwise, it’s nicer to shoot 6 feet away with a 50mm (80mm equivalent) than 10 feet away with with an 85mm (136mm).
The 2.5 macro is one of the oldest EF mount lenses. It has an excellent reputation for its optics but the handling (build) and autofocus are dated.
The 1.4 is quite a bit newer and has much better AF and a nicer build quality. When I say that I mainly mean the handling of the focus ring. It is also a little l
larger and heavier.
You can read reviews of both lenses here:
the-digital-picture is my go-to site for Canon lens reviews.
One theory on portrait shooting is that you want to be about the same distance away as you typically view people from. Maybe 5-7 feet. At that distance the 50mm will (in good light) give you plenty of magnification for serious enlargements.
Rather than extra magnification you’re much more likely to want some extra space around the person’s head to center the image or to show some of the clothing. So, when shooting solitary portraits with a C-sensor DSLR I’d prefer to use a 50mm than a 80mm lens. (And to get a similar f-stop we’re probably dealing with a f1.8 85mm rather than an 80mm)
If I wanted nothing below the neck I might go for an 85mm, or if I was shooting semi-candids. Otherwise, it’s nicer to shoot 6 feet away with a 50mm (80mm equivalent) than 10 feet away with with an 85mm (136mm).
The more magnification, the less distortion. I’m not considering enlargements here. The cropping from an APS-C sensor does not change a 50mm into an 80mm. It merely gives you the same field of view or in other words the same comp as a longer lens.
A 20mm lens on an APS-C camera is still gonna give your subject a huge nose even though the field of view is equivalent to a 32mm with the crop factor. The camera is not magnifying the shorter lens to a longer focal length.
There is a marked improvement going from 50mm to 85mm or above for portraiture. 50mm is passable if we’re talking full frame without crop.
Just an update, but I finally got around to picking up a speedlite external flash. A bit on the pricey side, at just under 450 bucks.
This shot I took with the 17-40 mm when I went to a local petting zoo. They had an enclosure where you can walk around a bunch of goats and this little girl was getting followed around by some of the inhabitants. So she got a bit freaked out ,lol.