 |
|
|
Navyblue
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Mar 28, 2005
Location: Singapore
Posts: 1905
|
|
Review Date: May 8, 2005
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: Not Indicated
| Rating: 6
|
|
Pros:
|
Cheap and light.
|
|
Cons:
|
Soft below f4.
|
|
|
Yes it's sharp and yes it's fast, but the problem is both of them don't come together.
It is a fast lens. I was thinking that I could use it for low available light photography at its large f1.8 aperture, but I am wrong, images were very soft (at least for my copy). May be at f2.8 it is good for portrait for being not too sharp. It is a sharp lens when used f5.6 and above though, but it is not "fast" any more.
Build wise, it isn't most solid of all lenses for being an all plastic body with pathetic focusing ring, but I have absolutely no problem with it. In fact I like it being light and petite.
I have no complaint on its focusing, definitely not slow and too noisy.
|
|
 May 8, 2005
|
|
condyk
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Mar 14, 2005
Location: United Kingdom
Posts: 300
|
|
Review Date: May 5, 2005
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: $120.00
| Rating: 10
|
|
Pros:
|
Size great for carrying in a coat pocket if you want another lens on your camera, amazing quality for price, excellent lightweight city carry around, rudimentary Macro.
|
|
Cons:
|
Of course, it's plasticy, but get over it! Nothing else. I love this little lens.
|
|
|
|
|
|
May 5, 2005
|
|
cezars
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Mar 1, 2005
Location: Canada
Posts: 137
|
|
Review Date: May 1, 2005
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: $70.00
| Rating: 10
|
|
Pros:
|
price, weight, size, f/1.8
|
|
Cons:
|
build quality
|
|
This is in my opinion the best value Canon prime lens. For about $70, you get very professional results that will really impress people (especially at f/1.8)
It makes an excellent portrait lens and the optics quality is simply perfect.
Here's a sample portrait I took with this lens: http://www.deviantart.com/view/17017616/
I admit that I don't use it very often (because I'm not a portrait photographer) but for the few times I had to take a portrait, it was more than worth using this lens.
If don't have one, please buy it; you won't regret it. I wish all lens were at this price 
|
|
|
May 1, 2005
|
|
IraGraham
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Oct 30, 2004
Location: United States
Posts: 622
|
|
Review Date: Apr 27, 2005
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: Not Indicated
| Rating: 10
|
|
Pros:
|
Great price, Sharp A+++ optics, light on camera, fast focus even without it being ultrasonic.
|
|
Cons:
|
I guess to a small extent bokeh though it really is hardly an issue. I really don't see much difference between it and it's faster brother. Only another photographer would care.
|
|
|
Great lens, you are a fool not to own one.
|
|
|
Apr 27, 2005
|
|
fishrule
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Dec 13, 2004
Location: Jamaica
Posts: 0
|
|
Review Date: Apr 16, 2005
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: Not Indicated
| Rating: 4
|
|
Pros:
|
Cheap...
|
|
Cons:
|
Not much else
|
|
|
I got this lens in the hopes of getting a good prime for my money. I was dead wrong. This lens is SOFT. There is no other way to say it. Its about as sharp as my EF-S 18-55 lens by F8, but softer at wider apetures. Get a kit zoom instead of this lens, its more versatile and this lens is uselessly soft at it's wide open apetures. As for me, I got a Nikon F mount to EOS adaptor and now just use my 50mm F1.2 Nikkor on my 300D instead of this pile of junk.
|
|
|
Apr 16, 2005
|
|
luciora
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Apr 12, 2005
Location: Germany
Posts: 0
|
|
Review Date: Apr 12, 2005
|
Recommend? no |
Price paid: Not Indicated
| Rating: 7
|
|
Pros:
|
cheap, acceptable bokeh, f1.8, small and light
|
|
Cons:
|
plastic everywhere (i wonder what the 'glass' is really made of), awkward manual focus ring, soft from 1.8 to 4, no USM
|
|
Well, it's the cheapest EF 1.8 lens, so this is an excuse for its build quality ... almost everything is made of plastic and i'm not talking about quality plastic (such as LEGO for example), but light and feels-as-if-it-breaks-by-looking-at-it plastic. even the mount!
