saaketham wrote:
I agree about the price to quality ratio ... but not enough to hype this lens as a \"must-have\" lens. I\'ve seen this term used quite often, about the 50 f/1.8. Guess its a good one for really low-light. I\'d rather use the 85 f/1.8 though .. beautiful portrait lens for a cheap price.
Thing is, $400 for a lens isn\'t considered \"cheap\" by many people. I know it isn\'t for me. Thus, the sub-$100 price of the 50 f/1.8 really makes it shine. I know I really like my 50 f/1.8 for just about all facets of photography...but I don\'t really want to drop the cash on an EF 50 f/1.4 (but, I did get a Nikon 50 f/1.4 Ai for even lower light photography).
However, even looking at it for what it is (ignoring price), the build quality is low, but image quality is still quite high. It suffers from Spherical aberration artifacts wide open, but sharpens up quite a bit before f/2.8.
Dec 22, 2009 at 01:44 PM
Previous versions of kakomu's message #7918390 « Most overrated Canon lens. »
