 |
|
|
fluxomatic
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Apr 21, 2006
Location: Germany
Posts: 0
|
|
Review Date: Apr 21, 2006
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: Not Indicated
| Rating: 10
|
|
Pros:
|
Price, lightweight, compact, optical quality, affordable 1:1.8
|
|
Cons:
|
Build, noise in AF mode, full-plastic
|
|
|
If you need:
- A sharp lens (teriffic from 2.8 on)
- A portrait lens for APS-C
- A low-light lens
- A cheap lens to start with
and can't afford the 50mm 1:1.4 or you simply use such a lens not often enough then this is yours. This lens always comes with me (bike-trip or backpack) because it weights nothing and the volume is neglectable. In combination with an ISO800 setting on my 350D it gives you also a lot of flexibility at low-light indoor shooting.
|
|
 Apr 21, 2006
|
|
lord_malone
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Oct 9, 2005
Location: United States
Posts: 496
|
|
Review Date: Apr 13, 2006
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: $78.00
| Rating: 9
|
|
Pros:
|
price, fast, focal range, "normal" perspective on FF, great portrait range for crop, lightweight, sharpness, color, contrast, IQ comparable to $1K+ glass, great to kick aound on the floor when bored
|
|
Cons:
|
Build (feels like a cheap toy), bokeh less than desireable, hunts in low light, loud AF
|
|
See the pros and cons. How can anyone has the "nifty fifty" in thei kit bag? 
|
|
|
Apr 13, 2006
|
|
IvoX
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Jan 29, 2006
Location: Netherlands
Posts: 0
|
|
Review Date: Apr 7, 2006
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: Not Indicated
| Rating: 9
|
|
Pros:
|
I like it. I can only recommend this lens for such a price.
|
|
Cons:
|
|
|
|
I like it. I can only recommend this lens for such a price.
|
|
|
Apr 7, 2006
|
|
ivyinvestor
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Mar 17, 2006
Location: United States
Posts: 237
|
|
Review Date: Apr 6, 2006
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: $79.00
| Rating: 9
|
|
Pros:
|
Low mass, wide aperture, high sharpness, low price, acceptable bokeh for a 5-blade.
|
|
Cons:
|
Color saturation, contrast, and build could be better, but still fine considering price point!
|
|
|
Bought this lens for as a stop-gap for candid portraiture from a local retailer after returning a seriously defective 85mm f/1.8 (and deciding whether or not to replace with a 100mm macro).
I have been impressed with the low light capabilities of the lens, as well as its color rendition and DOF. I'm also impressed by the low close focusing limit!
The lens has thus far seen a good deal of near landscape (cherry blossoms were out in DC!), candid, food, and night photography. I'm as impressed as I'd hoped I would be.
|
|
|
Apr 6, 2006
|
|
radiodenver
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Apr 4, 2006
Location: United States
Posts: 490
|
|
Review Date: Apr 4, 2006
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: $86.00
| Rating: 9
|
|
Pros:
|
Very Sharp. Very inexpensive. Very lite.
|
|
Cons:
|
Plastic
|
|
|
Another must have prime for the budget minded. It's very sharp and weighs nothing. There is no reason a Canon owner shouldn't have this lens.
|
|
|
Apr 4, 2006
|
|
erinbutler211
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Mar 11, 2006
Location: Germany
Posts: 17
|
|
Review Date: Apr 3, 2006
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: Not Indicated
| Rating: 9
|
|
Pros:
|
Very sharp, bold colours, price.
|
|
Cons:
|
None really.
|
|
|
After great frustration with a defective Tamron 28-75 zoom(front focus, non-sharp images), I bought this lovely little lens. After looking at the pictures this lens produced with my 20d, I knew I was not imagining the Tamron's nonsharpness. This lens is sharp! with lovely, vivid colour. All the way down to f1.8. Great value for price. Plastic build, small manual focus ring, no distance markings, blah blah blah. Whatever. You are not paying for all metal etc. Instead, for a very reasonable price, you get great optics. Makes me want more primes.
|
|
|
Apr 3, 2006
|
|
rushandy
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Aug 3, 2005
Location: United Kingdom
Posts: 4
|
|
Review Date: Apr 3, 2006
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: Not Indicated
| Rating: 9
|
|
Pros:
|
Very sharp, excellent colour rendition, incredibly cheap, produces great photos, f1.8.
|
|
Cons:
|
Focus ring feels a bit flimsy, sometimes hunts for focus.
|
|
|
This is the first lens I have bought for my 350D aside from the kit lens that came with the body. The pictures taken with this lens are much sharper, and reproduce colours much better, than the kit lens.
