asbalyan wrote:
I have owned two 50mm f1.8 in last one year, and end up selling both. Not sure whats the reason, those suckers never able to focus on point.
I believe it's the stepper-style focus motor. I also had two copies of 50mm f/1.8 II, and got rid of both due to AF issues as well as disliking the optics. The EF 50mm f/1.4 is not perfect, but it's far better.
mh2000 wrote:
My 50/1.8 II is perfectly accurate in AF on every body I've shot it on (as was my MK I)... I think most people's problems with it are psychological...
You are the world's foremost champion of this (IMHO) crappy lens. My problems with it are not psychological, I assure you.
jvarszegi wrote:
You are the world's foremost champion of this (IMHO) crappy lens. My problems with it are not psychological, I assure you.
My experience across 2 50/1.8 II's and several bodies from a film Rebel XS to an EOS 3 agrees with mh2000's. Good lens, no AF issues, dirt cheap but poor build.
mawz wrote:
My experience across 2 50/1.8 II's and several bodies from a film Rebel XS to an EOS 3 agrees with mh2000's. Good lens, no AF issues, dirt cheap but poor build.
It's over the top to say that the very many who have experienced the AF issues have some sort of psychological issue. mh2000 makes a career at FM of searching out every thread that refers to either the 50mm f/1.8 and f/1.4, and propping up the former and dissing the latter. It just goes over the top when he starts insulting users to explain away his own bias.
When you have users with other fast lenses that focus accurately, and report fairly consistently that a certain lens design has spotty AF, and that lens has a "stepper" design that means it can't focus completely accurately unless the subject aligns on one of the steps, it's just insulting to refer to some supposed psych issue to explain away the known issue.
Focus errors may be masked by many things: users who stop down most or all of the time, users who don't know how to tell the difference between an in-focus shot and one that's slightly out of focus, loving a bargain too much, or other reasons. IMO one of these reasons may apply to you, and of course I realize you probably see the matter differently. The 50mm f/1.8 is what it is: a bargain with okay optics that doesn't offer the most accurate focus, by design.
I don't agree with mh2000's characterization of AF issues on the 50/1.8 as psychological issues.
I was just commenting that having owned two examples of the 50/1.8 II, I did not experience AF issues with either (the same experience with the lenses that mh2000 claims). And I primarily shot wide open with mine (albeit not usually at long distances). I'm also very aware of what's in-focus and what's not, it's not that hard to judge for somebody with a lot of experience shooting fast lenses wide-open.
Frankly, I'd suspect that a lot of the 50/1.8 'focus issues' that get reported are actually a result of lack of precision in the lower-end Canon bodies AF systems. My EOS 3 was spot on with focus with any lens I stuck on it including the 50/1.8, while that Rebel XS had issues nailing focus with a 22-55 USM at 22mm, the AF system was just imprecise.
The 50/1.8 is not the uber-lens. But the AF system in it is not its weak point (Build is, it's built worse than some disposable cameras).
Pedro Pedras wrote:
Well, i've been reading some sites and the H means that it is composed by 8 elements.
"G-Zuiko means there are 7 elements in its optical composition. (E=5, F=6, G=7, H=8, I=9; J=10, K=11). Some Zuikos show "AUTO-S" denoting the lense as a Standard, while AUTO-W and AUTO-T refer to Wideangle and Telephoto construction. All newer series of Zuiko dropped such classifications."
That may or may not be correct. A different site (I didn't save the url) with just as much impressive data & pictures, says the prefix letter simply denotes the time-period when the lenses were made. Thus, G-Zuiko is followed cronologically by H-Zuiko. Then they switched to "MC" to denote multi-coated lenses, then they dropped the "MC" once all their lenses were multi-coated.
I don't know who's right, but the latter explanation could be: Don't some Zuikos have the same # of elements in both "H" and later non-prefix versions?
If anyone has a "G" or "H" Zuiko that ALSO says "MC," then that would perhaps indicate that the first explanation (number of elements) is correct. Does anyone have such a lens?
There's a whole lotta' strange information on the internet.
ok, so you think I'm being rude... well... do some searching on the AF issues with the EF 50/1.4... all those people are cracked? At least as many people report issues with the EF 50/1.4 AF as the 50/1.8. I have been shooting Canon EF lenses for more than 20 years. I have never noticed any better or worse focus *accuracy* with either 50/1.8 than any L-lenses I have shot (speed and silence is not linked to accuracy).
