What 50mm lens

Slicker · 31-07-2008, 13:36

Hi,

I have been doing some reading on the 50mm lens and I am thinking about getting one for my 400D.

I am unsure which one I should be looking at. There appears to be lots of different ones. First of all, I don't think I want to spend the money on the F1.4 version so I was really looking at the bargin 1.8 lenses. I did notice that these are non USM lenses. Is that anything I should be concerned about?

Also, should I be looking at the MK1 or the MK2 lens?

Thanks for any advice..

Cheers
Paul

***Dave*** · 31-07-2008, 13:46

COUGH FS: Canon 50mm f/1.8 - MKI model with metal mount

I had the MKII vsn & hated it's plasticy build, so bought the MKI. Only selling as I now have a f/1.4 vsn, which is a real pain to get perfect focus when wide open. .... hmmm . maybe I'm keeping the wrong lens

Slicker · 31-07-2008, 13:55

so the MK1 is better than the MK2?

I have found the MK2 for £56 Canon EF 50mm f/1.8 II Lens

AQ · 31-07-2008, 14:39

I am sure you have researched this well and know what you want but (you knew there was a but comming

) if you want a lens similar to a 50 mm on a full frame caners do not forget the 1.6 crop factor on the 400d. To get an effective 50 mm focal length you actually need a 30 mm lens. As I said I am sure you have thought of this but it is a mistake I nearly made myself.

***Dave*** · 31-07-2008, 14:44

Quote:

Originally Posted by Slicker

so the MK1 is better than the MK2?

In build quality terms, yes. In terms of final image quality, no.

Slicker · 31-07-2008, 14:51

Quote:

Originally Posted by AQ

I am sure you have researched this well and know what you want but (you knew there was a but comming

) if you want a lens similar to a 50 mm on a full frame caners do not forget the 1.6 crop factor on the 400d. To get an effective 50 mm focal length you actually need a 30 mm lens. As I said I am sure you have thought of this but it is a mistake I nearly made myself.

yeah - I did know that. Its just the I have heard lots of people say its a must have lens (and cheap) so even on the 1.6 crop its still good.

So I just need to decided between the MKI and NKII

silkstone · 31-07-2008, 15:16

As already said, the Mk1 has better build quality - metal mount and a focus scale. The 'plastic fantastic' MkII has excellent image quality but feels cheap by comparison. Neither has a USM ring motor, so you have to switch to MF to adjust the focus manually.

Comparison of f/1.8 Mk1 and f/1.4 here...

Canon EF 50mm f/1.8 I Reviews

***Dave*** · 31-07-2008, 15:50

Reviews here :-
Pixalo Photographic Equipment Reviews - EF 50mm F1.8 Mark 1 -
Pixalo Photographic Equipment Reviews - EF 50mm f1.8 MKII -

mr cat · 31-07-2008, 17:10

I had the mk11 version and it was spot on...

Kajuah · 01-08-2008, 11:29

1.4 is great .. not going to lie its definately worth it but if you're just experimenting and not commercially or privately selling your photos for an agency then you're not going to really care about the difference. 1.8 is economical and works just the same..could be fixed with a lens hood (the flaring issue) there is a slight flaring issue with shooting towards lights (like anywhere) and some blown out highlights, though, its hard to explain in words ill find some example images and information...

edit: the images can be found here. As you can see, bokeh isn't so much an issue between the 3 apertures ...of course it does become noticeabley cleaner and more clear, but generally you don't see a MAJOR improvement, i mean you have to look pretty damned close and even then what the larger apertures do is make the bokeh a lot more clear..which can also be very very useful actually.

once you start shooting towards a flare or well lit area- the detail of the scene is reduced much rapidly. The 1.0 is absolutely ideal for combatting flares, as well as clarity and color tone is the most accurate possible thanks to the level of light coming in.

