 |
|
|
vk2109
Offline
Registered: Jan 5, 2005
Location: United States
Posts: 142
|
|
Review Date: Jan 5, 2005
|
Recommend? no |
Price paid: $70.00
| Rating: 2
|
|
Pros:
|
Cheap, light, fast lens
|
|
Cons:
|
Noisy, Very Slow, medium bokeh at F1.8 and a bit soft
|
|
|
This a nice lens, which might help you in low light situation.
It's priced at a vert good price but don't expect from that lens, amazing results. For 70$ you get good shots. Nevertheless it is quite slow to focus and it's really annoying. Very soft from 1.8-2.8 unfortunately
|
|
 Jan 5, 2005
|
|
Koontsa
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Aug 24, 2004
Location: United States
Posts: 142
|
|
Review Date: Dec 26, 2004
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: $70.00
| Rating: 10
|
|
Pros:
|
Light weight, Sharp, Fast
|
|
Cons:
|
Build Quality(Plastic)
|
|
|
This is a great lens. Probably one of the sharpest that I have. The 1.8 aperture is also great for holiday shooting without a flash and other indoor work. I am very pleased and would recommend this lens to anyone.
|
|
|
Dec 26, 2004
|
|
Alex53
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Sep 7, 2004
Location: Gibraltar
Posts: 1581
|
|
Review Date: Nov 29, 2004
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: $69.95
| Rating: 10
|
|
Pros:
|
Price, Sharpness (f/2.4 onwards), weights nothing.
|
|
Cons:
|
Plastic mount, but what do you expect for $70!
|
|
|
There are better lenses than this, but all of them cost five times more at least. At this price it is a 'must try' before getting anything else, because if it does the job for you, you will have saved a buck.
Makes a good portrait lens on 1.6x crop cameras.
Wish Canon made a mark 3, exactly the same but with a metal mount and a slightly better focusing ring.
|
|
|
Nov 29, 2004
|
|
dennislrz
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Nov 9, 2004
Location: United States
Posts: 209
|
|
Review Date: Nov 10, 2004
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: $70.00
| Rating: 10
|
|
Pros:
|
Price, sharp, price and price again...and weight.
|
|
Cons:
|
None, considering the money spent.
|
|
|
This lens produces very sharp pictures! Great for portraits. The plastic build doesn't bother much, as this lens is very small and lightweight. Build acctually feels decent.
The background blur is of course not of the same 'creamy' quality as lets say that of the 24-70L, but still for the low price you can't ask for more.
Everyone should have one!
Dennis L.
|
|
|
Nov 10, 2004
|
|
choochoo
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: May 11, 2004
Location: United States
Posts: 483
|
|
Review Date: Oct 28, 2004
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: $65.00
| Rating: 10
|
|
Pros:
|
Sharp, small, compact, lightweight, fast, very inexpensive (cheap), good AF speed
|
|
Cons:
|
Cheap plastic build, cheap plastic mount, buzzy AF motor, focus ring very cheap feel and bad ergonomics, slightly clumpy bokeh
|
|
|
Excellent cheap lens to have around, especially for street shooting. You dont' have to worry about it attracting attention. The buzzy AF motor is a little annoying, but nothing terrible. Sharp lens, f1.8 a little soft, f2.8 and on very sharp. On a 1.6X crop camera, you can use it as a head&shoulders portrait lens. Bokeh not as smooth as the 50mm f1.4. But, with photoshop, you can smooth it out. Very high performance:price ratio. Wish Canon would just build it with a little higher quality platic and a metal mount. The Minolta and Nikon cheapo 50mm lenses blow this out of the water in this respect even though they're only slightly more expensive. But in the end, this is a good lens at a great price.
|
|
|
Oct 28, 2004
|
|
mjmetts
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Dec 3, 2003
Location: United States
Posts: 1514
|
|
Review Date: Oct 25, 2004
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: $75.00
| Rating: 10
|
|
Pros:
|
Very sharp even wide open for such a cheap lens. I really can't find much to complain about. Most reviewers complain of the build quality but it exceeded my expectations for the price.
|
|
Cons:
|
None, considering the price.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Oct 25, 2004
|
|
dlselvidge
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Mar 3, 2004
Location: United States
Posts: 186
|
|
Review Date: Oct 21, 2004
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: Not Indicated
| Rating: 8
|
|
Pros:
|
sharp, light, fast, inexpensive
|
|
Cons:
|
no USM, cheap construction, no DOF scale
|
|
|
For the price, this is a must have lens.
It doesn't have USM, so the focus can be slow and it does hunt occasionally in very low light. The motor noise can be obtrusive at times. From the look and feel of it, the lens might fall apart if you lok at it wrong, but I have had no problems so far.
If you want USM, solid feel, extra 2/3 stop, etc. by all means spend the extra money and get the f1.4 .
|
|
|
Oct 21, 2004
|
|
sweyand
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Sep 23, 2004
Location: United States
Posts: 4
|
|
Review Date: Oct 7, 2004
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: $83.00
| Rating: 10
|
|
Pros:
|
Cheap f-stop, best buy for the price
|
|
Cons:
|
none for the price
|
|
|
A must
|
|
|
Oct 7, 2004
|
|
njezzo
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Apr 16, 2004
Location: Australia
Posts: 23
|
|
Review Date: Sep 6, 2004
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: $80.00
| Rating: 10
|
|
Pros:
|
PRICE and QUALITY
|
|
Cons:
|
no USM
|
|
This lens is just awesome !!
