 |
|
|
1710fx
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Nov 21, 2005
Location: Netherlands
Posts: 1
|
|
Review Date: Jun 24, 2010
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: $105.00
|
|
Pros:
|
Very sharp
|
|
Cons:
|
Plastic
|
|
|
For this money this is a sharp lens.
For twice this money I got two that both fell apart.
The front element disengaged completely from the body (and I am rather careful with my equipment).
So the next 50mm will be something else.
|
|
 Jun 24, 2010
|
|
ajitpalsingh
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Jan 27, 2009
Location: India
Posts: 0
|
|
Review Date: Apr 30, 2010
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: $85.00
| Rating: 9
|
|
Pros:
|
Extremely sharp and cheap; value for money;
|
|
Cons:
|
Autofocus is very noisy; manual focus ring is not very practical;
|
|
Except for the optics (which is thankfully made of glass), every thing in this lens is plastic, even the mount. But no matter how cheap it may look and feel, the end results are mind blowing. Suitable for portrait and general purpose photography on a 35mm body, this lens can put others in its class to shame.
Few close shots I took on a cropped sensor Canon body 40D
http://www.photographybyajit.com/Tabletop/index.html
Ajit.
|
|
|
Apr 30, 2010
|
|
haringo
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Oct 7, 2009
Location: United States
Posts: 12
|
|
Review Date: Apr 24, 2010
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: Not Indicated
| Rating: 9
|
|
Pros:
|
CHEAP! Good quality, fast and small
|
|
Cons:
|
none - for the price you can't beat it!
|
|
I own the 50 1.4 and used to own the 50mm 1.2.
This is the BEST lens for the money! You can get it under $100 one ebay.
AF is fast maybe a little noisy but this lens is under $100!!! Come on!
I used to take this lens everywhere! It is so small and so convenient. Also, you don't scare away people with this lens. Once you own it you'll take it everywhere in your bag! It is always ready to be thrown on the camera when needed. You don't even need to carry around a flash. You can take pictures with it in very low light without a flash.
At 1.8 it does show vignetting. It gets much better at 2.8, and f4 looks the very best.
You can see some samples in my blog: http://www.haringphotography.com/blog/
How about the 50mm 1.4? Is it worth the upgrade from the nifty fifty 1.8? To tell you the truth it is worth to upgrade. There is not much price difference but the quality of the 1.4 is much better.
You can see tons of sample images on my website: http://www.haringphotography.com/
Some of them are so good I even put them on the main page.
Of course, prime lenses are not quite as flexible as zooms. If you don't like running and moving around, well, than this lens is not for you...
I hope it helps!
|
|
|
Apr 24, 2010
|
|
beeber00
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Jul 21, 2008
Location: United States
Posts: 741
|
|
Review Date: Feb 11, 2010
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: $90.00
| Rating: 10
|
|
Pros:
|
Image quality, price, weight, fast, sweet.
|
|
Cons:
|
?
|
|
Ive had this lens for 2 years and Ive never left a review on it. That might be because Ive been having a blast using it.
This lens can be purchased for 100$ shipped:
http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/12142-USA/Canon_2514A002_Normal_EF_50mm_f_1_8.html
This lens has more reviews than most of Canon's lenses. Why? Its simple: most people own this lens. Why do most people own it? Because its just THAT good.
Until youve used one, youll never know how good it is. Its fast. People say the AF is slow and noisy. These people probably only use lenses that cost more than 900$. I think the AF is fast. You can hear it, but it wont fckin cause birds to fly away like a bomb or something.
The focus ring works. You gotta hold it right, but it works. Yea, it doesnt have that large focus rings that the privileged lenses do, but hey, you might not even use it that often (focus works nice for me).
If you own the kit lens (any kit lens) and are looking to buy your first lens, this is the winner. Ive personally got 5 people to buy this lens after their kit lens and it really opens their world into photography. If you just started, you CANNOT go wrong with this lens.
