 |
|
|
mjeffbr
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Dec 6, 2011
Location: Brazil
Posts: 56
|
|
Review Date: Jan 18, 2012
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: $166.00
| Rating: 8
|
|
Pros:
|
great value, shallow dof, nice colors, light, very good optics
|
|
Cons:
|
fragile, slow autofocus, gets dust easily
|
|
|
Well I recommend this lens to anyone (even being so fragile), because it is dirt cheap and can produce great pictures, with great colors
I regret selling it, what was the point anyways? heheh
being so light you barely notice it
Will be buying it again
|
|
 Jan 18, 2012
|
|
Damian_pro3
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Dec 20, 2011
Location: Poland
Posts: 0
|
|
Review Date: Jan 5, 2012
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: Not Indicated
| Rating: 7
|
|
Pros:
|
sharpness, nice bokeh, f/1.8, price
|
|
Cons:
|
build quality(!), slow autofocus, soft on f/1,8-2, problems with flaring
|
|
I always have problems with making a review for this lens when someone asks for my opinion about it. It's because you'll either love it or hate it.
For me this lens has always been a good tool, despite it flaws. And when you speak about flaws, there are wuite few. Starting with build quality, which is horrible! Made of cheap plastic and sucking dust like a vacuum cleaner, it's not made to survive in harsh conditions. When I hear Nikon users complaining about a quality of Nikkor 50mm 1,8 it makes me laugh. Try this one and you'll definitely complaining. The another annoying aspect of working with it is an autofocus. It's really slow even in good light conditions and hunts for a long time when there isn't much light. Hence, shooting with it during concerts can be quite annoying. This lens is also characterized by quite visible chromatic aberration and softness on large apertures. But it becomes usable from f/2.2 onwards, giving great results from f/2.8.
Despite all those negative aspects, one can make use of this lens and be satisfied with images it produces. 50mm is usable focal lenght, on FF you can use it for street or landscape photography, on APS-C it's great for portrait, product and semi-macro photography. As I've already written, it's capable of producing sharp images and gives nice bokeh for portraits. And since I use it almost only in a studio, take pictures of still objects, I don't have to complain about AF anymore.
Having said that, I don't feel a need for upgrading to f/1.4 as long as my copy works.
Samples:
http://www.pro3photo.pl/#/gallery/7/86/
http://www.pro3photo.pl/#/gallery/2/84/
http://www.pro3photo.pl/#/gallery/7/92/
|
|
|
Jan 5, 2012
|
|
Zezoo
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Sep 9, 2011
Location: Iceland
Posts: 0
|
|
Review Date: Sep 9, 2011
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: $120.00
| Rating: 9
|
|
Pros:
|
Light, small, sharp, cheap and probably the best lens for the money from Canon
|
|
Cons:
|
Slow and noisy autofocus, plastic body, plastic mount, ugly bokeh balls
|
|
I bought this lens because it was so cheap and an f/1.8
Its all plastic so you have to be careful with it if you don't want to break it. The plastic mount scared me at first but if I just take care of the lens it shouldn't brake. The focal length on this lens is great on full frame and also on crop (80mm equivalent).
The lens is very sharp and has a large aperture of f/1,8. The focus is slow and really noisy, so I wouldn't recommend this lens for any sort of action photography.
All in all this lens is great, and for the price you pay it's a must have for any Canon user.
Here are some shots I've taken with this lens:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/isbjorn/6130698710/in/photostream
http://www.flickr.com/photos/isbjorn/6039633819/in/photostream
http://www.flickr.com/photos/isbjorn/6120785355/in/photostream
|
|
|
Sep 9, 2011
|
|
shroud72
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: May 11, 2011
Location: Spain
Posts: 90
|
|
Review Date: Aug 27, 2011
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: $99.00
| Rating: 9
|
|
Pros:
|
inexpensive
optics are worth twice the price
fast lens excels in low light
colors are better then kit lens
sharp
|
|
Cons:
|
cheap plastic feel
manual focus ring difficult to use because it is small
fragile lens
|
|
This lens has been recommended by many people to a beginner photographer as the first lens after the kit lens.
I´ve had this lens for a year and have had sort of a love / hate relationship with it.