what's really bad is this lens' softness at f1.8. of course it just can't be as sharp as an L lens or the 1.4, but what's 1.8 good for when you can't use it? my tamron 28-75 f2.8 is sharper at 2.8 as this plastic thingy here, so there's really little reason to use it except for low light high ISO shots. but hey, it's extremely light and small so it's quite useful as an 'emergency lens' for available light photography.
by the way, the AF/MF switch is really hard to use, i always expect it to fly off when pushing it. the manual focussing ring isn't that much better ... oh, and of course the lens extends quite a bit - considering the plasticy feeling i always manually move it back into the barrel in MF mode ... to stop it from breaking apart.
buy it if you can't afford the f1.4 or a good L/EX. it's quite nice to use for portraits and available light.
|
|
|
Apr 12, 2005
|
|
Bobbo Clark
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Jan 7, 2005
Location: United States
Posts: 332
|
|
Review Date: Apr 7, 2005
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: $65.00
| Rating: 9
|
|
Pros:
|
Cheap as dirt, Sharp
|
|
Cons:
|
built like a kid's toy, fills with dust
|
|
|
Well, if it wern't for my lens being filled with dust (spent too much time in a school construction project and travelling all over hell), this lens would be freaking awesome. I think i need to replce it soon, but it will probably be with another one of these. it's cheaper than if i were to spend my money on an old pre-1990 mark I for more than twice the price that could have just as much dust, if not worse.
yes, build sucks, but when i bought it, i couldn't afford enough for the hood, let alone a 50/1.4. mine is also damn sharp, even though it has enough dirt in it for an ant farm.
would i reccomend it? yup, but just remember you get what you pay for.
|
|
|
Apr 7, 2005
|
|
Wonotch
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Feb 1, 2005
Location: United States
Posts: 302
|
|
Review Date: Apr 4, 2005
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: $70.00
| Rating: 8
|
|
Pros:
|
Nice, wide apertures at a low cost. Super-light and short, physically. Quick AF for a non-USM lens. VERY discreet and non-intimidating.
|
|
Cons:
|
Quite soft between 1.8-2.5 for being a prime lens. Awkward manual focus ring.
|
|
|
Quite simply you get what you pay for, which is a good thing, and a not-so-good thing.
Firstly, this lens has saved me in more than just a few sticky situations, in fact its on my camera a lot more than i thought it would be when i purchased it. Also, this is an excellent lens if you're trying to be discreet, as with street photography and such. People are easily intimidated by large lenses, so this lens will make a huge difference! if im ever out looking for street photos, this is my lens of choice. The wide aperture of 1.8 has also saved me many times on indoor shoots for speakers/lectures etc... this makes it worth every penny!
There are some ugly downfalls though (which are to be expected from such a cheap lens you could say). This lens is terribly soft wide open, enough to make me think that my copy had significant front-focus issues (this could also be partly due to the 300D's less-than-perfect AF performance, especially at super-wide apertures). This was especially surprising to me considering the fact that this is a prime lens. Expect to be dialing up to f2.8 on a regular basis if you desire any sort of sharpness over shutter speed.
With all that said, i still recommend this lens, because hey, its dirt cheap and fast! That is, cheap and fast enough to easily outweigh the poor build softness.
|
|
|
Apr 4, 2005
|
|
flyingscott
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Apr 4, 2005
Location: United States
Posts: 4
|
|
Review Date: Apr 4, 2005
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: Not Indicated
| Rating: 10
|
|
Pros:
|
Very Sharp, Very Quick, Great Price
|
|
Cons:
|
Soft when wide open
|
|
Forgive me if I am just sounding like a broken record, but this lens is a no brainier for the money Great contrast / color. The photos I take with this lens need very little adjustment in PS.
I am a bit disappointed with the softness at 1.8... Don’t get me wrong, I am not complaining, just trying to find something to nitpick.
Buy it!
|
|
|
Apr 4, 2005
|
|
Zweben
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Nov 13, 2004
Location: United States
Posts: 18
|
|
Review Date: Mar 29, 2005
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: $59.00
| Rating: 10
|
|
Pros:
|
Excellent, excellent value. Tiny, light, fast, good AF for a non USM lens.
|
|
Cons:
|
Loud focusing noise, low build quality, tiny, hard to use manual focus ring.
|
|
|
The 50mm f/1.8 is such a bargain that there is almost no reason not to get one.
It makes a very good low-light lens, and a capable portrait lens. The focus, while noisy, is fairly accurate and does not hunt much. While the build quality is fairly low compared to most other lenses, when you take into consideration the price, size and image quality, it hardly matters. The lens works fine, and doesn't really need that great build quality to do its job.