My comments are based mainly on the FM new to photography enthusiasts always posting that they *started* out with the "nifty 50" and then "upgraded" to the 50/1.4 and "it was so worth it" ... never mind that they probably upgraded a body and actually gained experience over time before getting the EF 50/1.4.
The 50/1.8 is built like a piece of crap, feels like one, sounds like one... part of performance is expectation... you don't agree? Then I don't think you understand human psychology...
Also, I'm not "propping up" anything. Everyone expresses opinions on this forum, so do I. (I know everyone wants every Canon thread to converge on an L-lens... just not me). Yup, my MKI was nicer, but the MKII still performs fine and hasn't broken on me. For those following my posts, you should know that I am much more a champion for the Summicron 50... much better than the "crappy" EF 50/1.8 MKII, but the crappy one still is capable of producing photos that can hang next to anything from the Summicron or any L-lenses I have owned.
I also believe that the Zuiko letter designation does follow the number of elements used, consistent with all my Oly gear... the proof that this is not correct is to find one lens with a letter designation that does not match the number of elements... anyone have a single example?
What nice about getting the Canon 50 1.4 is that you have a fast lens with AF that's inexpensive. The second, more expensive choice, might be the 80 1.8 or the Sigma 50 1.4. Having a lens under f2 with AF is important to many people.
I just can't feel that $193 for the 50/1.8 MKI is a "good price" ... nice little lens though (I shot one for 20 years until it got old and really needed service... so I sold it on ebay
from what I've observed from the Zeiss 50/1.7 (which I'm under the impression is very close to the 1.4?) It's no better or worse than the Canon 50 1.4 So if you don't mind spending a little extra (and gaining auto focus) I would say stick with the Canon, for the 50mm anyway.
mh2000 wrote:
I just can't feel that $193 for the 50/1.8 MKI is a "good price" ... nice little lens though (I shot one for 20 years until it got old and really needed service... so I sold it on ebay
>>Canon EF 50/1.8 Mk I (w/ filter) - $193
Don't compare the US market with the European. On this side things are much more expensive and besides there is much less offer. All the 50/1.8 Mk I i saw on ebay (on europe because of the taxes) were above this price. I was bidding on one that was sold for $205 and no filter. Ok the filter is about $10 but never the less it was cheaper.
If we were talking about the Mk II that yes is much more cheaper, around $100 new and with shipping included!
If i ordered a 50/1.8 Mk I from the US used on ebay, i would have to pay shipping plus 20% taxes when it arrived.
If i bought a 50/1.8 Mk II new there in B&H for e.g. it would cost me $320 plus 8,5% NY tax.
I could try and find one on ebay in the US for the end of the month, but ill be in a hotel in NY and i wouldn't risk that.
yeah, for me with a new MKII costing $70 any day of the week... I wouldn't consider an old MKI worth $200... but that is just me... the MKI is much nicer to put on your camera though. You should enjoy it very much... many of my favorite photos where taken with that specific lens.
Probably the IQ isn't worth the aprox. $100. But the fact is that the Mk II is much cheaper so they had to save somewere!
For me it was cheaper than any other choices so let's hope i like it!
I have the Zuiko 100/2.8 and it is stunning. I bet the 135/3.5 is in the same league. If you search here you'll see the Sauper Tak 135/3.5 is quite famous and cheap too.
Pedro Pedras wrote:
Probably the IQ isn't worth the aprox. $100. But the fact is that the Mk II is much cheaper so they had to save somewere!
For me it was cheaper than any other choices so let's hope i like it!
What about that Zuiko 135/3.5, any good?
There is NO IQ difference between the mkI and mkII. It's all in the build and AF motor.
I don't think the new prices were that much different, just the market has been driven up by people that really really want the older one makes it seem so.
I just know that when I sold my 20 year old MKI it was starting to suffer a bit from age... so the new MKII outperforms it.
I am absolutely convince Canon released the MKII to help drive up EF 50/1.4 sales... just like they keep the 35/2 comparitively crappy (same as 50/1.8 MKI) so it doesn't compete so strongly with the 35L.
Pedro Pedras wrote:
Probably the IQ isn't worth the aprox. $100. But the fact is that the Mk II is much cheaper so they had to save somewere!
My problems with it are not psychological, I assure you. 