DPChallenge: A Digital Photography Contest You are not logged in. (log in or register) 
 

DPChallenge Forums >> Hardware and Software >> CANON EF 50/1,8 II
Pages:  
Showing posts 1 - 20 of 20, (reverse)
AuthorThread
 01/04/2007 04:33:47 PM · #1
OPINIONS, please!

Thanks in advance.
 01/04/2007 04:36:45 PM · #2
probably 'the' best bang for the buck.

fine optics - fast focus - wide aperture - mediocre build quality.


01/04/2007 04:38:07 PM · #3
most of the replies seem to be about that lens

I'd disagree with soup's 'fast' focus comment, but everything else is true.

Message edited by author 2007-01-04 16:38:43.
 01/04/2007 04:39:06 PM · #4
I think most will say, and I agree, it is a very nice lens. Taking into account the $$, it looks even better.

My few nitpic negatives(but remember, only about $80)

Plastic and feels very light and cheap. The light part probably isn't a negative, especially if you are carrying it around often.

AF mechanism is noisy and not super fast(again, think $$)

That's about it.
 01/04/2007 04:41:03 PM · #5
buy the 85mm it is a much meatier lens. Lots more money but really worth the extra????

Message edited by author 2007-01-04 16:41:10.
 01/04/2007 04:41:06 PM · #6
seems pretty fast - faster than anything else i've used beside the 70-200 f:2.8. i suppose it isn't so great in dark locations - but what AF is. anyway i manually focus 90% of the time so maybe i just don't notice how slow it is... ;}

note i didn't say the fastest - just fast ;}

Message edited by author 2007-01-04 16:41:57.
 01/04/2007 04:43:32 PM · #7
I have the 50mm and LOVE it ... great for portraits ... definitely worth the money ...
 01/04/2007 04:43:39 PM · #8
I had with the 300D, I used it. It did what it was supposed to do. Not really that fast on focus, but a good reliable, cheap prime lens. Sharp, clean shots. It's a Canon prime lens, not L, but will not disappoint.
 01/04/2007 04:45:28 PM · #9
Awesome little lens, definitely worth the price you pay for it.
01/04/2007 05:14:52 PM · #10
Very awesome indeed. Granted I only have a kit lense for comparison - this lense is super sharp and awesome. It's my only lense for portraits.
 01/04/2007 05:17:36 PM · #11
It's a good general purpose lens. It does well in low light with the big aperture, but you have to be very careful with your exposures in low light. Any underexposure creates a rather hefty amount of chromatic abberations in the image. The auto-focus on the lens is not particularly fast.
01/04/2007 05:18:45 PM · #12
Originally posted by mpeters:
I think most will say, and I agree, it is a very nice lens. Taking into account the $$, it looks even better.

My few nitpic negatives(but remember, only about $80)

Plastic and feels very light and cheap. The light part probably isn't a negative, especially if you are carrying it around often.

AF mechanism is noisy and not super fast(again, think $$)

That's about it.

If you can get the Mark II version it's metal build, might be the Mark I can't remember which one.
I think it's fantastic, so sharp.
 01/04/2007 05:22:21 PM · #13
Originally posted by soup:
seems pretty fast - faster than anything else i've used beside the 70-200 f:2.8. i suppose it isn't so great in dark locations - but what AF is. anyway i manually focus 90% of the time so maybe i just don't notice how slow it is... ;}


It's just that the AF speed is one of the more noticeable improvements in the 50mm 1.4, along with build quality and a big actually usable MF ring. Optically the 1.8 seems to be about as good as the 1.4 (i.e., both fantastic)
 01/04/2007 05:22:44 PM · #14
The MKI is the metal mount, and the optics are the same. However it will cost you more than the MKII.
 01/04/2007 05:33:09 PM · #15
Originally posted by Gordon:
Originally posted by soup:
seems pretty fast - faster than anything else i've used beside the 70-200 f:2.8. i suppose it isn't so great in dark locations - but what AF is. anyway i manually focus 90% of the time so maybe i just don't notice how slow it is... ;}


It's just that the AF speed is one of the more noticeable improvements in the 50mm 1.4, along with build quality and a big actually usable MF ring. Optically the 1.8 seems to be about as good as the 1.4 (i.e., both fantastic)


Did you notice a big difference in AF? That's one area where I didn't see a significant improvement between the two.
 01/04/2007 05:41:57 PM · #16
Originally posted by jmsetzler:
Did you notice a big difference in AF? That's one area where I didn't see a significant improvement between the two.


I never actually shot them side by side to compare, but I always remember being frustrated with the 1.8 when it started hunting, for taking so long to settle back down, and never find the same thing happening with the 1.4. It might be a difference in how the cameras we are using drive the lenses though, I suppose. Either that or it could just be wishful thinking. It certainly feels faster.

Message edited by author 2007-01-04 17:45:08.
 01/04/2007 05:45:16 PM · #17
Originally posted by Gordon:
Originally posted by jmsetzler:
Did you notice a big difference in AF? That's one area where I didn't see a significant improvement between the two.


I never actually shot them side by side to compare, but I always remember being frustrated with the 1.8 when it started hunting, for taking so long to settle back down, and never find the same thing happening with the 1.4. It might be a difference in how the cameras we are using drive the lenses though, I suppose.


It very well could be, but I don't know either. I never shot them side by side either. I just know that the 50 f/1.4 isn't nearly as fast as my other lenses.
 01/04/2007 07:02:38 PM · #18
Size does matter. Be a real man and get a long heavy L lens. You stand out in a croud and look like you spent a lot of money too. The 50 is short and easy to carry, works great but as in stereo systems ... the one with the most buttons and flashing lights is always the best. Go big ... go L ... ;)

no really it's a great onbe to have
 01/04/2007 07:04:28 PM · #19
Originally posted by jmsetzler:
Did you notice a big difference in AF? That's one area where I didn't see a significant improvement between the two.


I haven't used the 50mm 1.4, but comparing the 1.8 against my other USM lens (which is what the 1.4 is), the USM is lightning fast. The 1.8 isn't bad, but I'd hardly call it fast.

One of the things I notice is that it tends to slam the extreme ends of focus if it can't AF.
 01/04/2007 09:45:57 PM · #20
Originally posted by chimericvisions:
Originally posted by jmsetzler:
Did you notice a big difference in AF? That's one area where I didn't see a significant improvement between the two.


I haven't used the 50mm 1.4, but comparing the 1.8 against my other USM lens (which is what the 1.4 is), the USM is lightning fast. The 1.8 isn't bad, but I'd hardly call it fast.

One of the things I notice is that it tends to slam the extreme ends of focus if it can't AF.


Some of the higher end lenses would make your head spin then :)
Pages:  
Current Server Time: 01/03/2026 03:21:22 PM

Please log in or register to post to the forums.


Home - Challenges - Community - League - Photos - Cameras - Lenses - Learn - Help - Terms of Use - Privacy - Top ^
DPChallenge, and website content and design, Copyright © 2001-2026 Challenging Technologies, LLC.
All digital photo copyrights belong to the photographers and may not be used without permission.
Current Server Time: 01/03/2026 03:21:22 PM EST.