I'll vote 85mm f/1.2 -- I see it primarily as an expensive niche lens for high-end amateurs and mid-level pros.
As for "any MF lens on AF body" ... many people purchase those lenses because some are cheap and high IQ (the Olympus 24mm f/2.8--$135, 28mm f/3.5-- $65, and 50mm f/1.8-- $20) come to mind. Putting all MF lenses into one basket is silly considering there are hundreds of those lenses ranging from $5 to $10,000 and across a continuum of IQ and other characteristics. Some are overrated and some are underrated.
(NB: I write this whole post well aware that "overrated" is subjective.)
Personally, I think the Canon 10-22 is a fun lens that's takes some interesting shots with unique perspective - see first picture below. But yea, on a trip to Antarctica, South Georgia, and Falklands, this Fur Seal didn't think much of the Canon 10-22 either ... ;-)
What L prime? The 50/1.0 or 50/1.2? The 35L? They will not "trounce" the 50/1.8 for sharpness, especially stopped down a bit. Leica primes are generally a lot better than L-primes and the 50/1.8 stands up to them pretty well. Yes, the II is cheap feeling... but nothng that shows up in the your photos. It's a very decent cheap lens.
Agree that a III upgrade would be nice... or just go back to the MKI design would be fine.
>>I vote for the EF 50/1.8 II. So what if it's only $100? It feels every bit as cheap as it is, and for people saying how sharp it is...well, clearly they've not shot with an L prime.
The only Canon lens that I have ever been really dissappointed with was the 24-105L. Soft images, lots of distortion on the wide end, and the overall build quality just didn't seem up to the usual L quality. I sent it back after 3 days.
A hugely expensive plastic lens EF-S that takes itself far too seriously
David
I have to agree here I have owned several of these over the years and I always felt something was lacking. It is nice and sharp but compared to teh 24-70 I felt the plastic built, dust issues, no hood and cost way to much.
50mm f/1.8 on cropped sensor cameras for new DSLR owners.
Yes, it is cheap. Yes, it produces fine image quality.
No, it isn't the right focal length for most people shooting a cropped sensor body. No, it doesn't make sense for true beginners to rush out and buy a prime when a zoom is more fun, more flexible, and has fine IQ for their purposes. No, 50mm on a cropped sensor is not a "normal" focal length. No, you don't need to "start with a prime before you learn to use a zoom."
All of that said, if you really need a decent and inexpensive 50mm lens, this is a fine little lens. :-)
Besides build quality, I don't find the IQ that good either despite everyone raving how great it is. The IQ and sharpness don't seem any better than the 18-55 IS kit lens.
The nifty fifty is an excuse for poor people to have a prime lens so they can having bragging rights.
The 50 f/1.8 II is a POS but optically it is every bit as good as a L prime, and I have the 35L, 85LII and 200 f/2L IS to compare it against. The 50mm f/1.8 II is as good as the 200mm f/2.8L IS when at f/2.8, as are the other 2 lenses. Wide open on FF, the 50 f/1.8 II is as good as the 35L and a tad behind the 85LII
If you find that your 50 f/1.8 II is not good optically, it is because:
1. Sample Variation
2. User error
I have to disagree with the person who said 100mm Macro f2.8 IS. I got this lens yesterday and took some shots handheld at 1/30 1:1 and they were pretty sharp! I love this lens, to me the extra price was worth it.
The 85mm f/1.2L. Kept mine for two days and sent it back to B&H. I must have gotten lucky and got a fine copy of the 85mm f/1.8. Couldn't justify keeping it.
)
, the 200 1.8 might not be someone choice for a variety of reasons but saying it is the MOST overrated lens??