Im not a ditsy butterfingers. I dont carry bricks in my camera bag. The build quality is not an issue. Its plastic, but isnt that why they call it the 'plastic fantastic'?
F1.8 shows vignetting. So does 2.0. It gets better at 2.8, and f4 looks the best.
Dont spend 300$ more on the 50mm 1.4. Not when you have this option. I would say go for it if you break stuff easily, yea.
10/10 favorite lens.
|
|
|
Feb 11, 2010
|
|
ajt36
Offline
Buy and Sell: On
Registered: Dec 15, 2008
Location: United States
Posts: 442
|
|
Review Date: Feb 9, 2010
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: $99.00
| Rating: 8
|
|
Pros:
|
Inexpensive; very good IQ
|
|
Cons:
|
Build quality; No USM; front element focusing
|
|
|
I've taken a lot of great pictures with this lens, so it has more than paid for itself in terms of "photographic" satisfaction. If you are an amateur and want to get away from your kit lens, this lens is the place to start IMO. Yes, it is plasticky and cheaply built. Yes, it has a front focusing element. Yes, it has a non-USM motor. Yes, it hunts in low light and wide open sometimes. BUT, in 8 out of 10 shooting situations, it'll work and you'll get a great shot.
Maybe the Canon or Sigma f/1.4s are better... I don't know. I've never used them. Unless you are a pro or very serious about IQ, I don't know if they are 3 - 5 times better. If you can afford them... by all means get one of them. But you will get nice photos with this lens that I doubt you will say "Gee I wish I had a f/1.4 when I took that photo!".
If you break it, so what? Buy another... though in the year and half I have owned mine, I have dropped it at least twice and it still works fine. If you ever think you absolutely NEED the extra 2/3 stops, then upgrade, and sell this lens... or keep it as a back-up.
|
|
|
Feb 9, 2010
|
|
cjwhitsett
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Mar 18, 2009
Location: United States
Posts: 394
|
|
Review Date: Dec 13, 2009
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: Not Indicated
| Rating: 9
|
|
Pros:
|
Price, sharpness
|
|
Cons:
|
Build, occasional focusing issues, on a crop body (350D) it's a little longer than would be ideal
|
|
|
Portrait shooting isn't exactly my top photographic priority, but I still wanted something that could serve me reasonably well for portraits. 90% of the time, it's this lens.
Yeah, the build quality isn't good, but as long as you're not in situations where you can't be somewhat careful, I think this lens will be fine, even though it is something of an unnecessary stress to have to be a little extra protective.
Focusing is sometimes tough at wide apertures, but this has as much, if not more, to do with my ability to use the lens and nail focus EXACTLY where I want it than it does with the lens itself.
Were it more expensive, my rating would be lower mainly due to build quality, but at the price point, something's gotta give. Again, just be a bit more careful with it.
|
|
|
Dec 13, 2009
|
|
David Baldwin
Offline
Buy and Sell: On
Registered: Jun 28, 2007
Location: United Kingdom
Posts: 2554
|
|
Review Date: Nov 26, 2009
|
Recommend? no |
Price paid: Not Indicated
| Rating: 4
|
|
Pros:
|
Price, light weight
|
|
Cons:
|
Disappointing optical performance on a 5D2. Build Quality poor. Focus ring difficult to use even if you have small hands. Unhappy with my purchase frankly.
|
|
|
Not impressed with image quality on full frame. Canon can do better than this lens.
For example I've owned the relatively cheap Canon 35/2 and loved it even on the demanding 5D2, thought this 50mm would be as good. Its not.
|
|
|
Nov 26, 2009
|
|
CyranoB
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Nov 8, 2009
Location: France
Posts: 8
|
|
Review Date: Nov 8, 2009
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: $150.00
| Rating: 7
|
|
Pros:
|
Price.
|
|
Cons:
|
Build quality. AF.
|
|
Let's face it for this price you won't get a better portrait lens. It's a must have for any photography starters on a budget. It'll allow you to take pictures you just cannot take with your standard kit or even most zoom lenses.
