 |
|
|
jclark58
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Mar 6, 2003
Location: United States
Posts: 135
|
|
Review Date: Jun 17, 2004
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: $75.00
| Rating: 8
|
|
Pros:
|
Price, sharpness, weight.
|
|
Cons:
|
Build quality, focus? ring?, AF motor.
|
|
|
Either drop a few more $ and find yourself the Mark I version of this lens or buy a second copy of the Mark II to use after the first one breaks. Though optically similar (identical?) the addition of the true focusing ring, distance scale, and vastly superior build quality make the Mark I version a much nicer lens to work with. You won't notice the 2.1 oz weight difference but you will notice the quality in your hands.
|
|
 Jun 17, 2004
|
|
Cagri
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Apr 3, 2004
Location: United States
Posts: 37
|
|
Review Date: May 4, 2004
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: $69.00
| Rating: 8
|
|
Pros:
|
Sharpness above 2.2, price
|
|
Cons:
|
Build quality
|
|
|
Decent lens, and considering the price this is a "must have" for everyone. Great for poor light conditions. Little soft wide-open but this gives a really nice look especially on portraits.
Oh, one more thing, don't drop this lens from any height ! I know many people losing their lenses when they drop it from a foot or so...
|
|
|
May 4, 2004
|
|
Unregistered
Offline
Location: United States
|
|
Review Date: Apr 2, 2004
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: $70.00
| Rating: 6
|
|
Pros:
|
sharp, light, inexpensive
|
|
Cons:
|
if you have the cash, the f/1.4 is superior in all regards
|
|
|
If all you have are low budget zooms, the 50mm f/1.8 will introduce you to the quality that can be gained by using primes. Past f/3.5 the images are as sharp as can be expected.
However, the flaws this lens has (jarring bokeh, poor construction, no full time manual, softness below f/2.8) led me to get the 50mm f/1.4 insetad.
|
|
|
Apr 2, 2004
|
|
kahfluie
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Jan 25, 2004
Location: United States
Posts: 116
|
|
Review Date: Mar 7, 2004
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: $69.00
| Rating: 10
|
|
Pros:
|
Cost, weight, size, sharp and contrasty, great Bokeh
|
|
Cons:
|
none
|
|
|
Don't let the low price tag, or it's plastic build fool you... this is a must have lens. It's small and lightweight, but takes gorgeous photos that are sharp and contrasty. Great lens for portraits, and exceptional for concert photography.
Two thumbs up!!!
|
|
|
Mar 7, 2004
|
|
btjohnston
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: May 20, 2003
Location: Australia
Posts: 1082
|
|
Review Date: Feb 23, 2004
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: Not Indicated
| Rating: 8
|
|
Pros:
|
Cheap, light and sharp
|
|
Cons:
|
no DoF scale
|
|
|
sure it's cheap and probably won't last too long, but you get what you pay for. The lens is sharp for what I need it for, which is general purpose shooting. I really wish it had a DoF scale on the lense.
|
|
|
Feb 23, 2004
|
|
vince
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Mar 18, 2002
Location: China
Posts: 306
|
|
Review Date: Feb 2, 2004
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: $60.00
| Rating: 8
|
|
Pros:
|
Excellent optics, large aperture, small, light,
|
|
Cons:
|
Cheap crummy construction, lousy AF motor.
|
|
|
My 50/1.8-II has excellent optics and delivers sharp, contrasty images. I hate the construction - it feels like it's going to break into pieces at any time. Still it's small and light and I take it almost everywhere. Wish they made an updated version with better construction, a distance scale, metal lens mount and real USM.
|
|
|
Feb 2, 2004
|
|
lightly_salted
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Jan 13, 2004
Location: United States
Posts: 2
|
|
Review Date: Jan 16, 2004
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: $76.00
| Rating: 2
|
|
Pros:
|
It's cheap.
|
|
Cons:
|
You get what you pay for.
|
|
|
In spite of all the high praise for this lens everyone should be aware that it's quality can vary greatly. In other words, you pay your money and you take your chances (of getting a good example). It was beyond soft at wide aperture, CA was horrible too. That junker went back. Example number 2 was a bit better but not by a lot. Example number 3 was the best but not all that good. I think there is too much hype out there for a few good examples of this lens, and they are not the norm.
