Canon EF 50mm f/1.8 II Camera Lens
by Canon
|
List Price: Our Price: $112.30 You Save: $87.70 (44%) Availability: Usually ships in 1-2 business days Buy Used: from $107.00 (click here) Category: Digital Camera See more product details |
|---|
Customers in the UK,
Buy this product at amazon.co.uk
for British Pounds
Digital Cameras Photo Reviews of Canon EF 50mm f/1.8 II Camera Lens
Customer Review: The Most Dangerous Game
Summary: 5 Stars
I can only concur with the other reviews. This is lightweight, plastic, and feels like a toy. Whenever I take off the lens cap I am worried that I will break the manual focus ring. The lens doesn't have a distance scale. The autofocus motor is louder than a typical compact digital camera, although not offensively loud.
On the other hand, and this is a huge factor that outweighs all the above, the image quality is very good, at least when stopped down. The lens is objectively unimpressive at f1.8 - soft, with lots of vignetting, although you might enjoy these two attributes as an artistic effect - but it gets better as it is stopped down. From f2.8 onwards it is sharp and flat from centre to corner, and for the price it is very impressive. On a 1.6x camera the focal length is good for head-and-shoulder portraits / upper torso 8x10-style shots, although for anything else it feels between two stools, neither telephoto enough for lions nor wide enough for general shots. I have since used it on a full-frame camera, and the above criticisms apply; it is unimpressive at f1.8, but gets better, and the small size is a bonus. As far as I can tell from looking at the reviews and sample photographs, when stopped down this lens is at least the equal of all of Canon's other lenses at 50mm, zooms and primes and Ls alike.
I have since bought some older 50-55mm prime lenses, including a Super Takumar f1.4, a Yashinon f1.4, and a Porst f1.2. I prefer the f1.4 lenses over the Canon 50mm when stopped down, and given the narrow depth of field at open apertures I also prefer manual focus. On the other hand, in a studio setting, or with plenty of light, when stopped down to f8 the Canon 50mm is as good as anything. I've also have a very brief go with the MkI version of the lens, which had a louder autofocus mechanism but felt stronger; I couldn't detect and optical difference, but then again I didn't take very many pictures.
Customer Review: Great bang for what you need it for!
Summary: 5 Stars
I'm a type (as many others I'm sure) who look through pages and pages of reviews, photo examples, comparisons, price-checks, alternative-checks, and then finally make a decision seemingly months later after exhausting all options and feeling good about a decision.
This lens piece is of a similar nature - why sub $100 and why not get to one that lets in more light (1.4) at 5x the price? What about the bokeh "quality"? What about that "investment for the future" thing?
Seems like there are several camps of personalities in play here. Are these discriminating minds who take every pixel seriously and need such justifications? Is it the mere "knowing that you have the best available" that produces the best photo? Basically, is pride that's producing the best composition or your photographic ability and need? I see plenty of wedding-advertisements that are ho-hum pictures taken with $1000s worth of equipment and visa-versa (my wife took the most amazing picture of our daughter with the cell phone a month back).
So to me, this purchase is part psychology and part necessity. It's a great lens for the price - no doubt about it! I can't say I could shoot THAT much better with the 1.4 to justify the price difference. So what if you get a few more "rays" in the bokeh of a candle. Honestly, zooming in, I cannot perceive the "irregularness" of the fuzz - kind of like most people can't tell the difference between 1080p and 720p on an HDTV set at 15 feet away from the couch.
If you're having fun with photography like I am, will print only the very occasional large-format, will only be in a situation extremely rarely where a 1.4 MAY provide a somewhat better quality, and more importantly value a thing called money, then this is a wonderful lens for your arsenal of fun - highly recommend! Now I'm going to go take the money I saved and buy another lens!
Enjoy!
Customer Review: How can such an economy lense perform so well?
Summary: 5 Stars
I am new to photography and have a XSI with kit lens that didn't take pictures any better than my Canon 'sureshot'. After that disappointment I thought maybe a new lens would help.
