Canon 50mm f1.8 plastic cheap lens any good?

[delko]

Hi i am looking at a f 1.4 or 1.8 lens.

I saw there are a
canon 50mm f1.8- cheap
Canon 50mm f 1.4- more expensive
Canon 85mm f1.8- same as above...

Which lens will be more sharp at a low f stop like 1.4 or 1.8

I saw some reviews but am too ignorant to be able to understand coma? Barrel distortion? And stuff like that...

I am looking to take some nice portraits an using it to obtain better bokeh...


Thanx for the help

 

[Ms.Nash]

It's good for the price. If u can afford the 1.4 it's better construction of course. I love my 1.4!

 

[Dao]

Go to photozone.de and take a look at the review of the lens. Pay attention on the MTF chart. It tells you how sharp the lens is at a particular aperture.

- In general, the sweet spot of the lens is one or 2 stops from wide open. So for the f/1.8 lens, it is going to be at f/4 or f/5.6 while f/1.4 could be f/2.8 or f/4.
- 50mm f/1.4 has more shutter blades than the f/1.5, so the out of focus blur is going to looks better.
- The 85mm looks better or creamer as far as out of focus blur goes. However, the focal length is longer, so you may need more room (longer distance between the camera and the subject)

 

[Sw1tchFX]

ummm... by far my most used lens for portraits is a 50mm f/1.4.

 

[Juice]

I'm the type of person who will save to buy the best of something in a series. I don't believe in buying mid grade, and I certainly won't buy anything 3rd party.

That being said, if it came down to the 50 f/1.8 or nothing, I would take the 50 f/1.8. For $100, it's a great lens. The build quality is terrible, I broke mine simply by using it (I have never dropped a lens or my camera). However, even in the short time I owned it, I definitely got my money's worth. So, if you can't afford the best right now (I'm going to break down and get a 50 f/1.2L soon), I would definitely go with that until you are ready to plunk down 10x as much for the better version.

 

[kevinkt]

For 100 bucks, it can't be beat.

But if you're serious, get the 1.4 that's the much better lens.

 

[delko]

Any comparisson between the signa 50mm f 1.4 and the canon 50mm f1.4 i know the sigma is alot more expesive?
General comment on sigma lenses? Any good?

 

[Crollo]

If you're really going to describe the brilliant 50mm 1.8 down to "plastic cheap lens" then I'm not sure you should be looking for lenses to begin with, you'll disappoint yourself.

 

[delko]

I didnt mean it like that...
Some reviews stated its canon's secret.
Plastic construction.
But with multi coated glass.
I like the fact that it is so affordable.and the fact that it has a 52mm filter size... Because i have some filters that will fit.
I know every lens has to sacrefice something. It cant be good at everything.
Im sorry for not giving the neccessary credit to this excelent piece of equiptment.

 

[Crollo]

To seriously answer your question though, the 1.8 is a a great lens and is perfectly adequate for portraiture works, and the other more expensive ones are just better ones. To answer your question you just have to ask yourself "Do I really want or need the extra quality these lenses will offer, or is the 1.8 good enough for my purposes?"

It's like asking if a honda civic is any good or if you should buy a Lamborghini... do you NEED it?

 

[katerolla]

I use the 1.8 $100 lens, I am happy with it, this was shot with the lens

 

[delko]

At this moment i think i will go for the 50mm f1.8

Thank you.

 

[BuS_RiDeR]

The Canon EF 50mm f/1.8 is a great lens for the money. I use mine often and am satisfied with the results.

If you are rough with your gear... The 1.4 will probably "stand up" better.

 

[o hey tyler]

If you're really going to describe the brilliant 50mm 1.8 down to "plastic cheap lens" then I'm not sure you should be looking for lenses to begin with, you'll disappoint yourself.

That's what it is CROLLO. A cheap, $100 plastic lens with a matching plastic mount! It's got a mind numbing 5 aperture blades to render awful bokeh when stopped down. In fact, it's so cheap that it will often break in to TWO WHOLE PIECES when dropped. It is so cheap, that it's almost a disposable lens!

With that being said, for studio work it is sharp. If you're not going to be shooting between f/2 and f/4 with tiny specular highlights behind your subject, you won't notice the jarring pentagonal bokeh. And that's why it works well for a studio, because it IS quite sharp.

However, if you're going to describe the Canon 50mm f/1.8 as "brilliant", the you haven't used many (if any) high quality lenses. See the lens for what it is, cheap, expendable, but capable of producing sharp images.

 

[Crollo]

If you're really going to describe the brilliant 50mm 1.8 down to "plastic cheap lens" then I'm not sure you should be looking for lenses to begin with, you'll disappoint yourself.

That's what it is CROLLO. A cheap, $100 plastic lens with a matching plastic mount!

You're right, it is indeed cheap and made of equally cheap plastic, but I'm saying it's a bit stupid to act as though the lens itself might be crap just simply because it's a 'cheap plastic lens', pretty much almost all EF lenses could be described as "cheap plastic lens".

That being said I haven't actually used the EF 50mm 1.8 so I can't vouch for the quality myself, but every single review I'd read for it has been raving and ranting on about how it's the best you can possibly get for something so cheap so I'm assuming it's a good lens. [I had a FL 50mm 1.8 however]