It is the cheapest constructed lens I have ever laid hand to. I mean this thing feels like my grandson's plastic Chinese toy car. Horrible! Actually, in retrospect, my grandson's toy car (he's 4 years old) feels better contructed than this Canon lens.
Be advised that spending an extra $125 for the Canon 50/2.5 macro lens is likely to be the best investment you'll make. If you can say 50/2.5 macro then you can truly say SHARP! 50/1.8, well that's hit and miss. If $80 doesn't mean much to you then buy the 50/1.8. Sorry, but $80 DOES mean something to me.
|
|
|
Jan 16, 2004
|
|
hahiran
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Nov 18, 2003
Location: United States
Posts: 327
|
|
Review Date: Jan 2, 2004
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: $70.00
| Rating: 10
|
|
Pros:
|
Fantastic image quality. Light. Cheap.
|
|
Cons:
|
Can't really complain for $70.
|
|
|
Sure, it's cheap looking, sure it's plastic, sure it's a little slow focusing, but who is taking pictures of fast moving objects with this lens? Forget the negatives, buy this lens. It's as sharp as my one L lens, and I love, absolutely love the portraits out of this guy. Color is nice, blurred backgrounds are beautiful. Highly recommended.
|
|
|
Jan 2, 2004
|
|
genenyc
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Dec 26, 2003
Location: United States
Posts: 8
|
|
Review Date: Dec 26, 2003
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: $70.00
| Rating: 8
|
|
Pros:
|
Sharp, compact, cheap
|
|
Cons:
|
Slooww focusing
|
|
|
This lens is just as sharp as my $300 Tokina 28-70 2.8 but it a fraction of the size and weight. Yes it does feel like a toy, but a heavier lens is also more likely to suffer impact damage if it takes a spill. Major problem is the degree of focus hunting. I recently used it with my 10D for an informal gathering and the inability to focus in low light (left the 550ex at home) had me looking like a rank amateur. Folks waiting around while the lens is hunting around aimlessly. I eventually went ot MF mode, which I personally try to avoid in low light situations as the small viewfinder display on the 10D makes it more difficult to judge focus. I'm almost wondering if my lens is defective as its not exactly fast when I use it with my EOS-3 either. Despite all that, I still give it high marks as the image quality is fantastic and its the fastest lens I own, which makes it great for dramatic DOF background blurring. All from the least expensive lens I own!
|
|
|
Dec 26, 2003
|
|
FireMyst
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Jul 17, 2003
Location: United States
Posts: 287
|
|
Review Date: Nov 11, 2003
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: $70.00
| Rating: 6
|
|
Pros:
|
This funny lens takes good quality pictures. AF works great.
|
|
Cons:
|
AF/MF switch is ridiculous. No DOF meter.
|
|
|
For about $70 this lens is beautiful. Do buy it if you like 50mm photography you'll never regret this lens as it is seriously one of the best Canon lenses ever. I'd recommend it to anyone who shoots Canon EOS.
|
|
|
Nov 11, 2003
|
|
bsoten
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Jan 8, 2003
Location: United States
Posts: 592
|
|
Review Date: Aug 11, 2003
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: $90.00
| Rating: 6
|
|
Pros:
|
Cute...Small and light weight. Fits in cargo pocket. Can't beat the price. Pretty sharp. Better than my 28-135 5.6 for short DOF work. Good in lower light situations. I can't see buying the 1.4 for $350+ for 1/2 a stop. It ain't that damn sharp!
|
|
Cons:
|
Toy like construction. Don't see it lasting for generations. Not to mention, when it's on my 10D with the vertical grip, it looks like it's experiencing "shrinkage". If you know what I mean. :-]
|
|
|
Honestly, at first the only reason I bought this lense is because I had some extra money to spend and $90 wasn't going to break me. I had it for about two months and never used it on my D30. Now that I have a 10D, I use it a lot for in studio work. It seems pretty sharp for what I need. I use it for a lot for fine art nude work so I don't need it to be tack sharp. Check out...www.L7Studio.com...Click on My Portfolios, then click on TC Fine Art Nude / Black and White. The whole shoot was with the EF 50mm F/1.8 II. She look FINE to me.