After careful review of the Canon F1.8 and F1.4 (didn't consider the expensive F1.2) I selected the F1.8. After I recievd it I took 8 or ten pictures and they were much better than I expected. So I said to myself 'wow the F1.4 must be better yet' so I immediatly ordered it. Within in a few days I had both lenses in my hands and started a picture comparison 'smack down'. At this point I have taken indoor, outdoor, close-up, far away, bright light, low light, portraits, dogs, dolls, books, etc. I have used different ISO, different F stop, different shutter speeds. I run side by side comparisons on my 24" monitor -- zoom in and out, match colors and edges, look at depth of field, and of course 'bokeh' (background blurring). For the most part I used the same set of subjects on the same day for each lense.
My conclusion is that the F1.8 is equal to the F1.4 in overall picture taking ability -- many are sharper and colors are as good. Under some circumstances the F1.4 is better such as indoor low light but the difference is not obvious until it is enlarged. I think the F1.8 is slightly better outdoors in bright light. Overall I think it is a push. I should point out that they are both better than the kit lens -- other than the variable focal length with better wide angle (F18 - F55).
However the F1.8 sounds a little clunky when it focuses and it is obviously more cheaply made than the F1.4. The F1.4 looks better on the camera and feels better, the focus motor sounds more solid, and in general is a better lens.
If they both cost the same I would take the F1.4 seven days a week. But given the significant price difference the F1.8 is hard to resist.
Customer Review: 50mm options for Canon
Summary: 5 Stars
Once upon a time, an SLR came with a 50(ish) mm "standard" lens with a maximum aperture of somewhere in the f 1.4-2.0 range. Today a 28-70mm (or digital equivalent) zoom is usually kitted with an SLR. This has a maximum aperture generally in the f 4.0-5.6 range. That's something like 1/2 to 1/4 the light gathering ability, and often considerable optical quality, given away in exchange for cheap zooms.
If you're looking at this, then you've probably decided on a 50mm or so prime lens, likely because the kit zoom lens is both slow and not very good quality. Here are the options for Canon:
Canon 50mm f/1.8 (version 2): It's inexpensive, very fast compared to any cheap zoom and exceptionally good for the price. On the down side, it's cheap feeling, noisy in focusing, and difficult to focus manually. You should buy at least this.
Canon 50mm f/1.4: A little bit faster, but that's a less important trait these days with good digital high effective ISOs. More importantly, it's robust, easy to use, with full-time manual focusing (you can just grab the ring even when it's autofocusing), and good image quality
Sigma 50mm f/1.4: More expensive than the Canon lens, but slightly better image quality wide open. It's a tough sell since the quality change isn't huge. But if the extra money and Sigma logo don't bother you, then go for it.
Canon 50mm f/1.2: Big money for that extra light-gathering ability. If you need this for photographing in a club, then you'll buy it. If you don't need it, it's too expensive and heavy to compete with the lenses above.
Another, used, option, the original Canon 50mm f/1.8 EF lens was sturdier and better built, but they're only available used and possibly abused. I own one and am happy with it. I have shot with the Canon f/1.4 as well and that's the lens that I'd buy today.
Customer Review: Sharp, fast, inexpensive
Summary: 5 Stars
Once upon a time the 50 mm lens was THE standard camera lens and was THE optical benchmark by which manufacturers were judged and compared. Although the basic lens focus has now shifted (at least at the low to mid amateur level) to zooms - you can still benefit from years of research and development that went into designing the 50 mm lens and this here lens may be the best lens, dollar for dollar, that you can ever buy. The question is can you afford not to own this lens?
Years of development have brought us a lens that has a fast aperture of 1.8 - far faster than any consumer zoom lens - and that is sharp as a filed tack. Be forewarned about the sharpness . . . if you are taking pictures of people, this lens is unyielding in its sharpness and may well surprise you and your subjects whose every blemish is captured. The lens has a fabulously shallow depth of field if you want to use the 1.8 aperture to blow out a background. This lens is also ridiculously inexpensive. It is not USM - so it is a little loud. It does not have a moving focus scale. For the money though - this is heaven.
As to the build quality - yes, it is plastic. No, it's not built like the Rock of Gibraltar. If you are going to give this lens extensive use as your everyday lens and you shoot a lot, it may not hold up all that well as one reviewer suggests. However, I've now had this lens and used it fairly regularly (although not as the primary lens) for about 8 years and it is still in great condition. In my mind, spend the $$ on this first before you go and drop $330 on the 50mm 1.4 USM lens and I think you'll find it gets the job done nicely and that the extra $250 on the 1.4 may not be worth the difference in build (major difference), speed (minor difference) and image quality (minor difference).