saaketham wrote:
I agree about the price to quality ratio ... but not enough to hype this lens as a "must-have" lens. I've seen this term used quite often, about the 50 f/1.8. Guess its a good one for really low-light. I'd rather use the 85 f/1.8 though .. beautiful portrait lens for a cheap price.
Thing is, $400 for a lens isn't considered "cheap" by many people. I know it isn't for me. Thus, the sub-$100 price of the 50 f/1.8 really makes it shine. I know I really like my 50 f/1.8 for just about all facets of photography...but I don't really want to drop the cash on an EF 50 f/1.4 (but, I did get a Nikon 50 f/1.4 Ai for even lower light photography).
However, even looking at it for what it is (ignoring price), the build quality is low, but image quality is still quite high. It suffers from Spherical aberration artifacts wide open, but sharpens up quite a bit before f/2.8. When you factor in price, you'll be hard pressed to find a lens of similar quality for 2x the price.
kakomu wrote:
Thing is, $400 for a lens isn't considered "cheap" by many people. I know it isn't for me. Thus, the sub-$100 price of the 50 f/1.8 really makes it shine. I know I really like my 50 f/1.8 for just about all facets of photography...but I don't really want to drop the cash on an EF 50 f/1.4 (but, I did get a Nikon 50 f/1.4 Ai for even lower light photography).
True ... But $400 is not an expense, because you can get most of it back when you sell it. So, for less than the cost of a 50 f/1.8, you can use a 85 f/1.8 or a Tamron 28-75 and sell it when you're ready to move up. If you consider lenses as expenses, then yeah .. That's why most newbies (myself included) go through cheap lens after cheap lens initially and move up, losing money in the sale of each cheap lens in between.
In my case
- Can 28-135, Tam 28-75, Can 17-55 for $870 and I can still sell it for $800 and am really happy with it
- Can 70-300, Sig 100-300, Can 70-200 f/4, Can 70-200 f/2.8 for $950 and I can still sell it for $850-900 because it's a sharp copy in great condition
I could've just saved myself lots of $ by just going with really good lenses, got better IQ than my 28-135 or 70-300 for years and still have spent less than the route I took. But, I was a student then and couldn't justify paying big bucks for lenses. So, I see what you're saying, even though in the long run, you actually save money and get more IQ by buying a good lens in the first place and sticking with it. Easy for me to say .. but I am still not practising it in my search for a super-tele.
Yup I agree... There's an initial price to play... But you recoup most of it after selling... So the time you had the lens only costs the difference... And if you get a paid gig, then most of the time it's paid for by itself... Just buying any lens outright is really expensive... All of this crap is overpriced...
That's why when I say something is overrated, it's strictly about it's PERFORMANCE
saaketham wrote:
True ... But $400 is not an expense, because you can get most of it back when you sell it.
If you sell it and you have the avenue to do so and someone wants it for your price (many do not).
saaketham wrote:
I could've just saved myself lots of $ by just going with really good lenses, got better IQ than my 28-135 or 70-300 for years and still have spent less than the route I took.
Sure, if you were clairvoyant and could predict the future. However, myself (probably you) and most amateurs and beginners I know and meet have absolutely NO IDEA what they want to photograph when they start. They have little idea how the focal length affects anything beyond angle of view. They don't even know if they'll stick with photography next year! Thus, cheap lenses are an easy source of education, especially if a small amount of cash is allotted to the hobby.
Unfortunately, many people suggest to buy expensive immediately, but to suggest that a beginner should immediately upgrade to an expensive lens is ludicrous as it will probably be an uniformed decision that can easily make the beginner unhappy, especially if they're still struggling with getting their kit lens to function.
So, for many experienced people, cheap lenses = growing pains, I suppose. Me, I'm perfectly happy with my cheap zooms and MF primes. On my 5D, my 50 f/1.8 easily became my most used lens because it offers great quality and a wide aperture. When I don't need AF, I'm sure my 50 f/1.4 will replace it soon enough.
joewoo wrote:
Yup I agree... There's an initial price to play... But you recoup most of it after selling... So the time you had the lens only costs the difference... And if you get a paid gig, then most of the time it's paid for by itself... Just buying any lens outright is really expensive... All of this crap is overpriced...
That's why when I say something is overrated, it's strictly about it's PERFORMANCE
This applies only if someone gets paid for their work or if someone wants to resell their stuff. In my opinion, reselling is a pain in the butt. I don't like it, thus I purchase things with the intent of keeping them for long periods of time.
Also, I'm not a "pro", nor intend to be one anytime soon. I photograph things for my enjoyment and sometimes as a volunteer for a local cat shelter. It's my hobby and I plan on keeping it as much for now as I'm perfectly happy with my current career.
To me, A good example would be the 135mm f/2L. People seem to salivate over the lens 24/7 and 135L love threads pop up all the time. Meanwhile, the 85 f/1.8 and 100 f/2 are similar in design, cost far less and produce quality that is very similar (source), yet they fall to the wayside quite frequently (the 85 less-so than the 100) and are overlooked. As such, being "overrated" could merely be that there's a disproportionate amount of favoritism for one lens compared to other similar choices.
