well... not reading the reviews... but I find the 28/1.8 to have low contrast, flare prone, kind of soft and with terrible bokeh... stopped down it isn't bad, but if you are going to stop it down then why not get the little 28/2.8? (Ok, USM is nice, but for *me* it is not a big deal). It has ring USM BTW.
SchnellerGT wrote:
Why does the EF 28 F1.8 USM only sore an 8.2 with 32 reviews then? What are its known drawbacks? What kind of USM does it have, ring or micro?
I think most will find the 28 F 1.8 a little soft wide open, but at 2.0 better.
It would be easier to spot on a full frame camera body.
mh2000 wrote:
>>Interestingly enough, my little $30 Zuiko 50/1.8 performs as well wide open as my Canon 50/1.4 at f/2.8.
Yes, I've been shooting a Zuiko 50/1.8 on an OM-1 a little lately and agree it is quite a nice little lens... but honestly, I have a wall of fresh prints from my new EF 50/1.8II shot between f1.8 and f2.8 and am very much happier with them than I was with those coming from my EF 50/1.4. An M42 adaptor and Super-Tak 50 is my prefered "special 50" at the moment.
Yeah, the 50L wasn't what I was looking for... I'd like more a Summicron or Summilux... for Canon moderate L cost... but just like the 85L, Canon likes to push boundaries more... and there are plenty of buyers that want the fastest etc. that they can get....Show more →
I find I have a hard time not shooting the 50/1.4 wide open, or I think I'd find it a better lens than the 50/1.8. It is a good performer when you stop it down a bit, but since I got my 28-75 I find that whenever I use my primes I feel the urge to shoot them wide open, because why the heck would I use the primes at f/2.8 when my 28-75 works just as well? More a personal problem I need to work out than a problem with the lens, I suppose.
I have a Super Tak 50/1.4, but it's PK mount, so it never sees my 5D. My little Zuiko has taken the sting off, however. If only Olympus had made an OM-compatible AF mount instead of 4/3rds... I'd love a super-compact DSLR with tiny lenses like these little Zuiko beauties.
I agree Canon is pushing boundaries with the 50/1.2L... I just wish they were pushing performance/size ratio and quality/cost ratio, than profit/unit!
I remember a while back Petteri Sulonen posted on his site that he just doesn't like L primes. Not because they don't generally have outstanding image quality... they do, of course. He doesn't like them because his idea of a great prime is something that has good performance but is also compact. Like you said, a Summilux ala Canon.
But why should they when people will buy a $1400 50/1.2? :/
>>why the heck would I use the primes at f/2.8 when my 28-75 works just as well?
other than being faster than f2.8, I shoot my primes because they are all like a pound and a half lighter than my 24-70L (which I love by the way... better IQ than the primes IMO, even the L's)... but as I said, for *my* images, I find that the 50/1.8 gives more *pleasing* results than my 50/1.4... but that is completely subjective and limited to my shots... I've seen all the posted tests etc... that's why I gave the 50/1.4 a four year chance... just prefer the problems with the f1.8 to those in the f1.4...
I got my Super-Tak 50 for $26... that is quite nice wide open. my TS-E's are also quite nice primes... very "world class imaging" IMO... so all is not lost
Out of the 2 50s and the 85, I much prefer the 85. I don't like the build of the 50s much. the 1.4 feels flimsy to me, almost like there's too much glass for the plastic case to hold. The 1.8 has a terrible focus ring and no distance meter. However, I do like most of the other cheap canon primes.
The 50mm f/1.8 is actually a better performer than the f/1.4. I wouldn't say that based only on Canon's MTF charts or only on what people have said here, but when both agree on the f/1.8, it is probably true:
mh2000 wrote:
for *my* images, I find that the 50/1.8 gives more *pleasing* results than my 50/1.4 and CKrueger wrote:
I find I have a hard time not shooting the 50/1.4 wide open, or I think I'd find it a better lens than the 50/1.8. and mh2000 wrote:
I have a wall of fresh prints from my new EF 50/1.8II shot between f1.8 and f2.8 and am very much happier with them than I was with those coming from my EF 50/1.4.
The 28mm f/2.8 is another super bargain that should be on the list, as others have said:
mh2000 wrote:
I had the 28/2.8. yes, very nice. liked it better than my current 28/1.8. The MKI 50/1.8 is the same as the 28/2.8, 35/2 and 135/2.8 for build quality. same vintage and design. I've not had problems with either my old MKI 50/1.8 or new MKII 50/1.8 focusing. and toni-a wrote:
Guys nobody mentioned the tiny goldy 28mm f2.8, diry cheap, very small and lightweight, excelent build quality unlke the 50 f1.8, very dood focus unlike the 50mm f1.8, very durable focus mechanism life unlike the 50mm f1.4 whose micro USM fails after some time.
I have all three: 28mm f/2.8, 50mm f/1.8 (Mark I), and 85mm f/1.8.
SchnellerGT wrote:
Which "cheap" prime makes for the best portrait lens on a crop body in your opinion?
On a crop body, these lenses all become even better performers because they are extracting the sweet center.