Canon EF 50mm – F1.4 vs F1.8 MK II - photo.net

I highly encourage you to read the reviews by the users on this website;

http://www.pbase.com/cameras/canon/ef_50_18ii

This is a quote from one of the users, which I'll post just for the sake of archiving.

Quote:

The 50mm/f1.4 and 50mm/f1.8 are the BEST PORTRAIT LENSES that Canon offers. I own a Canon Rebel 2000 and Digital Rebel XT and have used both these lenses for several months. Pictures have been outstanding and my professional customers frequently cite the sharpness, light balance, depth of field, color reproduction, and "bokeh" (intentional blurring of background in portraits) from these lenses. Some people question the usefulness of a 50mm lens on digital SLRs with a 1.6x crop factor (i.e., 50mm lens = 80mm on a dSLR like the Digital Rebel XT)... I can vouch that the range is beautiful and relevant, focusing more closely on key subjects in portraits.

WHAT DO THESE LENSES HAVE IN COMMON? They are both fast (the f1.4 is blazing fast - dSLR can hardly keep up!), details are incredibly sharp (you can see individual hair strands), virtually no chromatic (color) aberration, no dithering or shadows in the corners, focusing is rapid and quiet (thanks to Canon's patented Ultrasonic USM technology) and photo quality parallels even my professional Canon "L" lenses. These fixed aperture lenses also provide superior pictures than telephoto lenses at 50mm because of better glass and aspherical elements.

HOW ARE THESE LENSES DIFFERENT? Having tested both lenses across 1500+ pictures, there are 5 key factors that make the f1.4 superior (justifying the $300+ price tag).

1) FASTER ESPECIALLY IN LOW LIGHT: Extra f-stop makes the f/1.4 better for indoor photos or low light. Great companion to the 480EX flash. I was able to take nearly 40 pics/min with flash and the fastest Sandisk 1GB Ultra II CF card

2) NO CHROMATIC ABERRATION, whereas the f/1.8 has slight yellowing of photos under certain lighting conditions or where edge definition is low

3) FULL AUTO/MANUAL FOCUSING RANGE: f/1.8 requires flipping between auto and manual using a switch, while f/1.4 can be manually "hot" focused/tweaked after auto focusing

4) SUPERIOR BUILD QUALITY: The f/1.8 is plastic and feels cheap, like it might fall apart anytime. The f/1.4 is metal, weighty, and is for the proud lens owner

5) CLEANER "BOKEH" - f/1.4 produces beautiful blurring of background in portraits ("bokeh") while the f/1.8 leaves less clean edges. Canon reviews suggest this is due to the f/1.4 having 8 lens elements vs. 5 elements for the f/1.8

WHICH LENS SHOULD YOU BUY? This is a question of utility vs. value. The f/1.4 costs over $300 while the f/1.8 can be acquired for under $75. The f/1.4 will last forever while the f/1.8 will probably break under normal use in a year. Does this justify the 4x price tag? If you are a budding photographer looking for a "play lens" then the f/1.8 will more than over-deliver. If you are a photo enthusiast who looks for "the perfect shot," you will want the f/1.4 because it surpasses every expectation (and so you're not left wondering, "what if"). If you are a photo professional, you already have the f/1.4 lens among your bag and are not reading this review. :-)

Slicker · 01-08-2008, 14:55

hmm,, maybe I will save up a bit and get the 1.4 lens.....

mr cat · 01-08-2008, 20:47

Quote:

Originally Posted by Slicker

hmm,, maybe I will save up a bit and get the 1.4 lens.....

then it's what f1.4 lens...

I'd personally go for the sigma...

silkstone · 01-08-2008, 21:19

There's a huge price difference between the f/1.8 MkII and the f/1.4, so why not buy the cheapo plasticky thingy and see if it does what you need. At least you'll have a 50mm lens to use while you fill the piggy-bank. If you still want the f/1.4, you can always sell the other one.

Or buy Dave's Mk1?