The cheap plastic feel and the almost impossible to turn manual focus ring are the main reasons for my dislike for this lens.
It does make a great portrait lens and after some practice you will be taking much better portrait shots with this lens then with the kit lens.
However where this lens really excels, and the reason why this small lens always has a place in my photography bag is because it is really incredible in low light night photography.
I normally shoot this lens at f/2.0 as I find f/1.8 a bit soft but still somewhat acceptable when needed in a pinch. Shooting at f/2.0 in AV aperture mode with 800 ISO produces amazing night time results with my 450d/XSi.
Some night time shots to backup my review
http://flic.kr/p/ag8UCp
http://flic.kr/p/a6N1YZ
http://flic.kr/p/a6MTcF
This shot has been cropped by about 75% and still the results are acceptable
http://flic.kr/p/agknfj
Nature Panoramic shot
http://flic.kr/p/agxiqP
Portrait shot
http://flic.kr/p/afgs1G
Shot through a restaurant window
http://flic.kr/p/agQvgt
Handheld 4 shot panoramic at dusk
http://flic.kr/p/agTqC1
Summery: Although the build quality leaves much to be desired, I have not experienced that many Autofocus problems, even in low light and have gotten photos that I would have otherwised missed.
For a beginner photographer on a budget highly recommended performance for the price.
|
|
|
Aug 27, 2011
|
|
Aputure
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Aug 10, 2010
Location: China
Posts: 4
|
|
Review Date: Jan 24, 2011
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: $80.00
| Rating: 8
|
|
Pros:
|
CHEAP, lightweight, conspicuous, sharp when stopped down, fun
|
|
Cons:
|
soft wide open, slow focus in low light
|
|
Having shot with lens for nearly 5 years, I must say it has served me rather well. The big question many photogs might face is whether to get this or the EF 50mm 1.4. That one has full time manual focusing, a focus distance scale, and of course a faster aperture, gathering 2/3rds more light. Personally, I should have probably gone with the 1.4 version, considering my love of shallow depth of field and creamy smooth bokeh (of which the 1.4 outperforms the 1.8) but that doesn't mean the 1.8 is not a good bargain.
To read more and view sample photos, see here: http://www.aputure.com/blog/2010/12/30/canon-ef-50mm-1-8-ii-review/
|
|
|
Jan 24, 2011
|
|
Iceberg54
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Nov 8, 2006
Location: United States
Posts: 13
|
|
Review Date: Oct 19, 2010
|
Recommend? no |
Price paid: Not Indicated
| Rating: 3
|
|
Pros:
|
cheap
|
|
Cons:
|
cheap build, soft wide open , Af is a joke
|
|
|
The build is really cheap . It's soft wide open, but usable , better at 2.2 . But the Af is really a joke , it's hit or miss and it doesn't seem to matter how good the lighting is.
I've had a few copies , but the outcome has been the same for all of them. Sure it's cheap , but that doesn't make it a great lens.
|
|
|
Oct 19, 2010
|
|
Dave_EP
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: May 13, 2010
Location: United Kingdom
Posts: 1549
|
|
Review Date: Sep 28, 2010
|
Recommend? no |
Price paid: Not Indicated
| Rating: 4
|
|
Pros:
|
It's Cheap.
|
|
Cons:
|
Soft, massive barrel distortion. The manual focus ring is not smooth and is right on the front of the lens.
|
|
|
I had one of these a couple of years ago, and remember it being better than this. I just recently came back to Canon from Nikon (for the video features) and the cheap Nikon 50 completely blows this one away, in build quality and IQ. Shame, because this is one of the most recommended lenses.
