Canon 50mm 1.8 not happy

[manaheim]

It's a sad irony that you buy a fast prime so you can get 1.8 capabilities, but then find it performs hopelessly at 1.8.

That's not true at all. It's powerful, and like all powerful things you have to understand it and use it carefully.

Do you buy a Dodge Viper and jump in it and slam the throttle to the floor? No. (unless you want to wind up in a ditch or dead).

Lol I just likened a nifty fifty to a viper. So wrong.

 

[manaheim]

Not 1.8, but this was taken at 2.8 and very close to the subject. This shows both sharpness and what you can do with the shallow DOF if you're careful and know what kind of fire you're playing with...

This was taken at F7.1... but the point is not so much that you can go to 1.8, the point is the quality of the optics, which this image demonstrates. The rich variance of tones, the sharpness, the handling of the light. All beautiful.

 

[chuasam]

I bought the nifty fifty yesterday and apart from the low light capabilities it doesn't seem to have much going for it. I thought it would take very sharp images. Am I judging too quickly ? I am thinking of trying to return it

Also, when you check out pictures on this site, there are more than 11K sharp pictures with this lens ... how did they do it? ;-)

Full-size sample photos from Canon 50mm F/1.8

They probably actually knew what they were doing

 

[Derrel]

SNIPO>>> that 50mm 1.8. It's a RIDICULOUSLY good lens.

Sorry, but NO, it is clearly NOT a "RIDICULOUSLY good lens". It is a cheaply-made 50mm f/1.8 lens, with one less element than a decent 50mm design would have, and an antiquated, cheap-o 5-bladed diaphragm, poor low-light focusing ability, NOISY AF, and crap build quality. The background bokeh it produces is some of the absolute WORST one will find in a prime lens. It is a poor performer, as 50mm lenses go, by many different metrics. it also flares quite badly when shot toward the sun, with almost full-field, massive green lens flare when shot toward the sun. It's got decent resolving power, sure, but crappy focusing (in less-than-ideal conditions, the 50/1.8 loves to hunt for focus,racking back and forth, with a loud diiiitz-ditttz-dittz-dittz sound, meaning noisy focusing,a clunky AF/M switch, meaning no manual focusing override when in AF mode, it has poor flare resistance, and ugly, hashy, jarring bokeh. Those are hardly the traits of a "RIDICULOUSLY good lens". Ridiculously good would be the Canon 135 f/2-L--not a $109 econ-design made as absolutely as cheaply as possible, compromising on the optical elements and the diaphragm, as well as holding the lens together with pop rivets instead of threaded fasteners. Oh yeah...the 50/1.8 has a habit of literally snapping into two pieces when banged or dropped or smacked.

I used to own the 50 1.8 EF-II, but I gave it away to my wife's nephew when he went away to college, with the advice that it's a POS lens when shot towards the light. Canon's 50/1.4 is a significantly better lens in all ways, but it too has some focusing "issues" that make it less-than-perfect--according not just to me, but to many Canon owners who have shot the 50/1.4 under a wide range of conditions.

 

[manaheim]

Lol


Ummmmmm....


Derrell I don't know what you're talking about. I'm intrigued ... But honestly I've found mine to be amazing. YES the build quality is sub-par; it is a cheap little lens... But aside from that?

 

[madjace]

thanks for the helps guys ( most of you ) i did try it above 1.8 but dudnt try it in the 5 region , will post some low light photos , the other ones i took were of my wife and like i said before , will not post those ..

 

[KmH]

Lol


Ummmmmm....


Derrell I don't know what you're talking about. I'm intrigued ... But honestly I've found mine to be amazing. YES the build quality is sub-par; it is a cheap little lens... But aside from that?

How about gag-me-with-a-spoon CoC quality?

 

[madjace]

these 2 need some more editing but you get the picture , it was a pretty bright day and i was having my first go at turning water into silk .. i did end up achieving it although i had to merge a couple of exposures for some of them

 

[scorpion_tyr]

Turning water into silk takes a tripod, and a long shutter speed. If you're shooting at f/1.8 in the daylight, you're gonna turn up with an extremely over exposed image. Take it to f/16 or so, ISO 100, and shutter speed at 1". If it's too bright or too dark, adjust shutter speed and aperture. If it's really bright and the water's moving slow you may need to use a ND filter. The 50mm f/1.8 is not a GREAT lens, nor is it an AMAZING lens, but it is a GOOD lens. It's good because it's A: The cheapest lens Canon makes and B: It'll get the job done if you know what you're doing with it.

 

[madjace]

will post some of the ones that worked when i get home , changed the lens to the 18-55 , i just posted these as lanscape shots from the 50 mm , i had the f stop to about 22 iso was 100 and and all i could manage was about 1/4 shutter speed .. a filter mau have helped . but i am reasonable happy with how they turned out .. will post tonight

 

[madjace]

 

[SabrinaO]

I bought the nifty fifty yesterday and apart from the low light capabilities it doesn't seem to have much going for it. I thought it would take very sharp images. Am I judging too quickly ? I am thinking of trying to return it

Shooting at 1.8 is a very thin depth of field, and it takes practice to hit your focus spot on. 2.8 will give you a good sharpness and bokeh at the same time

 

[LuckySe7en]

don't judge too soon. I have the fifty and wasn't impressed at first. Learn the lens first, then judge. I wouldn't give mine up for the world.

 

[TimGilbertson]

Toy lens.