It really is a steal for the price. Obviously the build quality isn't particularly fantastic, but that isn't really important to me. Whats important is that it produces really, really great pictures when I use it properly. For a begginer like myself, a lens like this is invaluable.
I wouldn't hesitate in recommending it. At this price you really can't go wrong.
|
|
|
Apr 3, 2006
|
|
mikebranski
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Sep 18, 2005
Location: United States
Posts: 108
|
|
Review Date: Mar 26, 2006
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: $79.95
| Rating: 9
|
|
Pros:
|
Very sharp, light, compact, affordable
|
|
Cons:
|
"Sticky" AF/MF switch (see below), not the best auton focus, difficult manual focus ring
|
|
This is a very good lens for the price you can get it for, and definitely a step up (quality wise) from the 18-55mm 3.5-5.6 kit lens. Pictures are unbelievably sharp, and this compact, lightweight lens is one that's definitely worth having around.
As noted above (and in other reviews), my copy had a "sticky" auto focus/manual focus switch, so it wouldn't always go into auto focus mode. I think just a bit of working it back and forth has solved that issue. Also, the focusing ring is somewhat akward to use, but maybe that's just because it's different from what I'm used to.
The negatives can be gotten over (for me, anyway), and I definitely recommend this lens to others. One thing to note for those who are used to the 18-55mm: because this lens is prime, you're "stuck" at 50mm. Some people find this annoying or irritating and blame the lens for poor shots, but I find that it gets you thinking about new angles and ways to take shots. So get up, move around, and try out your new lens 
|
|
|
Mar 26, 2006
|
|
chavallos
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Dec 28, 2005
Location: Russia
Posts: 0
|
|
Review Date: Mar 24, 2006
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: $70.00
| Rating: 9
|
|
Pros:
|
Very good picture quality, very good sharpness, good brokeh, unbeatable value
|
|
Cons:
|
Cheap build quality, manual focus ring difficult to use
|
|
|
I've been using this lens for 6 months. Studio portraiture and street photography. It went thru Canon calibration, and it focuses better now, but results pretty much the same.
I have also 50mm f/1.4 and after some time I start noticing the difference, it's not sharpness, the F is very close to get noticible DOF difference or low light performance... I really see the difference in color representation, saturation and brokeh. f/1.4 has much `comforting` or sometimes warmer colors.... difficult to measure, that's why many people use f/1.8 with great success.
This is the best $70 you can spend on Canon gears.
|
|
|
Mar 24, 2006
|
|
CommonWealth
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Sep 29, 2005
Location: Canada
Posts: 66
|
|
Review Date: Mar 15, 2006
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: Not Indicated
| Rating: 8
|
|
Pros:
|
Great optics,very sharp lens and the price is great for what it is.
|
|
Cons:
|
Ah,Its plastic.I'm not a fan of the mount being high impact ABS opposed to the MK I that was a full metal mount.As well i don't like how they moved the RUBBER focusing ring that was in the middle of the MK I to the front and its of course plastic.
|
|
This is an almost an absolute necessity in a Canon users gear bag.Its a great focal length and its price is great too, just right for beginners or just any one on a budjet.Its also a good snap shot lens as its nice a compact,i like to use it as a general walk around lens http://www.pbase.com/maxjenkins/image/52317232
(im sure its probably not the proper use for it as its generaly a portrait lens but what the hey).The bad side is any one who has used the mark I or has sold it and now has the MK II will see its draw backs from the metal mount and general construction.But i have dropped the Mark II on a couple of occassions and its held true so i guess thats all that counts,its a great lens all around.
|
|
|
Mar 15, 2006
|
|
lukiffer
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Mar 8, 2006
Location: N/A
Posts: 0
|
|
Review Date: Mar 8, 2006
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: $56.00
| Rating: 8
|
|
Pros:
|
Generally good optics. Great depth. Reasonable for 1.6 crop, fantastic for full-frame.
|
|
Cons:
|
Poor construction, environmental sealing is lacking, especially for a prime lens. Reasonable for the price though.
|
|
|
This lens is fantastic. Fantastic depth for portraits and close-up still-life. Despite build-issues (environmental seals and plastic body) for the price, this is an ABSOLUTE MUST-OWN for any full-frame, and highly recommended for 1.6x crop's.
|
|
|
Mar 8, 2006
|
|
hewcanon
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Feb 26, 2006
Location: United Kingdom
Posts: 0
|
|
Review Date: Mar 3, 2006
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: Not Indicated
| Rating: 10
|
|
Pros:
|
Small, sharp, cheap
|
|
Cons:
|
none
|
|
|
Excellent for potraits on a 1.6 factor digital SLR. A must have for Canon owners. No other lens gives the same value for money. Not for landscape or scenery use though, get better results with the Canon 28-105mm and Tamron 19-35mm.
