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

DPChallenge Forums >> Hardware and Software >> 50mm lens question
Pages:  
Showing posts 1 - 9 of 9, (reverse)
AuthorThread
 09/25/2004 11:26:16 AM · #1
I'm looking for a workhorse 50mm lens for my new (used) 10D. The three entries below are copied directly from BHPhoto's website. Can someone explain why the price disparity between the first two? I understand that the 1.4 offers a bit more aperture, but is that the only difference? I'm not sure what USM means either, nor do I know why the 1.8 has a "II" appended.

Finally, the third lens is a macro, but can it also be used for non-macro purposes, or are these very special purpose lenses?

Thanks in advance for helping a dSLR newbie.

Price : $ 74.95
Normal EF 50mm f/1.8 II Autofocus Lens
Mfr # 2514A002 â€Â¢ B&H # CA50182EF

Price : $ 309.95
Normal EF 50mm f/1.4 USM Autofocus Lens
Mfr # 2515A003 â€Â¢ B&H # CA5014EF

Price : $ 239.95
Normal EF 50mm f/2.5 Compact Macro Autofocus Lens
Mfr # 2537A003 â€Â¢ B&H # CA5025MEF
 09/25/2004 11:36:51 AM · #2
each of the lenses you mentioned are great lenses. I have the 50mm 1.4 and its awesome, but it was included in the package deal when I got my camera. I thought i was going to be the $74 lens, until i did a lot more research. then I was amazed.

The 50mm 1.8 lens is a killer lens, those who have it love it and the price cant be beat. I dont know much about the macro version, but with the Kenko extension tubes I get some good macros with my 50mm 1.4.

USM = Ultra Sonic Motor, this is the type of motor that the lens uses to focus with, its fast and quiet. the II after the lens means its the second version of that lens (i think).

I would highly recommend the 50mm 1.8 lens

James
 09/25/2004 11:45:17 AM · #3
I have the 50mm f/2.8 MK1 - same lens quality as the II but the MK1 is a much (much) better build with a metal mount and dof window. Mine cost £70 and is a great lens for the cash
 09/25/2004 11:50:58 AM · #4
Probably the biggest part of the price difference between the 1.4 and the 1.8 is the fact that the 1.4 has the USM motor for faster and quieter focusing. The 1.8 is very well regarded despite critisism of it's plastic mount (the Mk I had a metal mount) but for the price you can't go wrong. The only reason to go for the 1.4 or the 2.5 would be if you need the specialized features (extremely fast shutter speed of the 1.4 or the macro ability of the 2.5).
 09/25/2004 12:32:44 PM · #5
I have the cheap 50mm II f/1.8. As jab119 mentioned, the "II" stands for second version. The second version is a bit cheaper built than the first version. The second version has a plastic mount whilst the first has a metal mount. I've even read that the first one was slightly better in other ways, but I don't really believe that untill I see some proof.

This lens is the best you can get if you take in count the price of it. It's very sharp and bright and is the smallest and lightest of the EF lens series. Everyone should own one in their bag.
But if money isn't that much of an issue, I would recommend you to buy the f/1.4 USM lens, the USM is outstanding in the EF lens series, not the macro f/2.5 version.

For a macro lens, I would choose a 100mm or 180mm instead of the 50mm. With 50mm you have to be very close to the motive to be able to use all of its abilities. Like that it's often a very much problem because the lens is blocking the light in many circumstances.

-.clic
 09/25/2004 12:50:09 PM · #6
I was considering the 50/1.4 myself, but having read the user reviews on Fred Miranda it seemed the focus speed wasn't hugely better than the 50/1.8. Also it's worth considering the focus mechanism is not true "USM", it is in fact "micro-USM".

Message edited by author 2004-09-25 13:03:15.
 09/25/2004 02:22:17 PM · #7
You're also forgetting Canon's 50mm 1.0L lens which completes their 50mm lineup. Sure it's expensive, but I'm not very impressed with Canon's current lineup (slow focus, very soft images wide-open). I haven't found too many places that carry it though.

Also, if you are used to shooting 50mm on a film body, remember that a 50mm on a digital will end up being around 80mm. So if you are looking for a general purpose non-zoom lens, a 35mm would end up being close to a 50mm.

May also want to look into Canon's 85mm lens, I've heard it referred to as the sleeper in Canon's lineup by a number of professional shooters. It's also only $340 (for the f/1.8 version).
 09/25/2004 02:39:28 PM · #8
BTW - Canoga camera //www.canogacamera.com has these lenses online for less than you posted below and they, like B&H, have stunning user reviews on //www.resellerratings.com.

I just ordered several lenses from them, due to come today, and the only negative I will say is that your order will be delayed if you are not around to answer their credit card follow up.

I ordered, left town for a couple of days and a weekend, and my order was delayed because I wasn't there to answer the order confirmation call. They don't try to sell you anything else--they are just being credit card security minded. They say they make this call, even if you originally ordered by phone.

Regards--Neil
 09/25/2004 03:19:56 PM · #9
I have both the 50/1.8 II and the 85/1.8... the 85 blows the 50 away in every regard, unless weight is a concern. Even then, it's not THAT hefty. I've also heard a number of folks wonder out loud why it doesn't wear the "L" moniker.

I have had the 50 stuck on my 10D for a long time now and love it. The 85 has much better bokeh (out of focus rendering quality) but the weight and zoom of the 50 is more practical. For around $70, you can't go wrong.

I've considered the 50/1.4 for the speed and relatively decent price and the micro-USM is likely used due to the extremely shallow DOF at 1.4... more accurate focusing is required.

The 50/1.0 is just insane and very much a special-use lens. It's basically a manual-focus lens (very slow AF), weighs a couple of pounds, is huge, and if I remember, last time I saw one for sale it was in excess of $2500.

I would argue that Canon's current lineup is NOT slow-focusing or particularly soft wide-open. I've gotten some great, sharp shots with my 50/1.8 - all the more impressive considering its cost - but at this price point, there's bound to be some that are great and some that aren't so great.

Message edited by author 2004-09-25 15:20:33.
Pages:  
Current Server Time: 09/13/2025 01:01:36 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 © 2001-2025 Challenging Technologies, LLC.
All digital photo copyrights belong to the photographers and may not be used without permission.
Current Server Time: 09/13/2025 01:01:36 PM EDT.