Got it for a year, once I got more serious about my new hobby I updated it for the 1.4 model, sold it for the price I bought it.
It's very cheaply built, doesn't always focus correctly, and manual focus is more or less useless, so anybody who's got some extra hundreds in his pocket is better of going directly for the 1.4 version directly. But still a nice starter lens to fall in love for prime lenses.
Some examples:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/eddie_pick/3578779708/
http://www.flickr.com/photos/eddie_pick/2778382587/
|
|
|
Nov 8, 2009
|
|
jprs
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Aug 7, 2009
Location: Thailand
Posts: 5
|
|
Review Date: Sep 20, 2009
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: Not Indicated
| Rating: 9
|
|
Pros:
|
Stunning image quality, brightness, portability
|
|
Cons:
|
cheap build, noisy aufo-focus
|
|
|
I recently purchased a DSLR: Canon 1D Mark 3 which put me into the 'poor-house'... could only afford a cheap beginner lens to get started as I was broke.
Anyhow, buying this lens I wasn't really expecting much but when married to my Canon body I was absolutely amazed with the stunning picture quality.... the sharpness. Bold colors.
Bokeh isn't too bad either but when taking pictures in high contrast areas you'll see that the background appears to be a bit 'choppy'.
I haven't noticed any chromatic aberration in my many thousands of snapshots even in high contrast environments. The Auto-Focus is not always spot on and my keeper rate i'd say is about 85%.
Of course the build quality isn't great. It rattles and feels very cheap. Makes you wonder if this was manufacturerd on a "Toys-R-Us'' assembly line but what does one expect for this price ?
If i accidentally dropped this lens and was to become unusable, i would certainly go out and buy another one.
All in all, for the price I'm very satisfied with the quality of the pictures. Sharpness is most important to me, brightiness and portability. This lens rewards in all those categories.
I'm very pleased with this lens.
Phil
|
|
|
Sep 20, 2009
|
|
nickjohnson
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Sep 15, 2009
Location: United Kingdom
Posts: 601
|
|
Review Date: Sep 19, 2009
|
Recommend? no |
Price paid: Not Indicated
| Rating: 7
|
|
Pros:
|
price / performance fantastic, cheep
|
|
Cons:
|
a little too cheap – needs better build.
|
|
|
Common to all reports
This is my attempt to give something back to the forum members who have provided this wonderful resource. I found much here that helped with my lens selection. So over the last 1 to 2 years here is what I used – all on a pair of 5D bodies. (My comments will be subjective and personal. I will try to avoid saying anything that cannot be read in the spec sheets).
17-40 L
24-105 L IS
70-200 f4 L IS
180 L Macro
400 f5.6 L
50 f1.8 mkII
Sigma 50 f2.8 Macro EX
50 f1.8 mkII
Comment
I got this because I wanted a light, fixed FL walk around lens. The lens delivered IQ higher than all reasonable expectation. But …. I stupidly put a lens hood on it. DO NOT make the same mistake. When the inevitable knock happened the hood exerted more leverage than the flimsy plastic construction could stand. I tore the front off the lens.
I bought cheep and I had to buy twice to replace. The replacement is a Sigma 50 f2.8 Macro EX
|
|
|
Sep 19, 2009
|
|
ersatz
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Aug 24, 2009
Location: United States
Posts: 222
|
|
Review Date: Aug 24, 2009
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: Not Indicated
| Rating: 8
|
|
Pros:
|
Cheap, lightweight, wide aperture, did I mention cheap?
Acceptable sharpness, bokeh, contrast.
|
|
Cons:
|
Cheap build quality, poor AF speed and accuracy
|
|
|
Many tout this as the nifty fifty or the fantastic plastic. I've been able to purchase this lens new several times for $75 and for the price I am willing to forgive some of its flaws.
