Dissappointing build quality

<blockquote>

<p>Oh, and I've never spent more than $15 on lunch for two.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>and I was going to suggest we meet up for lunch to discuss all this further in great detail. Now I won't bother...</p>

<p>The introduction of the Apple example makes me wonder seriously whether the denigration of the poor little nifty fifty is just an elaborate troll.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>I don't really want to get into an Apple discussion either, though.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Then why wave another red flag by introducing a topic that is even more prone to "debate"?</p>

<p>In my mind, I now picture Hal hunched over a 486 PC running an old version of Windows with Internet Explorer. After all, an operating system is just an operating system, so why would you need more? Admit it Hal, you've probably not used an Apple since the turn of the century, maybe never, and do you really own a 50mm f/1.8 from Canon? You have however, read lots of on-line posts and this experience has convinced you of something or other about lenses and other equipment you don't own and don't use.<br /> Enjoy the high optical and mechanical quality of your Quantaray. My own <em>personal</em> experience with Quantaray products that they are not optically worth even the little they cost. Try one of their 500mm reflex lenses and you'll see what I mean.</p>

<p>I wonder <em>why</em> the tide here is going 4 to 1 (by your own count) against your unsupported assertion that this lens is the most failure-prone of the Canon lineup? Could it be that your view does not accord with the practical, not theoretical, experience of the vast majority of users? Nah, it's your <strong>opinion</strong> , so I apologize for asking you to provide even a shred of evidence. I guess I'll know better in the future.<br /> JEEZ;)</p>

<p>Insults instead of reason? This is why I can't debate with you, JDM. I used the Apple example as I thought it might illuminate my point. I really don't want to get into that. Please don't troll me on the computer issue.</p>

<p>Apology accepted.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>You guys just can't see criticism</p>

</blockquote>

<p>I can't see how the cost of the lens has anything to do with photography. It's not about "criticism," it's about silly arguments that have nothing to do with what someone who actually shoots cares about. You're interested in manufacturing costs. Quite a few of us are interested in photography. Two different things.</p>

<p>Insult? What insult? Did my mental picture strike too close to home?</p>

<p>And you're quite welcome. :P</p>

<p>No, your mental picture did not strike close to home. It's far from it, and juvenile.</p>

<p>I believe the OP was really asking if the MK I was better than the MK II, as Canon seemed to remove the steel flange in favor of a plastic one. Honestly, when I bought mine (I do own one, by the way) I had a little more money set aside for the lens, not just $100. I wished at the time that Canon had chosen to update the lens and maintain the metal mount, and make improvements rather than degrade the quality of the lens. I could have spent more like $150, but not more than that. The MK I apparently had a focus distance window as well. Actually, I'm now considering getting rid of my MK II and buying the MK I instead. Unfortunately, the price has been driven up to around $250 on a used MK I, because of the more desireable quality, and scarcity.</p>

<p>Hal B... now we're moving on to the iPad? Too much caffeine this morning perhaps?</p>

<p>Time to let this one rest...</p>

I can't fault Canon for making available THREE different 50mm lenses. I bought the 1.8, with the understanding that it

might offer less quality both optically and build-wise. I was pleasantly surprised. But the point for me here is all about

consumer choice. I can't understand how anyone can say Canon should not sell the 1.8. Not everybody is able to/wants

to spend $300+ for the 1.4. Canon is doing us a favor by giving us such choice, and like anything else the price should be

a rough guide for our expectations. I tend to think if Canon only offered the 1.4 we'd be complaining that there is too little

choice. Anyways, as a predominantly film shooter, I only wish the future held as much selection as the digital world does!

<p>I've used my plasticy 1.8 since it first came out - what year was that 93 or something (i think it was around $60)? I tried to get the Mk 1 but they had recently quit manufacturing it, and couldn't find one new. It works for me, I don't treat it special, but let's just say I don't juggle with it either. I do like the grinding sound when focusing though :). come to think of it, it's probably the best bang for the buck of all my lenses, including the L lenses and a couple of large format lenses.</p>

<p>Some of you guys would not have made it in the FD world, I think Canon made like 6-8 different 1.4-1.8 lenses, breech lock, new fd, chrome nose, FL etc. I can't wait for Canon to come out with a 50mm thorium in EF mount, now that will be some discussion!I figgered the argument would end when someone posted a nice pic (Jeff), but no. Thanks for brightening my dull work day up, I"m gonna try that mustard on a banana now.</p>

<p> </p>

<p>Find a used 50 1.8 version 1. You might like it better. It's solidly built with a proper metal mount and focusing scale, although its old-fashioned "arc-form drive" motor is noisy and doesn't have full-time manual operation. This was the first lens I got with my EOS 650 in 1989. It was quite useful (and very sharp) with a full-frame, although I find its effective focal length not particularly useful for APS-C. It might be very useful for portraits, which I seldom take.</p>

