I had a 50/1.8 II purchased new. AF died some time later after very little use. Had a 50/1.4 purchased new. AF died twice within the first year. From then on, I lost all my faith on the AF motor of Canon 50mm lens.
Yakim Peled wrote:
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.
Happy shooting,
Yakim.
Its a cult lens. You have to be supercool to own one (like me)
I have both mk1 & 2. The mk 2 copy I have seems to be more quiet in focusing than the mk1. I cannot tell if this is the same for all as I'm not the original owner of both.
mh2000 wrote:
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.
Well, which one of these would be preferable? I know which one I would buy:
Life is simply too precious to waste it collecting garbage. Pardon me for saying so, but plastic in a lens mount is unacceptable. Metal has a far higher resistance to tear and its tensile strength makes it much less vulnerable to fatigue fracture.
After art school I went to engineering school... I understand material properties better than many
I already said that metal would be preferable (but that *isn't* a current offering in the mix from Canon... unless you go with the 50/1.4 which has its own fatal design problems), but engineering plastic can be acceptable. Fatigue is not an issue in anyway with lens mounts on small lenses.
I'm not certain what caused the failure you post, but it is most likely an impact... the same impact with a heavier metal lens could easily have damaged internal/optical parts of the lens (if not the mount) so your example is misleading and inconclusive (did you drop the the metal mount one and confirm no damage?).
As to "collecting garbage," who the heck is talking about collecting cheap EF lenses? We're talking about using them, and that's what I do with mine... but there are FM examples of the best L-lenses failing from the impacts that my garbage 50/1.8 II have survived... so I'm not that concerned when I use it.
Just this week someone posted how his 70-200/2.8 failed after a 3ft drop onto carpeting... are you going to continue using that unreliable L-garbage knowing this?
My guess is that the broken lens you show fell onto a very hard surface from more than 4ft (do you have the specifics? was it your lens?)...
>>Life is simply too precious to waste it collecting garbage. Pardon me for saying so, but plastic in a lens mount is unacceptable. Metal has a far higher resistance to tear and its tensile strength makes it much less vulnerable to fatigue fracture.
mh2000 wrote:
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.