It's an inexpensive and good introduction into primes and wide aperture lenses. And the 50mm focal length is fairly versatile too.
Wide open the lens is quite soft. Center sharpness is acceptable at 2.8 and quite useable at f/4. I don't find corner sharpness acceptable until at f/8 even on a crop, but especially on a FF body.
Now, let's talk AF, it's terrible. It's slow and hunts in low light. And I find its accuracy to be horrible as well, maybe only one quarter of the shots are in focus. Sometimes it will slightly back focus or sometimes front focus but half the time it just gives up entirely and what the AF was trying to focus on or if it just decided to give up completely. Unfortunately, the manual focus ring is not FTM focus and is small an located at the very front of the lens. It's quite difficult to use reliably, unlike it's mkI predecessor.
The build quality leaves much ot be desired. It's cheap thin plastic nad if you drop the lens it will likely break. On the plus side I've found the AF motor to be more durable than its 50mm 1.4 counterpart. But that's due to the inherent flaw in design of the USM AF on the 1.4 lens.
Bokeh is acceptable, especially wide open. But closed down and you'll notice the aperture blades as they produce a pentagon effect.
Contrast and color reproduction seem muted or washed out. Colors aren't nearly as vivid as the 1.4, again likely due to cheaper elements.
So, why did I rate this lens so high given all it's flaws. Well, cost is a considerable reason and the pictures can still be quite useable, well the keepers that happen to be in focus, anyways.
But I feel that it's flaws can also discourage some and turn them off to low aperture or prime lenses, which would be a shame. And should you really like low aperture primes you'll certainly want to upgrade from this lens. Like I said, a cheap foray but also a frustrating one at times.
I think in the long run you are better off going with the Canon 50mm 1.4 right off the bat. It's a better lens in many regards though again not without its flaws. I've routinely found them used or refurb for $250USD, and while it's certainly a vast price difference at least in terms of percentages, I think it's quite worth it.
In retrospect I really should reconsider my ratings as it probably should be much lower. But again it was cheap and let me get my feet wet in primes and low apertures. And the keepers were good enough and furthered my interest hence the purchase of better lenses. That, and I'm not really sure what to expect from a $75, or now $100 lens. For the price it probably is a great value, though I place a greater importance on metrics such as IQ, AF speed and accuracy, etc. Price being only a secondary factor, not that I'm fabulously wealthy and can afford nothing but L-glass.
|
|
|
Aug 24, 2009
|
|
electrolyte
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Jul 18, 2009
Location: United Kingdom
Posts: 0
|
|
Review Date: Jul 18, 2009
|
Recommend? no |
Price paid: Not Indicated
| Rating: 5
|
|
Pros:
|
Cheap, sharp at f/2.2 but f/1.8 is still usable, great in low light, lightweight
|
|
Cons:
|
Very poor build quality, lens takes from 5-18 months to fail
|
|
|
I have owned 5 of these lenses in the last 3.5 years. The lenses are cheap, the IQ can be excellent but the build quality is awful and they don't last long.
The 1st one was second hand and lasted 18 months before the focus mechanism stopped working. But the lens was 10 years old so I wasn't so upset especially as the image quality was so good and it hadn't cost me any money to buy as I had inherited it from my brother. The 2nd one I bought from new also had excellent image quality and this one lasted just over 12 months before the focus mechanism stopped working.
I then bought a new one and this one front-focussed badly so I sent it back and got a new one which focussed as it should. This one lasted 5 months before the inner section of the lens came part from the outer casing while I was changing the lens. My on-line retailer blamed me for this and refused to repair or replace lens so I cut my losses and bought a Canon 50mm f/1.4.