One of many fave pictures taken with this lens (PS used for crop and image resizing only): http://gallery1905.com/details.php?image_id=332
|
|
|
Sep 6, 2004
|
|
JLavino
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Jul 13, 2004
Location: United States
Posts: 272
|
|
Review Date: Aug 16, 2004
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: $60.00
| Rating: 10
|
|
Pros:
|
All around great lens, performs on par. PRICE.
|
|
Cons:
|
Cheapness.
|
|
|
It does feel cheap, but the crisp pictures and awesome bokeh are unbelievable. Its insane what this 70$ lens can do.....
|
|
|
Aug 16, 2004
|
|
corgiwcn
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Apr 8, 2004
Location: United States
Posts: 50
|
|
Review Date: Aug 4, 2004
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: $70.00
| Rating: 10
|
|
Pros:
|
Very good sharpness, contrast, and color. Lightweight.
|
|
Cons:
|
The build quality is cheap. Alas, it a $70 lens.
|
|
|
This is probably the best $70 you will ever spend in photography. This is my first lens for my Canon 300D.
Wide open, it's not really usable because the autofocus is so erratic under my 300D that, even using tripod with MLU, continuous shots on the same subject will have blurred to tack sharp images.
From f/2.5 and down, my copy shows increasing improvement until f/8.0. It's excellent to outstanding between f/4 and f/8. This lens is basically distortion-free, a big plus. If you always use a lens hood to protect it from flare, it will produce very contrasty images with nice colors. Even though the autofocus is noisy, my copy never misfocuses, unlike the notorious 70-200 f/4.
I am not going to upgrade to the current version of 50mm f/1.4 unless it is revised to have the same build quality (and ring USM) as the 85mmm f/1.8.
Added comment (Jan 01, 2005): I recently tried manual focus as well as the technique of forcing 300D into AI servo to check whether this lens at f/1.8. To my surprise, it is very contrasty and sharp. This confirms my suspicion that most of the "softness" complaints against this (and possibly the 50mm f/1.4) originated from bad autofocus instead of bad optics. It is therefore suggested that you use the same technique when the DOF is very small.
|
|
|
Aug 4, 2004
|
|
LukeRamirez
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Jul 26, 2004
Location: United States
Posts: 4
|
|
Review Date: Jul 26, 2004
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: $79.99
| Rating: 8
|
|
Pros:
|
Sharp, light, large maximum aperture, PRICE!
|
|
Cons:
|
No distance scale. Other than that this is fine.
|
|
|
I bought this recently because I hadn't ever owned a prime and figured that a standard 50 was the way to go. I couldn't justify spending around $280 more for a 1/3 stop gain, USM, or distance scale. Not having a metal mount is not a disadvantage. It's not like this lens is so heavy the mount will bust. Besides, not having a meatl mount saves on weight. Which I love when backpacking. Basically, it's a great lens for your bag, and is indespensible when it comes to low light shooting.
|
|
|
Jul 26, 2004
|
|
ssthapit
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Jul 11, 2004
Location: Nepal
Posts: 57
|
|
Review Date: Jul 24, 2004
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: $70.00
| Rating: 8
|
|
Pros:
|
Light and Cheap
|
|
Cons:
|
Can't complain for the price
|
|
|
Use it on my 10D. Very satisfied. Gives very pleasing portraits, great colors. Very useful for taking candids of friends indoors because of large aperture (no flash needed).
|
|
|
Jul 24, 2004
|
|
letjin
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Apr 19, 2004
Location: United States
Posts: 150
|
|
Review Date: Jul 14, 2004
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: $65.00
| Rating: 6
|
|
Pros:
|
price and weight
|
|
Cons:
|
slow and loud focusing, soft below f/2.8, poor build quality, not so good focusing accuracy
|
|
|
This lens may have good price/performance ratio, but you do get what you pay for. The lens is soft until f/2.8, not quite sharp until f/4. Cheap focusing motor makes loud noise and focusing accuracy is less than 50% on mine. 5 diaphragm blades make pentagon bokeh - ugly on portraits.
|
|
|
Jul 14, 2004
|
|
Unregistered
Offline
Location: United States
|
|
Review Date: Jun 29, 2004
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: $60.00
| Rating: 8
|
|
Pros:
|
Light, fast, sharp, cheep, price/quality
|
|
Cons:
|
plastic, slow focus (not usm)
|
|
|
Great standard lens. Fast, good for lowlight situations. I use it for shooting basketball at school. I wish it had usm, thats what the 1.4 is for.
|
|
|
Jun 29, 2004
|
|
Shiva-TPF-
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: May 19, 2004
Location: United States
Posts: 7
|
|
Review Date: Jun 23, 2004
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: $86.00
| Rating: 10
|
|
Pros:
|
light, sharp, great price, 1.8 aperature
|
|
Cons:
|
light and plastic construction
|
|
|
I bought the Rebel 300 with the kit lens and realized I wanted something more. I have not gone back to the kit lens yet, even with the lack of zoom. This is an awesome lens that I would be willing to buy for twice the price.
The only negative aspect of the lens is the that construction does not feel as rock solid as I would prefer.
I believe it's a great lens and compliments the performance vs. cost ratio that also turned me to the Rebel.
|
|
|
Jun 23, 2004
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Reviews
|
Views
|
Date of last review
|
|
344
|
519205
|
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
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 |