<p>FWIW - It looks like KEH has two of the original MK I lenses for sale right now. One for $159 and one for $165. Both in "EX" condition. They describe them as "50 F1.8 (52) METAL MOUNT 35MM SLR AUTO FOCUS STANDARD ANGLE LENS".</p>

<p>I bought an Olympus OM-1 with a 50 1.4 lens off ebay a few months back. (Everybody raved how great they were) When it showed up it had a slightly bent filter ring on the lens, and this really wacky needle meter which I hated.<br>

Looking back on the whole deal, I can't believe how <strong>crazy</strong> I became over what was basically lunch money. Long story short, I sent it back even though it was really cheap but functioned fine, great even.</p>

<p>I would send it back ... use the money to take your S. O. to lunch, spend more than $15. :-) </p>

<p>I've had my 1.8 II pop out the front element once after a 2ft. fall on a tile floor, but it was easy enough to fix by just popping it back in place. Really, it's just a competitor to the 1.4 that's less than a stop narrower and much cheaper. In my mind, a negligibly crippled, plastic 1.4 that I won't cry about when I finally have to replace it. That's why I prefer to take it and my backup 450D on any shoot I consider dangerous for my equipment. Even if the lens and body I'm using are totally destroyed for whatever reason, I'm out less than I earned for the shoot.<br>

It's also a fine lens for IQ stopped down to f/3.5-f/8 to boot.</p>

<p>If you want build quality, look no further than Nikon's single focal length professional line.</p>

<p>Mine feels cheap, but it takes great photos. The bokeh isn't beautiful, but I don't shoot a whole ton of shots where bokeh matters. I've been very satisfied with my cheap little toy. It's a backup now, but it makes a great portrait lens on a crop body. I think this is a great lens for someone who wants to get their first prime.</p>

<p>the 50mm 1.8 $80 brand new lens is made out of plastic, feels very cheap, seems crap, BUT it takes the sharpest, greatest photos out of all my lens.<br>

here's a sample of a 100% crop, no manipolation whatsoever.<br>

Taken at f4 ISO 320</p><div></div>

<p><strong>Alin Daju:</strong> Let's see a photo taken at f/1.8.</p>

<p>Peter J, i'll pretend you never used a lens that wide open and I'll guide you to a website where these el-chepo lens actually beats the 50mm 1.2 L USM at the same stop.<br>

This one I bought for AU$80, the other one for AU$2000</p>

<p><a href="http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=105&Camera=453&Sample=0&FLI=0&API=0&LensComp=403&CameraComp=453&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=0&APIComp=3">http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=105&Camera=453&Sample=0&FLI=0&API=0&LensComp=403&CameraComp=453&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=0&APIComp=3</a></p>

<p> </p>

<blockquote>

<p><strong> </strong> Let's see a photo taken at f/1.8.</p>

</blockquote>

<p> <a href="http://www.flickr.com/groups/99827226@N00/discuss/72157621333701113/">Here are a bunch</a> of photos supposedly taken at f/1.8 .</p>

<p>Alin,</p>

<p>Not sure what you thought your link would prove, because it clearly shows the 1.2 having better quality for identical wide apertures in the image center and border, and a better center even stopped down. Only in the corner does the 1.8 apparently do (somewhat) better for all apertures, and that's on full-frame.</p>

<p>Not that I know and care about this argument either way; I've never seen or used either lens. But it seems very odd that you'd make a claim and then post a link demonstrating the exact opposite of that claim.</p>

<p>What a thread!</p>

<p>Anyway, I have 4 L lenses and a 50 f1.4 and a 15mm fisheye. The 16-35 went back to Canon once, the 24-70 is on its third trip back all due to fragility/heavy handed use. The 50 has had no issues and been treated the same.</p>

<p>The new 100 IS Macro is largely made of engineering grade plastic. I'm getting one.</p>

<p>When I buy a lens I don't care/know what or how it is made, or what it is made of, I never look at MTF charts either. I buy lenses on what images I can take with them, what features they have and if I need them.</p>

<p>Take care all, Scott.</p>

<p>Hi</p>

<p>I've had my 50 f/1.8 II for about 5 years - construction is cheap but it didn't worry me due to the inexpensive new price (about $130AU in 2004). I use it when I want a small, light, low-light lens - I am not disappointed with its performance. I did a little "test" with my 5DII comparing the Canon lens with a couple of 50mm OM Zuikos ( a f/1.8 and a f/1.4) that I use both on OM film cameras and the 5DII.</p>

<p>Using a tripod, mirror lock up, remote release and manual live-view focusing at maximum magnification I took a series of shots from wide open to f/8. I really could not see any difference between any of the lenses in terms of IQ performance. The Zuikos are smaller, heavier and much better built than the Canon and also cheaper on the used market. However, they are manual only and require stop-down metering in Av or M to use. </p>

<p>The Canon, on the other hand has AF and full electronic control through the camera. So am I disappointed with the Canon EF 50 f/1.8II, including build quality? No, its what I expected.</p>

<p>Cheers, Bob</p>