Depending on condition, of course, I'd spend up to $150 for a Mark I like the one I have. I would never get the Mark II--I just can't stomach a polycarbonate lens mount. But above $150, I'd be looking more at the f/1.4.
tanglefoot47 wrote:
Let me ask another question whcih would be better to get the 50 1.8 II or the 50 1.8 I? Seems to me the I would be the best to have just on built quality alone.
Build quality, not having the focus ring awkwardly on the very front of the lens and a distance scale all make the MK I worth the extra money. Although they are supposed to be equal optically, I've always felt that the MK I is better.
When my 20 year old MKI started picking up haze on the interior elements and the motor started getting a little loud I sold it for $200+ on ebay and got a MKII... the new MKII is sharper do to being new and perfectly clear. If I got a bargain on a better MKI I would take it, but for going rates I would rather go through 2 new copies of the MKII. The DOF window is pretty useless and I never used the scale, preferring to prefocus on a suitable object at the desired distance and recompose over guess focus from a scale.
People will think I'm crazy, but when the MKII was introduced, I had always thought of buying one just because they are so feather weight.
FWIW, when I sold my MKI I first "upgaded" to the 50/1.4... then after a few years realized that I liked the signature of the 50/1.8 better, so I replaced it with the MKII.
The MKI lens is driven by a plastic filament belt... that is what started getting noisy in mine... I think Canon will service them... maybe it's the same drive in the MKII... but with the cost of a new MKII being less than any lens service by Canon, servicing a MKI and 1.4 doesn't make much sense to me...
Regarding the overall "build quality," I think it is completely overblown. I shoot an EF 35/2 along with my 50/1.8 MKII and when I go to the 35 it doesn't feel like any step up in real terms (the 35 is identical to a MKI 50 in design and build).
I have dropped my MKII twice from heights that have been known to kill L-lenses... so I can't confirm that the MKII is so bad that it should be avoided. My 50/1.4 stopped working after only a few years use as well... so my MKI and MKII both are more robust in my experience.
PS I also think the focus ring on the MKII is as good or better than the skinny little flat thing on the MKI... at least you know exactly where it is! ... neither is great to manually focus.
I've never understood this reaction... I guess it comes down to cameras being male jewelry... which is fine and good... only when I'm looking for pretty jewelry I will grab my shiny little Leica IIIc or Retina
>>I just can't stomach a polycarbonate lens mount.
mh2000 wrote:
The DOF window is pretty useless and I never used the scale, preferring to prefocus on a suitable object at the desired distance and recompose over guess focus from a scale.
My guess is you don't do any night photography where you can barely see enough to compose a shot let alone manually focus without a distance scale. You can't autofocus and it's way to dark to tell what's in focus. I'd be lost now without a distance scale.
I have the Mk1 and am happy with it - this after owning the 1.4 and the Mk2.
The bokeh may not be quite as nice as the 1.4, but the 1.4 always had focus issues with me. Optically, the Mk2 is similar to the Mkl - but the build quality of the Mkl is much better and putting a lens with a plastic mount on a 1 series camera just doesn't feel right . The Mk1 is the only canon lens that has held increased in value during ownership.
After selling off some equipment I only have 8 50mm lenses that I am really using... there are a few more sitting around... but there are still a couple that I would really love to own.
I've never understood this reaction... I guess it comes down to cameras being male jewelry... which is fine and good...
No, it's from my early days as a PJ, jamming a lens onto a camera while in a dead run and keeping my eyes on a moving subject. Of course, I was using the FD breech-lock mount 'way back then, but I believe I'd have broken a lot of polycarbonate bayonet ridges if they had been polycarbonate.
For jewelry, I have an Exakta VX IIa--one made in East Germany, not the USSR--with a Carl Zeiss-Jena lens.
for the many years since the lens has been released, I've heard/read thousands of comments regarding this fear... and not seen a single case of it actually happening.
For impact loading, engineering plastics usually absorb shock better than metal.
for the many years since the lens has been released, I've heard/read thousands of comments regarding this fear... and not seen a single case of it actually happening.
I personally once saw a kit lens on a DRebel in a Wal-Mart with a broken bayonet flange.
ok, it *can* happen... and metal ones can bend if you hit them right too...
I've let my kids play with the cameras at Walmart etc. when they were small while I've looked at other stuff... wouldn't want to buy one of the display lenses even if the mount was still good.
...and certainly not saying that I *prefer* plastic, it's just what the lens comes with it and I have no fear that *I* will break mine.
Beni wrote:
Dropped a mkII 3 foot, it snapped in half along the barrel. Gave up on them after that and graduated to the 1.4 which is better all round IMO.
Better all around if you don't need fast AF, or AF that is accurate in low light. I thought I was "graduating" when I bought a 1.4 as a supposed step up from my Mk I. That was a mistake. I sold the 1.4 and added a Mk II to my original Mk I. I think there were just too many design compromises when Canon tried to put the earliest version of USM and full time manual focus into an old FD lens design. To my knowledge, Canon never used that combination again.
When a lens weighs only four and a half ounces, a plastic mount is OK. I have both the Mk I and Mk II of the 50 1.8. Optically they are nearly as good as L glass, and so close that I cannot see any differences between the two in my images. The Mk II is in my bag. The Mk I stays on the shelf to preserve it's value in the (used/antique) lens market.
It's funny that the guy who's 70-200/2.8L broke when dropped from this height onto *carpeting* didn't give up on L lenses...
I have dropped my MKII onto carpeting from 5ft with no problem, also dropped it onto cement from about 4ft, but the camera probably took some of the impact.
I wouldn't feel very secure about dropping your 1.4 from that height though...
Beni wrote:
Dropped a mkII 3 foot, it snapped in half along the barrel. Gave up on them after that and graduated to the 1.4 which is better all round IMO.
Never understood the affection to the 50/1.8 Mk I. I had two copies of the 50/1.8 Mk II and one 50/1.4 and never have I wished for a 50/1.8 Mk I. As optics are the same I would not want to pay more just to get more BQ.
As it is not serviceable anymore (if something happens) that is another reason for my surprise to the fact that people are willing to pay so much more for it. It's a 50/1.8 for god sake, not a 200/1.8.
