Funny, to my untrained eye, the 50 1.8 seems to take such nice pictures. I only have two other lenses right now; 300 2.8 IS and 85 1.2. I would rank them 300, 85 and 50 in terms of IQ but the 50 is so competetive, it just leaves me trying to explain such a high descrepency in price compared to a low descrepency in IQ. At least for headshots.
Taylor Barrett wrote:
That's quite an... odd set of lenses...
I know. I'll be the first to admit I don't know what the hell I'm doing. This is a brand new hobby to me and I'm really just experimenting with equipment.
LoneWolf2 wrote:
well
i'll take the 300 off your hands
Just got it last week. Have you ever had one before? I took some pictures of my family in the kitchen tonight with a flash and was able to zoom in at 200% on my wife who was very outraged on her appearance. It's THAT resolving!!!
The price difference comes from the fact that it doesn't cost much to make a great 50/1.8, but it certainly costs a lot to make a great 85/1.2 and 300/2.8 IS...
50 1.8 is a real gem. I had that same feeling like you when I started shooting with it. Clearly the best setup for a beginner. a nice 30/40D and a 50 1.8. Good enough..
I upgraded to a 50 1.4...but then bought the 50 1.8 back. seller's remorse....
With a lens as easily made as the 50 f/1.8, the only real limiting factor is matching supply with demand to produce the best scenario for Canon. If Canon can churn out 50 f/1.8s easily, and the cost of production is not high (I would imagine the most expensive part is the glass, as the build is not impressive), then Canon is only limited by the amount they can produce. They probably make a good margin on the lens, so they'll sell them so long as there is a buyer.
Consider the 300 f/2.8, on the other hand. More of a specialized lens that doesn't necessarily have a huge (capable) market. Sure, everyone wants the lens, but the cost of production coupled with the small amount of buyers at a profitable price limits its production numbers, which raises price along the demand curve.
It is cheap, easy to use, has a good FL on both crop and FF, and for many it's their first and / or only prime.
OTOH, if I look at my primes, it is nothing special in terms of IQ.
That said, it doesn't detract for its bang for the buck factor and it does proof that the returns on the premium paid for ever more expensive primes is ever diminishing. Good thing for your wallet.
well... there is nothing special about it when compared to some Leica and Zeiss 50's, but it can meet or beat some very expensive L-zooms... so that is kind of *something* ... "special" I don't know...
The 50/1.8 is a real gem. I only sold mine because AF on the 40D wasn't as good as on the 350D.
Considering prices... just look at the size of the elements - you can make 10 nifty-fifties from the front element of the 300 alone.
mh2000 wrote:
...but it can meet or beat some very expensive L-zooms... so that is kind of *something* ... "special" I don't know...
Yes, it is something, but not special as it shares that trait with almost every (at least Canon) prime.
And we go back to the zoom vs prime debate, which I won't enter.
Again, I don't think that it is really special, but that it has some variables in its favor that make you feel that it is. For many it is the experience of using a prime for the first time (vs a kit zoom, or at best a consumer one).
To the OP, enjoy your lens, my reasoning is not meant as a negative comment on your obvious enjoyment of it, nor the result you have shown.
I really like the IQ of this little one. However, I struggle with the AF. A lot of the shots taken with this one are rejected as they are out of focus. Nonetheless, I still like to use it because when I'm lucky enough to have the focus right on, the picture is just lovely. When this happen, I feel like wanting one of these nice USM prime.
My 50 f/1.8II is sharp wide open, I must have a good copy as it often gets hammered for being soft wide open.
It is as sharp as my 85L II wide open (both are eyelash sharp, no haze, with DOF being the limiting factors)
Unfortunately my 50's AF accuracy is terrible! It's just too haphazard to use for any important shots. Me dropping it and having to superglue it back together twice probably didn't do any favours to the AF system
