canon mkI vs mkII 50mm EF

What is the difference between these two versions? Is it only the

plastic versus the metal mount? Is the glass similar, etc.? I know the

plastic one is cheaper. Are my Kenko extension tubes compatible with

either? Thanks.

My Mark I has a distance scale. As I understand, the optical design is same.

Mk I has a much better construction but that's it. The MF ring on mkI is actually usable,

unlike the little "thing" on the Mk2. Everything else is the same: same optics, same noisy

AF.

 

The tubes are compatible with both.

Optically they are identical, but the newer version has a plastic mount rather than metal,

lacks a distance window and uses a bogus screw in manual focus adapter on the end of

the barrel. Canon probably did this to make a clear distinction between it and the EF

50 1.4 USM, a wonderful lens if you don't mind spending $325. The result is that the old

EF 50 1.8 holds its value on the used market, selling for more than a new EF 50 1.8 MK II.

MK-2 vs MK-1<div></div>

I have a mkII, if I were to be purchasing a 50/1.8 I would search for a mkI for nothing other than the build construction, heavier duty mount. I have had some few problems with mine poping from the plastic friction.

The I has 6 diaphragm blades while the II only has 5.

Thanks for all the comments and advice. I just forked out the $$$ for a Mk I (more than a new one). I'm looking forward to seeing the results from a Canon "prime" lens versus the telephotos.

This is a topic that has been covered many times in the past and there will be plenty of threads in the archives. Both the 1.8 Mk II and 1.4 have, in my opinion, very poor quality of mechanical construction even if the optics are good to excellent. Just see how much the lens barrel flops around inside its mount, especially when extended. The 1.8 Mk 1 is much better in this respect.

 

If only Leica or Zeiss could build their 50mm lenses in a fully compatible EF fitting and bring their high build quality standards to the options available to Canon owners. Or if Canon could repeat the build standard of their 50/1.4 from the FD range of 25 years ago.

Ah yes...to have a Zeiss lens in the Canon line!

<p>Actually I have both MK1 and MK2 in front of me before i will give the MK2 back to friend. I have recently photographed some urban pictures while swapping them between DSLR EOS 50D body and my old EOS 300 SLR cameras. And it is fair to say that the MK2 is a piece of crap which is a step backwards in technology. The picture above shows, from left, the MK2 and MK1 and it shows literally which one should be predessor and succesor. The MK2 focuses as it wants, it is much more noisy and generally acts like untrained crazy dog. When you use the MK1 you feel its quality and reliability, really and truly. The MK2 is a plastic-fantastic crap created by marketing department, not by engineers. Yes, it develops great pictures of great colors until it... breaks and you will have pieces of lens http://www.pbase.com/jniemann/image/102981383/medium.jpg http://www.totallysweetphotos.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/02/broken-canon-50mm-f1.8ii.jpg Canon did everything what possible to improve selling 50mm F/1.4.</p>