Canon EF 50mm f/1.8 II Camera Lens, is this a good choice for low light pics

[subscuck]

Yes, you usually get what you pay for, but 50/1.8 II is an exception of sorts. You got to try it, IMO you will be surprised with the IQ. Agreed about the build quality and focusing issues, but from a pure IQ viewpoint it's a contender. I don't have the 50/1.4, so can't compare, but check out this Adorama comparison.

No, with the 1.8 you are getting exactly what you pay for. What you get is:
-the worst bokeh characteristics you will see in a fast prime
-a lens whose plastic spot welds will potentially fail, leaving you with an unsellable lens that isn't economically feasible to repair. And it does happen. More often than
fanboys care to admit.
-a focus motor that will potentially jam up, again leaving it unusable, unsellable, and not worth repairing. Again, this does happen, and more frequently than fanboys admit.
-slow, and I mean slow, af that will often fail to lock on in low light, low contrast situations, which is what you bought it for.
-it's loud enough to wake a sleeping baby in the next room.

Lens comparisons are fine, but usually done in a controlled environment. Real life application is often a different story. DxO is also a hot button topic among photographers, since there are many intangibles that can't be accounted for. In short, raw numbers don't tell the whole story. Take Tyler's advice and spend the extra $ on a quality lens. While the 1.8 may be good value for the money, value doesn't always = quality.

 

[debmar]

I would think for taking pictures of the lit up monuments at night, you would be better served w/ a tripod and using the self timer or a remote release.
That way you would be able to stop down your lens to the sweet spot and have a sharper nicer image.
I agree with Tyler about the 50mm f1.8, the out of focus area is not nice at all.

Canuk, out of focus is called the "Bokeh", is that the right word?? lol,
And really don't want to bring a tripod for this trip, bringing enough with the kids Won't I be able to take lit up monument pics without it?? I hope...
Next is..the sweet spot..how do I know what the sweet spot is on my lens..do I keep taking pics until I think it the best of the bunch?? Or is it a a known setting for each lens depending on the lighting?? ...confused a little..help

 

[TCampbell]

I would think for taking pictures of the lit up monuments at night, you would be better served w/ a tripod and using the self timer or a remote release.
That way you would be able to stop down your lens to the sweet spot and have a sharper nicer image.
I agree with Tyler about the 50mm f1.8, the out of focus area is not nice at all.

Canuk, out of focus is called the "Bokeh", is that the right word?? lol,
And really don't want to bring a tripod for this trip, bringing enough with the kids Won't I be able to take lit up monument pics without it?? I hope...
Next is..the sweet spot..how do I know what the sweet spot is on my lens..do I keep taking pics until I think it the best of the bunch?? Or is it a a known setting for each lens depending on the lighting?? ...confused a little..help

The out of focus area is called "blur". "Bokeh" (a photographic adaptation of the Japanese word "boke" with the "h" on the end as a pronunciation hint to non-Japanese) refers to the QUALITY of the out-of-focus area. The word means foggy or hazy. The idea is that you want a beautifully blended blur quality in the out of focus area... not an edgy harsh jittery out of focus area.

The "sweet spot" of a lens is the point where it can attain the best tack-sharp focus. Every zoom lens has a specific focal length that looks better than the rest. Also some f-stops will look better than others (I'm not talking about he quality of the out-of-focus areas... I'm talking about the areas you want to have in sharp focus.) Usually it's about 2 stops down from whatever "wide open" aperture is for that lens. But that's a generalization that doesn't apply to every lens.

 

[texkam]

As you can see, you can learn a lot hanging out here. With time and lots of practice you will probably become a more discerning photographer and will not be satisfied with your low-end gear; your plastic spot welds, noisy motors, smaller sweet spots and subpar brokeh. Until then, go nuts and enjoy your nifty fifty.

 

[bratkinson]

While I've never owned either the 1.8 or the 1.4 50s, I've never read anything good about the 1.8 other than its price. The 1.4, on the other hand, gets consistent rave reviews. One of my friends picked up the 1.4 and absolutely raves about it. Perhaps I should try one and see how good it compares to my 24-105L f4 at that range...although I do own the 85 f1.8 already.

 

[texkam]

This was shot with a previously owned 50mm 1.8. I think it yielded adequate results. The client agreed.



BTW, I shoot this lens quite often. Now mind you, I'm not crawling around the Amazon, or shooting night football games in the rain. Having said that, my plastic spot welds haven't failed. My focus motor hasn't jammed up, my subjects tend to sit still, and my kids have moved out.

 

[TCampbell]

This was shot with a previously owned 50mm 1.8. I think it yielded adequate results. The client agreed.

View attachment 34501

BTW, I shoot this lens quite often. Now mind you, I'm not crawling around the Amazon, or shooting night football games in the rain. Having said that, my plastic spot welds haven't failed. My focus motor hasn't jammed up, my subjects tend to sit still, and my kids have moved out.

This type of background works well for that lens. Backgrounds that are "busy" with lots of contrast (complex patterns) will reveal the nervous/jittery marginal bokeh quality.