Bottom line, I like the little sucker. If it broke today, I'd buy another tomorrow.
|
|
|
Aug 11, 2003
|
|
stevez32
Offline
Buy and Sell: On
Registered: Mar 25, 2003
Location: United States
Posts: 2570
|
|
Review Date: Jul 16, 2003
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: $69.00
| Rating: 10
|
|
Pros:
|
Sharp, Light, Inexpensive, Fast
|
|
Cons:
|
50mm fixed, no USM or distance scale on the version II
|
|
|
Sharp as a tack and light as a feather. At this price, if you have any doubt, just try it.
|
|
|
Jul 16, 2003
|
|
rombaft
Offline
[ X ]
Registered: Jun 19, 2003
Location: Belgium
Posts: 79
|
|
Review Date: Jun 19, 2003
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: $100.00
| Rating: 8
|
|
Pros:
|
sharp, fast, cheap
|
|
Cons:
|
build like toy
|
|
|
this is just a lens you must have in your bag, it's cheap, sharp en has f 1.8, AF is prety fast.
big minor, it is build like a toy, also the button for af/mf is a little difficult sometimes, because i do not use it a lot it will not be broken in short period, bud if you are going to use this thing a lot i think it won't last very long
|
|
|
Jun 19, 2003
|
|
cmdoc
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Mar 12, 2002
Location: United States
Posts: 310
|
|
Review Date: Jun 2, 2003
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: $60.00
| Rating: 6
|
|
Pros:
|
fantastic sharpness and color. Inexpensive.
|
|
Cons:
|
Cheaply made. Manual focus doesn't "stay". Sometime searches in low-light autofocusing on my D60.
|
|
|
Bought this used when I bought my D60. Superb portrait lens with fantastic color and bokeh. However, it is a little noisy when in autofocus mode. The body is also cheaply made. The lens was free of dust and debris when I bought it 15 months ago, but now has noticable dust inside. But it doesn't affect picture quality (at least not yet). Only other gripe is it doesn't hold the manual focus for me. For instance, when shooting basketball indoors I would manually focus on the goal and then shoot away without changing my shooting location. But after a couple of minutes I would have to refocus on the goal to get the lens back in focus again. Almost like zoom creep, I guess.
All-in-all, I still use this lens quite a bit for portrait work!
|
|
|
Jun 2, 2003
|
|
B_Friedman
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Mar 14, 2003
Location: United States
Posts: 23
|
|
Review Date: May 29, 2003
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: $70.00
| Rating: 10
|
|
Pros:
|
Wonderfully sharp. Bokeh almost looks painted with saturated colors. Fast aperture for low light, very ligh...almost unnoticeable on my EOS 3.
|
|
Cons:
|
Very plasticky.
|
|
|
All plastic, but I have not found this to be a problem. I dropped mine onto asphalt from waist high and have not noticed any related problems.
I wish all my pictures taken with my 28-80mm kit lens when I was first learning had been taken with this lens instead.
|
|
|
May 29, 2003
|
|
Daniela Rasdall
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Jan 4, 2002
Location: Mexico
Posts: 34
|
|
Review Date: May 27, 2003
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: $50.00
| Rating: 10
|
|
Pros:
|
Superb image quality. Fast AF on D30/D60
|
|
Cons:
|
none
|
|
|
Series 1: Bought mine used in 1994. IMHO sharper than the 1.4. Do not buy the newest version of this lens, shop around for a used series 1. It will outlast your DSLR!
|
|
|
May 27, 2003
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Reviews
|
Views
|
Date of last review
|
|
344
|
517988
|
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
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 |