I took mine back and swapped for the f1.4 instead.
|
|
|
Sep 28, 2010
|
|
kevandmel
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Sep 6, 2010
Location: United States
Posts: 0
|
|
Review Date: Sep 7, 2010
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: $99.95
| Rating: 10
|
|
Pros:
|
lightweight,compact and sharp.
|
|
Cons:
|
None. I can't see the fact that it's plastic being a con....c'mon its 100 bucks.
|
|
|
At this price as long as it mounts on my camera it’s worth it. The fact that it works as well as it does....icing on the cake.
|
|
|
Sep 7, 2010
|
|
defleppard
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Aug 21, 2010
Location: Indonesia
Posts: 13
|
|
Review Date: Sep 1, 2010
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: $100.00
| Rating: 9
|
|
Pros:
|
great IQ, sharp, cheap
|
|
Cons:
|
for this price?? none really
|
|
|
you can't go wrong with this lens
|
|
|
Sep 1, 2010
|
|
Offline
|
|
Review Date: Jun 26, 2010
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: Not Indicated
| Rating: 9
|
|
Pros:
|
+ sharp + compact + bright
|
|
Cons:
|
- pentagons in highlight bokeh - awful build quality
|
|
|
Seriously, this is one of the best Canon lenses. It's sharp, it's bright and it's lightweight / compact.
The only real downside is build quality. Mine got broken twice from falling onto something hard and had to be repaired the second time. Nevertheless, it still continues to provide sharp pictures.
Not a real downside, but I find myself using this lens only rarely since I got a 1D Mark II N. It has become a little short for facial portraits and many shots end up in no man's land between the wide angle and telephoto / portrait (just as I'm using this lens in between 17-35 and 70-200 zooms). But that's just my style of shooting, I guess.
I got it out again for the recent Cirque du Soleil shooting session. It's amazing that this little dude got me a few great shots over both L lenses I won.
|
|
|
Jun 26, 2010
|
|
1710fx
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Nov 21, 2005
Location: Netherlands
Posts: 1
|
|
Review Date: Jun 24, 2010
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: $105.00
|
|
Pros:
|
Very sharp
|
|
Cons:
|
Plastic
|
|
|
For this money this is a sharp lens.
For twice this money I got two that both fell apart.
The front element disengaged completely from the body (and I am rather careful with my equipment).
So the next 50mm will be something else.
|
|
|
Jun 24, 2010
|
|
ajitpalsingh
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Jan 27, 2009
Location: India
Posts: 0
|
|
Review Date: Apr 29, 2010
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: $85.00
| Rating: 9
|
|
Pros:
|
Extremely sharp and cheap; value for money;
|
|
Cons:
|
Autofocus is very noisy; manual focus ring is not very practical;
|
|
Except for the optics (which is thankfully made of glass), every thing in this lens is plastic, even the mount. But no matter how cheap it may look and feel, the end results are mind blowing. Suitable for portrait and general purpose photography on a 35mm body, this lens can put others in its class to shame.
Few close shots I took on a cropped sensor Canon body 40D
http://www.photographybyajit.com/Tabletop/index.html
Ajit.
|
|
|
Apr 29, 2010
|
|
haringo
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Oct 7, 2009
Location: United States
Posts: 12
|
|
Review Date: Apr 24, 2010
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: Not Indicated
| Rating: 9
|
|
Pros:
|
CHEAP! Good quality, fast and small
|
|
Cons:
|
none - for the price you can't beat it!
|
|
I own the 50 1.4 and used to own the 50mm 1.2.
This is the BEST lens for the money! You can get it under $100 one ebay.
AF is fast maybe a little noisy but this lens is under $100!!! Come on!
I used to take this lens everywhere! It is so small and so convenient. Also, you don't scare away people with this lens. Once you own it you'll take it everywhere in your bag! It is always ready to be thrown on the camera when needed. You don't even need to carry around a flash. You can take pictures with it in very low light without a flash.
At 1.8 it does show vignetting. It gets much better at 2.8, and f4 looks the very best.
You can see some samples in my blog: http://www.haringphotography.com/blog/
How about the 50mm 1.4? Is it worth the upgrade from the nifty fifty 1.8? To tell you the truth it is worth to upgrade. There is not much price difference but the quality of the 1.4 is much better.
You can see tons of sample images on my website: http://www.haringphotography.com/
Some of them are so good I even put them on the main page.
Of course, prime lenses are not quite as flexible as zooms. If you don't like running and moving around, well, than this lens is not for you...
I hope it helps!
|
|
|
Apr 24, 2010
|
|
beeber00
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Jul 21, 2008
Location: United States
Posts: 741
|
|
Review Date: Feb 11, 2010
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: $90.00
| Rating: 10
|
|
Pros:
|
Image quality, price, weight, fast, sweet.
|
|
Cons:
|
?
|
|
Ive had this lens for 2 years and Ive never left a review on it. That might be because Ive been having a blast using it.