Go for it any Canon owner. Unmatched sharpness, shallow field for portraits, and excellent clear colours. Focusing not USM and therefore noisier and slower. But who cares at this price !!
|
|
|
Mar 3, 2006
|
|
tellingthm
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Jan 26, 2006
Location: United States
Posts: 334
|
|
Review Date: Feb 26, 2006
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: $80.00
| Rating: 9
|
|
Pros:
|
sharp, small, light, CHEAP!
|
|
Cons:
|
af can be slow at times, especially in low-light; cheap build quality- but neither of these matter considering what you pay for this lens.
|
|
|
unless you already own a bunch of primes, or the 50 1.4 (at 3-4 times the price), this lens should be a no-brainer addition for anybody. it's price makes it extremely affordable to basically anybody that can afford a camera. it is as sharp as my L zooms, which is saying a lot. it's so small and light that you can just put it in your pocket. build quality leaves a lot to be desired, but at this price who really cares?
the only complaint i have about this lens is the af sometimes lags compared to lenses with usm, but considering what this lens costs, i could care less.
|
|
|
Feb 26, 2006
|
|
jroden144
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Dec 7, 2004
Location: N/A
Posts: 0
|
|
Review Date: Feb 21, 2006
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: Not Indicated
| Rating: 8
|
|
Pros:
|
Price, image quality, size, weight
|
|
Cons:
|
None so far
|
|
|
I bought this lens new several years ago and used it first on a Canon EOS Elan 7E 35mm body. I got rid of my Elan and put this little gem on a 20D. Very rarely have I taken a bad picture with this lens. I've used this lens extensively in low-light situations and it never fails to deliver. It's probably the lightest Canon lens available. It's a bit long on a 1.6 crop body, especially indoors, but it's superb outside. This is a lens I'll never part with because if I drop it or it gets ruined, I'm not out too much money. This is definitely a must-have lens and I highly recommend it.
|
|
|
Feb 21, 2006
|
|
pj1974
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Feb 10, 2006
Location: Australia
Posts: 1
|
|
Review Date: Feb 12, 2006
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: Not Indicated
| Rating: 6
|
|
Pros:
|
Good low light POSSIBILITIES...., also useful as a portrait lens
|
|
Cons:
|
poor build quality, many bad (inaccurate focussing) copies - mine was one of them
|
|
|
I would be able to rate this lens MUCH higher if my copy was not one of the dreaded "front focussing" ones. At any apertures less than say f5.6 it makes it very useless at close range, where the shallow depth of field makes the subject blurred. I wanted to use this lens for indoor (low light) and portrait work, but it front focusses so badly I can.
However having said that I have seen other people making great photos with this lens. And if I'm outside and stop it down or don't focus on a close subject (so the depth of field is very big) it can give me beautiful, clear and sharp results.
I hope to get my lens replaced or repaired when I'm next in the UK (where I bought it from). But as I live in Romania I can't get it serviced under warrantee here. Even for a cheap lens, the build quality should be better, and not so many copies with bad alignments. Also, sometimes the focus ring gets "stuck" especially at the "closer / macro" end of things, and I need to go to manual focus, move it out and then it will AF again correctly.
|
|
|
Feb 12, 2006
|
|
misanthropic a
Offline
Buy and Sell: On
Registered: Sep 26, 2004
Location: United States
Posts: 447
|
|
Review Date: Feb 7, 2006
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: $69.99
| Rating: 10
|
|
Pros:
|
Fast, ultra sharp, ultra light, ultra small, dirt cheap. A must have lens.
|
|
Cons:
|
Plastic, loud and slow AF, tiny MF ring, but its a 70 dollar lens...
|
|
|
Paid 70 bucks for this lens, and its tack sharp, super light and discreet. The AF motor is very loud and when seeking can grind a bit, but for this price I knew I wasn't getting a "pro" quality lens. The glass is what counts and its incredible, even wide open.
|
|
|
Feb 7, 2006
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Reviews
|
Views
|
Date of last review
|
|
344
|
518029
|
Apr 17, 2013
|
|
|
Recommended By
|
Average Price
|
|
94% of reviewers
|
$128.35
|
|
|
Build Quality Rating
|
Price Rating
|
Overall Rating
|
|
5.89
|
9.55
|
8.6
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 |
