 Charlene Bayerle |
Canon Lens Does anyone have the 50mm 1.8 automatic lens for the Canon? Pros and cons.... Thanks Charlene
|
|
|
|
||
- Carolyn M. Fletcher  Contact Carolyn M. Fletcher Carolyn M. Fletcher's Gallery |
Check with Tammy Odell. I think she just got one.
|
|
|
|
||
|
Charlene Bayerle |
I did check with her.....she just started using it and didnt have any comments about it yet.
|
|
|
|
||
|
Christopher A. Vedros |
When I decided I wanted a 50mm prime, I went to my local pro shop and looked at and touched both the Canon 50mm f/1.8 and the Canon 50mm f/1.4 lenses. The two look & feel completely different. The 1.8 is built much like the 18-55mm kit lens. Lightweight, plastic, tiny focus ring, no distance scale. The 1.4 version of the lens is more solidly built, has a metal lens mount, a true distance scale, and USM for faster autofocus. I went with the 1.4 version and am convinced that the extra $200 or so was well worth it. In defense of the 50mm f/1.8 - most people who have this lens swear that it has tack-sharp optics and I don't doubt that. I don't think Canon would put their name on something that didn't work. Chris
|
|
|
|
||
|
Oliver Anderson |
Chris points out a great point, spend the extra money for the 1.4 just for quality and durability. I had the 1.4 at Canon for cleaning and needed to borrow my friends 1.8 for a catalog I'm shooting. When he gave it to me I couldn't believe the difference in feel. The photos are great but looking at both you can tell the 1.4 is just a better quality lens.
|
|
|
|
||
|
Craig m. Zacarelli |
I have the 50MM f1.8 and love it! its small, lightweight and yes, it is extremely sharp! Id say although it isnt metal and it does look / feel cheap, for the money $80.00) it is probably Canons best lens. Yes its not an "L" but guess what? you wouldnt know it by looking at the Pictures it takes! And it really doesnt need to be anything more than what it is, I mean, you arent playing hockey with it or hitting it like a baseball.... are you? Craig-
|
|
|
|
||
|
Christopher A. Vedros |
I won't argue whether the 1.8 is as sharp as the 1.4 version. I haven't seen any lab tests or comparisons, so I'll just assume that it is. Let's look at some other features of the lens. If you ever try to use the hyperfocal distance method to maximize your depth of field, or pre-focus on an area where your subject will be, you'll be out of luck with the 1.8 since it has no distance scale or DOF scale. Craig - I'm not positive, but doesn't the front element of the 50mm f/1.8 move when you focus? This makes it really tough to use a polarizer or a split ND filter, since you need to readjust your filter every time your focus changes. The f/1.4 version has a non-rotating front element. Just more to consider. Chris
|
|
|
|
||
|
Glenn E. Urquhart |
Hi Charlene, I have the 50mm f1.8, and totally agree with everything Craig says. I will also add, that when I go sailing this summer, in rough conditions, if I happen to break an $80 lens, no great loss! My other lens I would not dare take out in open waters! In other words, best lens for the money you can buy! Cheers, Glenn.
|
|
|
|
||
|
Jon Close |
I have it as well. Just echoing others, it is very sharp, cheap, and light weight. I don't bother with a UV/protective filter for it, it's practically a disposable lens. ;-) The front barrel extends with focus, but does not rotate, so it is good with a polarizer filter. Cons: very cheap build and no focus distance or depth of field scale. Many people pay a premium for a used original version EF 50 f/1.8 because it has these scales and a metal mount flange. Additionally, in manual focus the ring is too loose and the turning range is too short for fine manual focus adjustment. The 5-blade aperture does not produce as smooth or pleasing an out-of-focus background (ie. bokeh) as does the 8-blade aperture of the EF 50 f/1.4 USM. Still an overall terrific lens for very little money. Sharper than any mid-range zoom this side of $600.
|
|
|
|
||
|
Craig m. Zacarelli |
I dont know, the difference is $80.00 0r $200.00 when you get right to it. For the extra savings, Id re-adjust the filter (if I had to) after focus is achieved. And if you dont used the scale ( I dont) it is a great lens. I find though, I dont really use it all that much, its a great lens but Im not a fan of fixed focal length lens or "Prime" lens. I wouldnt want to carry extra lenses and all that. I mostly just keep the 28-135mm on my cam and use that. Craig-
|
|
|
|
||
|
Charlene Bayerle |
Thanks so much everyone for the very helpful information. I really appreciate it!!! Charlene
|
|
|
|
||
- Darren J. Gilcher Contact Darren J. Gilcher Darren J. Gilcher's Gallery |
Charlene, Photozone.com reviews both lenses and many more.
|
|
|
|
||
|
Charlene Bayerle |
Thank you Darren for the info!!! I will check into it.
|
|
|
|
||
|
This old forum is now archived. Use improved Forum here
Report this Thread |
||