The one major drawback is the tiny, almost unusable manual focus ring. It's very hard to grip, so don't look to use this lens in manual focus a lot, unless you have small fingers.
This lens should be a part of everyone's arsenal, if not as a main lens, then as a backup.
I have taken some of my favourite photos with this lens. Highly recommended.
|
|
|
Mar 29, 2005
|
|
matiasasun
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Mar 16, 2005
Location: Chile
Posts: 0
|
|
Review Date: Mar 22, 2005
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: $75.00
| Rating: 7
|
|
Pros:
|
Cheap and Good
|
|
Cons:
|
None so far. 80mm mounted on a 300D (remember1.6 crop factor)
|
|
|
|
|
|
Mar 22, 2005
|
|
paparazzinick
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Jan 8, 2005
Location: United States
Posts: 7003
|
|
Review Date: Mar 16, 2005
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: $50.00
| Rating: 10
|
|
Pros:
|
sharp wide open, light and did I say sharp.
|
|
Cons:
|
Not L, but just as good
|
|
|
Great lens for portrait work and great for anyone on a budget but wants to get super quality picks that pop.
|
|
|
Mar 16, 2005
|
|
grassley
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Jan 18, 2005
Location: N/A
Posts: 16
|
|
Review Date: Mar 16, 2005
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: $70.00
| Rating: 7
|
|
Pros:
|
Low low cost. Quick to focus. Likely a good value as it is the old standby/kit lens for the 35mm film body.
|
|
Cons:
|
f/1.8 up through the 3's are all soft. Fianlly at f/4 the thing sharpens up. Not much use to have such a fast lens if you don't get truly sharp images at lower f's.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Mar 16, 2005
|
|
f_cottet
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Feb 16, 2005
Location: Switzerland
Posts: 1
|
|
Review Date: Mar 14, 2005
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: Not Indicated
| Rating: 9
|
|
Pros:
|
Cheap, light and sharp
|
|
Cons:
|
I can't find any...
|
|
|
Mounted on a EOS 20D, it makes a very good 80mm, sharp, fast and for a very good price.
|
|
|
Mar 14, 2005
|
|
Gossamer266
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Dec 1, 2004
Location: Switzerland
Posts: 0
|
|
Review Date: Mar 9, 2005
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: $100.00
| Rating: 6
|
|
Pros:
|
Price, fast aperture, weight, good for portraits with 1.6x crop on 300D
|
|
Cons:
|
Build quality
|
|
|
I got this lens after reading many reviews and comments praising this lens (and most primes in general) for its sharpness. It was the first lens I got to compliment the 300D's kit lens as it was frequently recommended and cheap.
Perhaps I got a bad copy, but it is not much sharper than the kit lens or the 75-300 (at 75mm) I borrowed from my brother. Where it does clearly come in handy (and makes it clearly worth the purchase) is when I take photos inside without a flash at fast apertures. Under those circumstances it beats everything else I had at the time.
A little disappointed by the unconvincing "clear advantages of primes", I still convinced myself to get a Canon 35/2 to serve as a pseudo-normal lens on my Digital Rebel. Well, the first picture I took with the 35/2, which was wide-open and handheld blew the 50/1.8 out of the water. I was stunned. In this case, I can say hands down that the 35/2 is the sharpest lens I have (I have also added a 24-85/3.5-4.5 to my collection).
So perhaps I got lucky with the 35/2 and got a good copy and was unlucky and got a bad copy of the 50/1.8, but to me the price difference between the two is justified by the extra sharpness of the 35/2.
In summary, the 50/1.8 is a very useful lens for indoor photography using available light, and for its price, is worth it for those who want to try primes and have a limited budget. As for its reputed sharpness, perhaps I was unlucky...
|
|
|
Mar 9, 2005
|
|
zwartjea
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Jan 19, 2005
Location: Netherlands
Posts: 4
|
|
Review Date: Mar 8, 2005
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: Not Indicated
| Rating: 9
|
|
Pros:
|
It is cheap and sharp. So a (very) good price/quality ratio.
|
|
Cons:
|
Plastic mount (but hey it is cheap)
AF/MF switch feels a bit wacky.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Mar 8, 2005
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Reviews
|
Views
|
Date of last review
|
|
344
|
518052
|
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
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 |