So my message is buyer beware. If you buy one, yes, the lens is cheap and it could take excellent images but expect it to break pretty soon due to the poor build quality.
|
|
|
Jul 18, 2009
|
|
Mr.Konstantin
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: May 14, 2009
Location: Canada
Posts: 206
|
|
Review Date: Jun 18, 2009
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: $130.00
| Rating: 9
|
|
Pros:
|
Cheap, Light, Fairly Fast Focus, Good results @ f1.8
|
|
Cons:
|
None really
|
|
|
If you just bought dSLR and looking for your first lens GO and BUY this lens right now you wont regret it. I have learned so much about photography by using this lens over my kit (Canon 18-55mm IS) lens. Don't be disappointed by this lens until you know how to use it and first rule is 1/focal length is what your shutter speed should be or else you will get blurry pictures due to hand shake but you already knew this right.
Anyways the IQ is great and tack sharp at f5.6. I hope you will enjoy this lens as much as I do.
Cheers and happy nifty-fiftying!
|
|
|
Jun 18, 2009
|
|
Fr3d
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Nov 28, 2008
Location: Germany
Posts: 290
|
|
Review Date: Apr 30, 2009
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: Not Indicated
| Rating: 10
|
|
Pros:
|
cheap, sharp, lightweight, needs no hood, quick focus
|
|
Cons:
|
for the price none
|
|
|
Lacking a 50mm prime I initialy wanted to buy the new Sigma 50mm/1.4 EX HSM which has been discussed here in the forums. But after checking out the Canon 50mm/1.8 II I quickly changed my mind. Side by side the Sigma wasn't worth the 300 EUR premium. It was better build but not sharper. The Canon performs very good on the 5D II from f1.8 (ok) to f2 (already sharp) onward to f5.6 (razor sharp). A colleague of mine has the lens too but it is noticeably softer than mine. I would recommend this lens to anyone who wants a light/cheap/chap fifty for fullframe ... if you can test before you buy.
|
|
|
Apr 30, 2009
|
|
artsnoob
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Apr 25, 2009
Location: Netherlands
Posts: 0
|
|
Review Date: Apr 25, 2009
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: $100.00
| Rating: 8
|
|
Pros:
|
Cheap, produces really nice pictures, nice bokeh.
|
|
Cons:
|
Build quality (plastic)
|
|
|
I've bought this lens about 2 years ago, and i've taken thousands of pictures with it. This lens is so cheap, if you're just starting taking pictures and you want to check if primes are for you, you just have to buy this lens.
I have enjoyed this lens a lot untill it just fell apart a couple of days ago.
It's a plastic lens so you know that you can't use this lens forever so I've decided not to buy another one but instead go for the sigma 50mm 1.4.
So if you want a good, cheap prime, check it out, but if you want something durable and well built, DON'T buy this lens.
|
|
|
Apr 25, 2009
|
|
hfasninvsn
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Jan 5, 2009
Location: United States
Posts: 0
|
|
Review Date: Mar 18, 2009
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: $85.00
| Rating: 9
|
|
Pros:
|
Good price, sharp, pretty fast AutoFocus, lightweight, compact.
|
|
Cons:
|
Plastic
|
|
|
This was the first lens that I bought for my camera (300D, a used body, so it didn't come with a kit lens) and was very satisfied with it. The second lens I got, a Tamron 17-35mm f/2.8-4, though good, really made me appreciate some of the positive aspects of the 50mm f/1.8 II. The AF on the 50 is considerably faster and quieter than the Tamron (I know, it's comparing apples to oranges, but they're the only two lenses I own).
I did, however, get a chance to use a 50m f/1.4, and I noticed it focused faster, smoother, and the overall build quality just felt better. However, I don't currently feel that the improvements of the f/1.4 justify the price increase over the f/1.8, given what I'm doing with it.
As far as I'm concerned, you can't really beat the price of this lens, considering what you get for it.
|
|
|
Mar 18, 2009
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Reviews
|
Views
|
Date of last review
|
|
344
|
517882
|
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
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 |
