 |
|
|
abargath
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Jun 13, 2003
Location: Iceland
Posts: 0
|
|
Review Date: Mar 28, 2005
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: Not Indicated
| Rating: 10
|
|
Pros:
|
Small, light, focus is fast and good aperture. Built pretty well, at least compared to the new version. Optically pretty much as good as they come.
|
|
Cons:
|
Ugly bokeh (compared to 1.4 version or 24-70L).
|
|
|
Optically great, give it a 10 there easily. Used this lens very very very much, love the big aperture and everything about it but I exchanged it for a 50mm 1.4 about a month ago. Here are the reasons why I exchanged it.
1. Wanted better bokeh, the 5 bladed diapragm wasn“t delivering as good images regarding bokeh as I had grown accustomed to from the 24-70L.
2. Wanted an USM focus motor.
3. I could afford it.
4. Not really the reason, but I was curious about what could be done with a 1.4 aperture.
If I was a poor student I wouldn“t have parted with this lens for anything but I could afford the 1.4 lens so I did. I sold this lens to one of my good friends and I know it has a good home now, normally I would just have kept it for the memories or as a backup but I wanted to do him a favor as he is just starting out in the SLR world.
|
|
 Mar 28, 2005
|
|
kcmh
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Jul 11, 2004
Location: United States
Posts: 134
|
|
Review Date: Feb 19, 2005
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: $60.00
| Rating: 10
|
|
Pros:
|
Everything is perfect on this lens
|
|
Cons:
|
none
|
|
|
Bought mine used at a local camera store for 60 bucks. I have never had a better lens, even though I use this lens very little it is the perfect lens. Only thing better is $1000 and up
|
|
|
Feb 19, 2005
|
|
vrosario63
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Jan 9, 2005
Location: United States
Posts: 8
|
|
Review Date: Feb 3, 2005
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: $100.00
| Rating: 10
|
|
Pros:
|
Great pics....Very sharp compaired to todays lens. It will be the perfect portrait lens at tha 1.6 crop factor of the 20D...It's ol school focus drive is noisy so what...For the money and the clarity it can't be beat...Manual focus is tight and it uses a metal mount as to where the new 50mm 1.8 mkII uses plastic.
|
|
Cons:
|
Noisy focus drive....
|
|
|
|
|
|
Feb 3, 2005
|
|
Antti29
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Jan 27, 2005
Location: Finland
Posts: 0
|
|
Review Date: Feb 3, 2005
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: $160.00
| Rating: 8
|
|
Pros:
|
Cheap, fast and light.
|
|
Cons:
|
Slow and noisy autofocus, not so sharp at large apertures.
|
|
|
I was lucky to come across the first version of the EF 50mm f/1.8 at an Internet action. Although I paid a higher price than that of a new mk II, I got a decent focus ring, a metal lens mount and a distance scale, which all are missing from the newer model.
In my tests I found the sharpness to be quite poor wide open and steadily increasing towards f/8. Corners were softer than the center. However, that's the only complaint I have in terms of picture quality. Both colours and contrast seem to be fine.
The slow and noisy autofocus motor is something that I don't like about this lens, as is the 5-blade diaphragm, which makes out-of-focus highlights pretty ugly.
For the money the EF 50mm f/1.8 is an excellent buy. If you find one, go buy it even if it meant paying a bit more than for the mk II.
|
|
|
Feb 3, 2005
|
|
mdwhaley
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Oct 17, 2002
Location: United States
Posts: 3
|
|
Review Date: Jan 22, 2005
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: Not Indicated
| Rating: 10
|
|
Pros:
|
Great portrait focal length on a 10d. 1.8, image quality
|
|
Cons:
|
none
|
|
|
I got this lens years ago with an Elan II E so I didn't know what to say I paid for it. Free as far as I'm concerned. I probably should have given it a better build quality rating since I fell off my bike onto the camera face down on this lens on concrete. The fall jammed the lens since the front moves in and out when focusing. I managed to get it working again but ever since it isn't quite as fast and it can hunt for focus more than it ever did before. It is still tack sharp though. Apparently the damage did not affect the accuracy. Images from this lens are very sharp. Good color and contrast. This is the bar for which all Canon lenses should be compared in terms of image quality. I think everyone should have this lens, or the version II I guess since this one isn't made anymore.Really get this lens.
|
|
|
Jan 22, 2005
|
|
paparazzinick
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Jan 8, 2005
Location: United States
Posts: 7003
|
|
Review Date: Jan 9, 2005
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: $60.00
| Rating: 10
|
|
Pros:
|
sharp wide open, inexpensive, light, quick focus
|
|
Cons:
|
cheap build, plastic mount
|
|
|
I use this for portraits and for indoor sports where I can get close to the action. It focuses fast, not as fast as USM, but fast enough to keep up with gymnastics, basketball and volleyball.Great lens wide open, lots of contrast and very sharp.
|
|
|
Jan 9, 2005
|
|
LiVeR
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Jul 26, 2004
Location: Canada
Posts: 53
|
|
Review Date: Jan 2, 2005
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: $103.00
| Rating: 10
|
|
Pros:
|
very light, inexpensive, big aperture !
very little aberations and all around great sharpness.
|
|
Cons:
|
a little noisy, plastic ring, 52mm filter size.
but these are all normal factors considering I got a new lens for 125$ cdn price tag.
