+1 glass count... 50mm 1.8 =)

[BLD_007]

So I just got my 50mm 1.8 +)

Photos to be posted tomorrow after I get back from a wedding that I'm shooting...

 

[Montana]

I had one of them once.........hope you like yours more than I did.

 

[BLD_007]

I had one of them once.........hope you like yours more than I did.

Why did you not like it? I like it for its shallow DOF

 

[usayit]

Its a "good" lens for someone who is looking to get introduced to shooting with primes. I shot with one for years but I have to admit mine was the Mark I version which is better built.

For someone used to the quality of the 24-70L and the 70-200L AND considering a decision to plop down the cash for a 1d MIII, I would imagine the extra cost to get a 50 f/1.4 is a no brainer.

 

[BLD_007]

Its a "good" lens for someone who is looking to get introduced to shooting with primes. I shot with one for years but I have to admit mine was the Mark I version which is better built.

For someone used to the quality of the 24-70L and the 70-200L AND considering a decision to plop down the cash for a 1d MIII, I would imagine the extra cost to get a 50 f/1.4 is a no brainer.

Yea, but this one only cost me $80 and no shipping. May go to the 50 f/1.4 but its only a difference of .4.

Is it really worth it?

 

[usayit]

[May go to the 50 f/1.4 but its only a difference of .4.

There's a big difference other than ".4". You gotta research beyond the big print on the packaging.

 

[KmH]

Its a "good" lens for someone who is looking to get introduced to shooting with primes. I shot with one for years but I have to admit mine was the Mark I version which is better built.

For someone used to the quality of the 24-70L and the 70-200L AND considering a decision to plop down the cash for a 1d MIII, I would imagine the extra cost to get a 50 f/1.4 is a no brainer.

Yea, but this one only cost me $80 and no shipping. May go to the 50 f/1.4 but its only a difference of .4.

Is it really worth it?

When discussing aperture values it must be kept in mind that you're talking about area (the size of a hole) and not just diameter.

As such the √2 is in play so that .4 difference is actually 2/3 of a stop, not 1/4 of a stop.

 

[Montana]

Not to mention that manual focus is hard to do with such a narrow ring, its built like crap, noisy, hunts like crazy, not very fast focus speed.............did I mention I no longer own mine? LOL

I agree, it can be a nice introduction to shooting with primes. But it can also turn a person off to primes if its the only one you have ever used. I owned it, hated it, and never bought another prime for a long time. Now I really like primes, but it wasn't until I owned one that I enjoyed using.

You mileage may vary......of course.

 

[usayit]

You guys have to understand the 50 f/1.8's place in the Canon line up..... Remember, the 50 f/1.8 was designed in 1987 using that era's optics and coatings. It was one of the very first lenses available for what is known as the Canon EOS system. The mark II's version uses the same optics but with a plastic mount to keep the price down. The first 35mm AF camera to reach production was the ME-F (I have one in my collection) in 1981-84 and it was a complete failure. 1987's technology wasn't much better

Slow and noisy focus? Heck, USM hasn't even been introduced yet and the camera bodies themselves had slow AF capabilities by today's standards! Many systems (the Minolta Maxxum) of that time were actually slower and noisier. At the time of its introduction, it was a well received lens... still is for $80-100 price mark an optically excellent glass within the reach of any amateur. There is ZERO other options with in the Canon EOS lineup that competes in that price range with similar image quality. It is still amazing that Canon hasn't killed the lens all together.. you guys should give more credit.

Again.. though... BLD_007's recent posts just doesn't make any dime of a sense... willing to plop down cash on a 1d MarkIII but can't bring themselves to spend a bit more on 50mm f/1.4 that is better than the f/1.8 in almost every way. Its like spending hundreds on a dinner at a high class dinner and asking for the cheapest box wine at the liquor store down the street.

