In looking at prime lens options we are looking at the various Zeiss offerings. I was wondering if anyone has experience on the 50mm 1.4 AND the 50mm 2 Makro?

Which do you prefer and why?
Other than the ability to macro focus, are there other benefits to the makro lens in regards to ergonomics or quality?

Thanks for the help guys!

I opted to get the 100mm macro with my set, reasoning that if I'm looking to go macro, chances are I'm going to want maximum magnification. That said, the normal 50mm is substantially shorter than the other lenses in the set, which has caused a bit of complication in terms of fitting in focus gear behind the mattebox. Don't think that would really be worth the extra $500 though.

FYI I've had all 6 of my ZE's ringed by Duclos Lenses (http://www.ducloslenses.com/Duclos_Lenses/Cinemod.html)--cost $90 a lens but I never have to hassle with temporary gear solutions again.

Thanks for that info. I agree that if I want macro, the 100mm would be a better option. You basically answered my question - are the differences in the two 50mm worth the difference in cost - in your estimation it is not. Also, thanks for the info on what that trade-off is (as far as size and fitting in with other gear).