This lens can be purchased for 100$ shipped:
http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/12142-USA/Canon_2514A002_Normal_EF_50mm_f_1_8.html
This lens has more reviews than most of Canon's lenses. Why? Its simple: most people own this lens. Why do most people own it? Because its just THAT good.
Until youve used one, youll never know how good it is. Its fast. People say the AF is slow and noisy. These people probably only use lenses that cost more than 900$. I think the AF is fast. You can hear it, but it wont fckin cause birds to fly away like a bomb or something.
The focus ring works. You gotta hold it right, but it works. Yea, it doesnt have that large focus rings that the privileged lenses do, but hey, you might not even use it that often (focus works nice for me).
If you own the kit lens (any kit lens) and are looking to buy your first lens, this is the winner. Ive personally got 5 people to buy this lens after their kit lens and it really opens their world into photography. If you just started, you CANNOT go wrong with this lens.
Im not a ditsy butterfingers. I dont carry bricks in my camera bag. The build quality is not an issue. Its plastic, but isnt that why they call it the 'plastic fantastic'?
F1.8 shows vignetting. So does 2.0. It gets better at 2.8, and f4 looks the best.
Dont spend 300$ more on the 50mm 1.4. Not when you have this option. I would say go for it if you break stuff easily, yea.
10/10 favorite lens.
|
|
|
Feb 11, 2010
|
|
ajt36
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Dec 15, 2008
Location: United States
Posts: 463
|
|
Review Date: Feb 9, 2010
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: $99.00
| Rating: 8
|
|
Pros:
|
Inexpensive; very good IQ
|
|
Cons:
|
Build quality; No USM; front element focusing
|
|
|
I've taken a lot of great pictures with this lens, so it has more than paid for itself in terms of "photographic" satisfaction. If you are an amateur and want to get away from your kit lens, this lens is the place to start IMO. Yes, it is plasticky and cheaply built. Yes, it has a front focusing element. Yes, it has a non-USM motor. Yes, it hunts in low light and wide open sometimes. BUT, in 8 out of 10 shooting situations, it'll work and you'll get a great shot.
Maybe the Canon or Sigma f/1.4s are better... I don't know. I've never used them. Unless you are a pro or very serious about IQ, I don't know if they are 3 - 5 times better. If you can afford them... by all means get one of them. But you will get nice photos with this lens that I doubt you will say "Gee I wish I had a f/1.4 when I took that photo!".
If you break it, so what? Buy another... though in the year and half I have owned mine, I have dropped it at least twice and it still works fine. If you ever think you absolutely NEED the extra 2/3 stops, then upgrade, and sell this lens... or keep it as a back-up.
|
|
|
Feb 9, 2010
|
|
cjwhitsett
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Mar 18, 2009
Location: United States
Posts: 443
|
|
Review Date: Dec 13, 2009
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: Not Indicated
| Rating: 9
|
|
Pros:
|
Price, sharpness
|
|
Cons:
|
Build, occasional focusing issues, on a crop body (350D) it's a little longer than would be ideal
|
|
|
Portrait shooting isn't exactly my top photographic priority, but I still wanted something that could serve me reasonably well for portraits. 90% of the time, it's this lens.
Yeah, the build quality isn't good, but as long as you're not in situations where you can't be somewhat careful, I think this lens will be fine, even though it is something of an unnecessary stress to have to be a little extra protective.
Focusing is sometimes tough at wide apertures, but this has as much, if not more, to do with my ability to use the lens and nail focus EXACTLY where I want it than it does with the lens itself.
Were it more expensive, my rating would be lower mainly due to build quality, but at the price point, something's gotta give. Again, just be a bit more careful with it.
|
|
|
Dec 13, 2009
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Reviews
|
Views
|
Date of last review
|
|
351
|
588803
|
Dec 21, 2016
|
|
|
Recommended By
|
Average Price
|
|
94% of reviewers
|
$128.42
|
|
|
Build Quality Rating
|
Price Rating
|
Overall Rating
|
|
5.88
|
9.56
|
8.6
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 |