 

[BLD_007]

You guys have to understand the 50 f/1.8's place in the Canon line up..... Remember, the 50 f/1.8 was designed in 1987 using that era's optics and coatings. It was one of the very first lenses available for what is known as the Canon EOS system. The mark II's version uses the same optics but with a plastic mount to keep the price down. The first 35mm AF camera to reach production was the ME-F (I have one in my collection) in 1981-84 and it was a complete failure. 1987's technology wasn't much better

Slow and noisy focus? Heck, USM hasn't even been introduced yet and the camera bodies themselves had slow AF capabilities by today's standards! Many systems (the Minolta Maxxum) of that time were actually slower and noisier. At the time of its introduction, it was a well received lens... still is for $80-100 price mark an optically excellent glass within the reach of any amateur. There is ZERO other options with in the Canon EOS lineup that competes in that price range with similar image quality. It is still amazing that Canon hasn't killed the lens all together.. you guys should give more credit.

Again.. though... BLD_007's recent posts just doesn't make any dime of a sense... willing to plop down cash on a 1d MarkIII but can't bring themselves to spend a bit more on 50mm f/1.4 that is better than the f/1.8 in almost every way. Its like spending hundreds on a dinner at a high class dinner and asking for the cheapest box wine at the liquor store down the street.

yea, that is one thing I'm starting to hate about it is that its noisy. I really just wanted a cheap lens that had a wide aperture. I will do some research on the 1.4. I have 15 days to take back this lens or exchange it out.

 

[usayit]

yea, that is one thing I'm starting to hate about it is that its noisy. I really just wanted a cheap lens that had a wide aperture. I will do some research on the 1.4. I have 15 days to take back this lens or exchange it out.

If I were in your shoes, exchange for the 50mm f/1.4.

Better optics
USM
Nicer Bokeh
More Aperture blades
Faster AF
Full time focus ring
Better build quality
..

Unlike your 50D versus 1d MIII thread, this exchange actually makes sense.

 

[cfusionpm]

I bought the 1.8 originally, but that was 4 years ago when I was first getting into DSLR photography on my brand new Rebel XTi. About a year ago, I sold it for the 1.4 and it is worlds better. Like usayit posted, there are so many things that justify it's price over the 1.8. And if you look at the price/performance difference between the 1.4 and 1.2, it looks like a downright steal.

 

[j8kkb]

New on here and from the other side of the ocean ...I bought this lens 6 months ago ..never got used to it ....and now it has fallen apart ..the build quality in my opinion is very very poor

 

[Montana]

You guys have to understand the 50 f/1.8's place in the Canon line up..... Remember, the 50 f/1.8 was designed in 1987 using that era's optics and coatings. It was one of the very first lenses available for what is known as the Canon EOS system. The mark II's version uses the same optics but with a plastic mount to keep the price down. The first 35mm AF camera to reach production was the ME-F (I have one in my collection) in 1981-84 and it was a complete failure. 1987's technology wasn't much better

Slow and noisy focus? Heck, USM hasn't even been introduced yet and the camera bodies themselves had slow AF capabilities by today's standards! Many systems (the Minolta Maxxum) of that time were actually slower and noisier. At the time of its introduction, it was a well received lens... still is for $80-100 price mark an optically excellent glass within the reach of any amateur. There is ZERO other options with in the Canon EOS lineup that competes in that price range with similar image quality. It is still amazing that Canon hasn't killed the lens all together.. you guys should give more credit.

Again.. though... BLD_007's recent posts just doesn't make any dime of a sense... willing to plop down cash on a 1d MarkIII but can't bring themselves to spend a bit more on 50mm f/1.4 that is better than the f/1.8 in almost every way. Its like spending hundreds on a dinner at a high class dinner and asking for the cheapest box wine at the liquor store down the street.

You can polish this turd all you want, but I would never recommend it to someone unless they were on a very, very tight budget.

 

[usayit]

unless they were on a very, very tight budget.

So even you admit there is a place for a turd... not everyone is as fortunate as you terms of budget.