That depends on the portrait. On full-frame (classic size) like the 5D, the 85mm is classically perfect for head and shoulders or head only. 50mm is perfect for torso (waist up) and does very well on head and shoulders if you don't get too tight, and very well on 3/4. 28mm is good for full-length, but drop down to about 4 foot level and don't crowd the subject. 35mm f/2 (a very good inexpensive lens) would probably be better for full-length.
On the 1.6 crop bodies like the 20D I have, bump these all down a notch: 50mm for head and shoulders, 85mm for tight head portraits, 28mm for full body to torso pictures.
I'm late to this party, but it's a favorite topic for me. My 2 cents:
1. 85/1.8 - just love it
2. 50/1.8 Mk I - same as #1
3. 35/2 - same as #1
4. 28/1.8 - new to this lens but so far I'm impressed
5. 20/2.8 - very new to this one, too. Jury's out but it seems better than its reputation.
I'm lucky to have the 35L and the 85L, but I use the non-L lenses more. Less to handle, lug, and potentially bang up with surprisingly little performance trade-off for almost everything I'm doing, imho. It's getting to the point where I may sell the L's. Heresy, no?
Easily the 85f1.8 (if that length works obviously). I have the 50f1.4 as well (I was looking forward to it and it's been a let down - not bad my any means just not amazing) and it's not a candle to the 85f1.8 (at least my copies).
I never said the 50/1.8 was *sharper* than the 50/1.4. The 50/1.4 is a *little* sharper (as measured in MTF), but the difference isn't great enough to overcome my preference for the 50/1.8's rendering, or make me think that the 50/1.4 is *better* for *my* photos, it isn't. The two lenses render things *differently*, I can see it in my own examples and on pbase in other's... everyone is allowed a preference.
Regarding what gets parroted on this list... there was a recent thead on how crappy the 35L bokeh is (with examples) and then a list of all the 50+ comments in the Review section calling it "stunning," "wonderful" etc. etc... a lot of people say what they want to believe... I spent 4 years trying to believe that the 50/1.4 was better than my old 50/1.8... now I'm happier after going back to a new 50/1.8 (though in retrospect, I wish that I would have just paid to get my old MKI serviced).
If sharpness is the driving quality in a lens, go by MTF, if rendering is the driver, look for as many example shots as you can. Sharpness can't be easily shown on the web but rendering and bokeh can.
>>The 50mm f/1.8 is actually a better performer than the f/1.4. I wouldn't say that based only on Canon's MTF charts or only on what people have said here, but when both agree on the f/1.8, it is probably true...
Here's another vote for the 28mm f/2.8, It's a lovely lens for a 1.6x crop body. I found one with a hood for $110.
I acctually like using the 50mm f/1.8 for portraiture, wide open it's low in contrast and low resolution. Does good things for people if your going for that kind of look. It also makes a decent slide loupe... If you ever shoot slides...
The 50mm f/1.4 and 85mm are a step up in price from these two inexpensive bits of kit.
mh2000 wrote:
>>...what people have said here... and I don't count as a "people" ? hahaha!
I don't get you. Yes, I did count you as people, and yes, we are agreed that the standard perception of the 50mm f/1.8 versus f/1.4 is not the whole story. I think we agree that just because the 50mm f/1.4 is four times the cost of the 50 f/1.8 doesn't automatically make it four times better or even 1/4 better.
mh2000 wrote:
other than being faster than f2.8, I shoot my primes because they are all like a pound and a half lighter than my 24-70L (which I love by the way... better IQ than the primes IMO, even the L's)... but as I said, for *my* images, I find that the 50/1.8 gives more *pleasing* results than my 50/1.4... but that is completely subjective and limited to my shots... I've seen all the posted tests etc... that's why I gave the 50/1.4 a four year chance... just prefer the problems with the f1.8 to those in the f1.4...
I got my Super-Tak 50 for $26... that is quite nice wide open. my TS-E's are also quite nice primes... very "world class imaging" IMO... so all is not lost ...Show more →
Oh, I do the same thing. I'll sometimes go out with just my 50/1.4, especially when I'm bringing the camera along "just in case". I just find that when I'm going out to get some serious shooting done, I find my 28-75 more versatile than bringing 2-3 primes in its range.
That said, I'm certainly not going to sell any of my primes. They all do their job, and do it well.
>>I think we agree that just because the 50mm f/1.4 is four times the cost of the 50 f/1.8 doesn't automatically make it four times better or even 1/4 better.
right... just for *my* uses it isn't better at all... in fact it's worse.
Not mentioned also is that the 50/1.4 has more distortion as well... which bothered me at times... and a PTLens correction will probably knock the MTF down below that of a 50/1.8.
sorry to go on and on with my dislike for the 50/1.4... it's just that my 4 years with one was very dissatisfying.
>>I don't get you.
I guess I didn't quite get the sublety of your post either
My little Zuiko has taken the sting off, however. If only Olympus had made an OM-compatible AF mount instead of 4/3rds... I'd love a super-compact DSLR with tiny lenses like these little Zuiko beauties.