 

[rexbobcat]

No, with the 1.8 you are getting exactly what you pay for. What you get is:
-the worst bokeh characteristics you will see in a fast prime
-a lens whose plastic spot welds will potentially fail, leaving you with an unsellable lens that isn't economically feasible to repair. And it does happen. More often than
fanboys care to admit.
-a focus motor that will potentially jam up, again leaving it unusable, unsellable, and not worth repairing. Again, this does happen, and more frequently than fanboys admit.
-slow, and I mean slow, af that will often fail to lock on in low light, low contrast situations, which is what you bought it for.
-it's loud enough to wake a sleeping baby in the next room.

Lens comparisons are fine, but usually done in a controlled environment. Real life application is often a different story. DxO is also a hot button topic among photographers, since there are many intangibles that can't be accounted for. In short, raw numbers don't tell the whole story. Take Tyler's advice and spend the extra $ on a quality lens. While the 1.8 may be good value for the money, value doesn't always = quality.

From an image quality standpoint the 1.8 is supposedly sharper than the 1.4 stopped down.

Nothing you said discounted the fact that the 1.8 has outstanding IQ for its price point.

Quality = subjective

I've used the lens for panoramas and I find it quite suitable.

 

[o hey tyler]

From an image quality standpoint the 1.8 is marginally sharper than the 1.4 stopped down.

Nothing you said discounted the fact that the 1.8 has outstanding sharpness for its price point.

Quality = sharpness, OOF rendering, build quality, focus speed

Fix't fo' ya

 

[sekhar]

None of the image comparisons is really convincing enough to spend 3x on the 50/1.4, which is really the point here. So, if you're mainly interested in IQ, 50/1.8 would be the way to go. In addition to the focusing and build quality issues already mentioned for 50/1.8 though, a critical problem (and potentially a deal breaker) with 50/1.8 is the terrible focusing ring that is practically unusable if you're going to do a lot of manual focusing.

 

[o hey tyler]

None of the image comparisons is really convincing enough to spend 3x on the 50/1.4, which is really the point here. So, if you're mainly interested in IQ, 50/1.8 would be the way to go. In addition to the focusing and build quality issues already mentioned for 50/1.8 though, a critical problem (and potentially a deal breaker) with 50/1.8 is the terrible focusing ring that is practically unusable if you're going to do a lot of manual focusing.

The reason to spend more now is so that you don't spend even more later. That's the main underlying issue with beginners buying lenses. They don't see the value in spending a little more to get a vastly better product. They see "$100! Boy that's cheap."

It's your money though, OP.

 

[.SimO.]

I have the 50 1.4 and have tested both on my Canon T3i. I tested the 1.4 at f/1.8 and it a world of difference. The biggest difference for me was the feel of the lens on the body. It actually felt right with the 1.4 on there weight wise. If on a budget, get the 1.8 but if you can afford to step it up, get the 1.4. Oh, and manual focus sucks terribly with the 1.8. Since you have the T4i, you'll be able to setup on tripod and magnify zoom and focus from there. I tried this and it seriously had major issues holding the focal point by the time I pressed the shutter. Not sure if that was just the viewfinder looked darker than what as actually there or some issue with the lens itself. But the 1.8 in manual focus, could never really get in focus. Hope that makes sense.

Tyler has made more than enough valid points and corrections so it does ultimately come back to you.

 

[TCampbell]

None of the image comparisons is really convincing enough to spend 3x on the 50/1.4, which is really the point here. So, if you're mainly interested in IQ, 50/1.8 would be the way to go. In addition to the focusing and build quality issues already mentioned for 50/1.8 though, a critical problem (and potentially a deal breaker) with 50/1.8 is the terrible focusing ring that is practically unusable if you're going to do a lot of manual focusing.

The reason to spend more now is so that you don't spend even more later. That's the main underlying issue with beginners buying lenses. They don't see the value in spending a little more to get a vastly better product. They see "$100! Boy that's cheap."

It's your money though, OP.

Or to rephrase what Tyler just said, you can:

a) Buy the 50mm f/1.4 USM lens ... total cost is about $330

OR

b) Buy the 50mm f/1.8 II for $130, use it for it's image quality (which is good) but then have issues with the slow focusing motor and/or the nervous/jittery bokeh and decide you need the better quality, buy the 50mm f/1.4 USM lens for about $330 ... total cost is $460.

The choice is yours, but you're not saving money if you upgrade later. I would only recommend the f/1.8 for someone who simply cannot afford the f/1.4 or whose needs with the lens are limited enough that the shortcomings of the f/1.8 wont be a problem.

 

[sekhar]

Guys, just get the 50/1.2L and be done with it.

 

[Canuk]

Canuk, out of focus is called the "Bokeh", is that the right word?? lol,
And really don't want to bring a tripod for this trip, bringing enough with the kids Won't I be able to take lit up monument pics without it?? I hope...
Next is..the sweet spot..how do I know what the sweet spot is on my lens..do I keep taking pics until I think it the best of the bunch?? Or is it a a known setting for each lens depending on the lighting?? ...confused a little..help

I would assume that pictures taken from a tripod with the lens stopped down would produce a much better quality image than one shot hand held with a nifty 50 wide open. Travel tripods are light and actually quite small.