I've owned all 3 including the 85L II and while those other two are close the minute you get some sunlight in the picture it's a different story. Plus wide open the 85 f/1.8 and 100 f/2 just aren't anywhere near as sharp. I have wide open shots with the 135L where u can see threads within threads of clothing. It's not close.
droopy1592 wrote:
I've owned all 3 including the 85L II and while those other two are close the minute you get some sunlight in the picture it's a different story. Plus wide open the 85 f/1.8 and 100 f/2 just aren't anywhere near as sharp. I have wide open shots with the 135L where u can see threads within threads of clothing. It's not close.
So, basically, it's your word against the review's word?
kakomu wrote:
Unfortunately, many people suggest to buy expensive immediately, but to suggest that a beginner should immediately upgrade to an expensive lens is ludicrous as it will probably be an uniformed decision that can easily make the beginner unhappy, especially if they're still struggling with getting their kit lens to function.
I agree. I didn't follow that advice either. And none of my friends listen when I tell them the same thing either. It's always learned first-hand at the expense of a lot of $ buying and selling cheap gear and wondering why the IQ is so bad. You're right .. it's something everyone has to go through, I suppose.
saaketham wrote:
I agree. I didn't follow that advice either. And none of my friends listen when I tell them the same thing either. It's always learned first-hand at the expense of a lot of $ buying and selling cheap gear and wondering why the IQ is so bad. You're right .. it's something everyone has to go through, I suppose.
I wouldn't go so far as to suggest that the IQ is bad on most kit and cheap lenses. They certainly suffer their share of flaws (spherical aberrations, chromatic aberrations, softness, etc), but most lenses still perform quite well in the right hands. The ease of getting good quality from cheap equipment may be quite low, but you can still get good pictures out of cheap equipment.
I'm of the opinion that most bad pictures tend to come from a lack of experience. There are plenty of bad pictures that stem from using the wrong equipment (slow lenses in low light without a tripod or flash, for instance), but bad pictures in favorable light are probably not from the kit. There are plenty of examples of great photos using old Rebels and the EF 75-300 f/4-5.6. Moreover, expensive equipment isn't going make an inexperienced photographer better.
I just think that cheap equipment gets a bad rap most of the time because it's more difficult to get good results from it.
Though, if you want really bad image quality, try the opteka 58mm screw-on lenses. Those are genuinely horrible.
Pissing into the wind contest are overrated cause everyone ends up wet. And this thread's starting to feel like one.
Different people take photos of different things. What sit unused in a bag or where the features don't get used for one photog can be the thing that gets another person all excited. So I don't think there's a single lens listed that really are overrated. What's overrated is people telling others what they should think. I prefer to suggest some facts and leave it at that.
at any common aperture, the 50/1.8 should meet or beat your 2 zooms at 50mm. Yes the 24-70L has some subtle imaging properties that are nicer than the 50... but it comes at a price, lack of speed and with a huge amount of added weight.
timbop wrote:
Have to agree that the 50/1.8 is way overrated optically - it can be sharp if you stop it down enough but there is a lot more to image quality than sharpness. For the very same reason I disagree with the 70-200/2.8IS being considered overrated - yes wide open it is a little soft but it is the most versatile portrait/wedding/event lens in the Canon lineup.
I'm not sure why the 50mm f1.8 mk I hasn't been mentioned yet. Sure, the build of the mk II makes it feel like an L by comparison, but out of that context the mk I surely isn't worth the excessive price tag the used market demands.
New 5D owners are given the suggestion of a 85/1.8 all the time for a portrait lens... putting a 50/1.8 on a cropped camera is about the same.
I think everyone should get the kit lens when they buy a cropped camera and then add a prime or two for speed. A portrait length lens is a good canidate because it offers wide aperture for the ability to play with DOF effects, which are more often useful in portraiture.
(*I* would usually suggest noob's looking for a first prime get the EF 35/2)
gdanmitchell wrote:
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. :-)
sixby6ix wrote:
out of that context the mk I surely isn't worth the excessive price tag the used market demands.
Taking anything out of context starts to make most products seem overpriced. Only products with slim profits can be taken out of context.
That being said, the 50 f/1.8 mkI's markup is due, mostly, to it being a collector's item, much like the 50 f/1.0. The 1.8 mkI was sold for only 3 years before being replaced by the mkII in 1990. The 1.8 mkII was inferior as far as build quality is concerned. The 50 f/1.0 was very expensive, making it rare. It was replaced by a slower lens
This also shows why the 85 f/1.2 mk1 isn't a collector's lens: It was replaced by a better lens with the same aperture.
I don't know about over-rated...over-priced would be a good topic to discuss. I could think of a lot that would fit into that category. I happen to think that the 70-200 2.8 IS is an outstanding lens. A bit pricey, yes, but excellent.
85 f/1.8 is NO good in high contrast shots with tons of purple fringing
100 f/2 is marginally better but it's no 135 L
No good? I beg to differ. Even the photozone.de review begs to differ, which marginalizes the purple fringing and places the 85 f/1.8's quality at only half a star lower than the 135 f/2.
Easy for me to say .. but I am still not practising it in my search for a super-tele. 