|
|
This is my first prime lens and certainly not the last one i'm going to get,
its sharpness is unmatched through all my lenses, its light and inexpensive,
I seem to be taking alot of portraits lately and this seems to be exactly what I needed. crazy amount of light means faster shutters, nice heavy bokeh,
for that price, i'm laughing 
I was debating this lens against the 50mm canon macro.
took this one over the macro because it was 6 times on the price tag.
and because of the reviews on FM of course !
|
|
|
Jan 2, 2005
|
|
elOsito
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Dec 29, 2004
Location: Germany
Posts: 3
|
|
Review Date: Dec 29, 2004
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: Not Indicated
| Rating: 10
|
|
Pros:
|
durabilty, all the other stuff that was already mentioned
|
|
Cons:
|
none
|
|
i'm jusing the MK I my mother bought when i was about a year old - that was in 1986! it has been all over the world and now it's on my 300D/20D.
it was and it still is great, nothing more i have to say never heard my mom complaining - and neither will i!
buy it, you won't regret it!
|
|
|
Dec 29, 2004
|
|
Mr Pixcel
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Dec 30, 2003
Location: United States
Posts: 561
|
|
Review Date: Dec 26, 2004
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: $60.00
| Rating: 10
|
|
Pros:
|
worth every penny
|
|
Cons:
|
none
|
|
|
Great Lens for the price
|
|
|
Dec 26, 2004
|
|
Dan Martin
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Sep 7, 2004
Location: Canada
Posts: 876
|
|
Review Date: Dec 23, 2004
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: $98.00
| Rating: 10
|
|
Pros:
|
Great low light lens. Sharp and good contrast. Amazing value.
|
|
Cons:
|
None at this price
|
|
|
|
|
|
Dec 23, 2004
|
|
richyoung
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Nov 1, 2002
Location: United States
Posts: 39
|
|
Review Date: Dec 20, 2004
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: $85.00
| Rating: 10
|
|
Pros:
|
By far my favorite lens, everyone should have one
|
|
Cons:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Dec 20, 2004
|
|
Carl Auer
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Mar 14, 2004
Location: United States
Posts: 9424
|
|
Review Date: Dec 7, 2004
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: $75.00
| Rating: 8
|
|
Pros:
|
light, cheap, fast
|
|
Cons:
|
AF not as fast, light, and cheap feeling
|
|
|
For the money, a great, fast lens. I bought it for low light and indoor sports, but doubt I will use it much for sports. It tends to be a little short for what I want, and the AF in my opionion was not that quick. Also feels very cheap (I have the plastic mount Mk II). But you can not go wrong with a $75 1.8 lens.
|
|
|
Dec 7, 2004
|
|
howiemudge
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Nov 29, 2004
Location: United Kingdom
Posts: 0
|
|
Review Date: Dec 3, 2004
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: Not Indicated
| Rating: 10
|
|
Pros:
|
Very quick to focus and very sharp. The contrast and colour are also both excellent. For the money this lens is hard to beat IMHO. I constantly am amazed that I can get such professional results from a lens I paid £60 for. Superb.
|
|
Cons:
|
The only down side is the build quality but what do you expect for £60 :)
|
|
|
|
|
|
Dec 3, 2004
|
|
Drioannis
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Nov 23, 2004
Location: Greece
Posts: 359
|
|
Review Date: Nov 29, 2004
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: $65.00
| Rating: 6
|
|
Pros:
|
Very light,low cost prime,with very good performance for the price
|
|
Cons:
|
Plastic mount,no distance indicator(MkII)
|
|
|
I have the MkII which is great for the money.It is light and with f/1.8 very usable.Excellent value for money.
|
|
|
Nov 29, 2004
|
|
fozzybear1969
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Oct 27, 2004
Location: Canada
Posts: 309
|
|
Review Date: Nov 15, 2004
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: $100.00
| Rating: 10
|
|
Pros:
|
Cheap, Great bokeh, great for low light, sharp pictures, good contrast, very very light.
|
|
Cons:
|
Not USM, plastic mount.
|
|
|
This is the best bargan lens out there and I am glad that I bought this lens. I use it to photograph models and people and the image quality is comparable to an L lens. I love the fact that it is light which great for my shakey hands holding heavy equipment. At f1.8 this lens produces great bokeh and is a great lens for low light situations. Wish it was USM, but Canon wants you to the more expensive 50mm 1.4 USM. Wish it had a metal mount but that is why this lens is so light, again Canon wants you to buy the 50mm 1.4 USM. For such a low price and a great lens I should not complain.
|
|
|
Nov 15, 2004
|
|
phiggys
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Apr 7, 2004
Location: United Kingdom
Posts: 25
|
|
Review Date: Oct 30, 2004
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: $50.00
| Rating: 10
|
|
Pros:
|
Price, Quality, Fast f1.8 Mk1 are better built and a match for the F1.4
|
|
Cons:
|
If you have the MK1 nothing but the MK II is very plastic and feels fragile in comparison.
|
|
|
Have owned both MK 1 and MK II version of this lens and also the f1.4
IMO the MK1 50 f1.8 is the pick of the bunch.
Its also makes a nice portrait lens on the 10D.
|
|
|
Oct 30, 2004
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Reviews
|
Views
|
Date of last review
|
|
102
|
203791
|
Feb 22, 2013
|
|
|
Recommended By
|
Average Price
|
|
94% of reviewers
|
$101.18
|
|
|
Build Quality Rating
|
Price Rating
|
Overall Rating
|
|
7.71
|
9.42
|
9.0
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 |
