Differences between EF 50 1.8 and 50 1.8 II

<p>Years ago I bought a used Canon EOS 650 with an almost new EF 50 1.8.<br /><br />I'm now using it on a 5D Classic. Converting files with Lightroom I noticed that using the 50 1.8 II lens correction module profile the vignetting correction is way too strong.<br /><br />I thought 50 1.8 and 50 1.8 II were exactly the same lens with a different exterior but maybe I was wrong.<br />Why should the newer one have such a bad vignetting when compared to the older version?<br>

Using the same lens profile on a Canon EOS 1000D gives an almost perfect correction. Am I doing something wrong with Camera Raw?</p>

<p>The focus ring is different, the two has no distance window, and the body is a different. I think it's highly likely that as a result of the changes in mechanical profile, there were some minor changes in optical performance also. <br>

The 50/1.8 II has pretty bad vignetting (as well as decreased sharpness, at the edges), but remember, if you are using a crop sensor (which only sees the center of the image circle) vs. a FF profile (for your 5D which sees the el McNasty edges...) It's not surprising that noticeable differences are visible.</p>

<p>The early version was better made, but optically I don't think there is any difference between them. The II version was clearly not intended to be an improvement over the original quality-wise, just cheaper to manufacture.</p>

<p>The main difference is in the mount - all plastic on the II, but you'll probably have to do vignette control manually for the I model rather than with the II setting.</p>

<p>I confess this is the first I've heard of changes other than the mount. Not surprised, but just hadn't heard of them before. I had assumed people hunting for the old version were just plastiphobic.</p>

<p>The Photozone.de tests (<a href="http://www.photozone.de/canon_eos_ff/415-canon_50_18_ff">link</a>) for the II model show its less pleasant side on the 5D as opposed to a APS-C body.</p>

<p>Yeah, just putting the focus ring towards the center of the body (vs. the end) made a big difference in manual handling, and feel. The focus diff scale (w/IR) isn't a big deal for many things, but I guess to cheapen it up it had to go...</p>

<p>I don't believe there was much (if any noticeable) difference in optics, the lenses and groupings were the same (I believe), but the mechanics can have an impact, and so it's certainly possible that there are some slight differences resulting from all the swip swapping around...</p>

<p>They're optically the same. I've tested a Mk I against a MkII and the difference was small, small enough that it could easily have been sample to sample variation. </p>

<p>In fact the optical formula of the 50/1.8 (and 50/1.4) is similar to the Canon 1970's FD lenses. Mechanically they are worlds apart but that doesn't show up in the pictures, only if you drop them.</p>

<p>Thank you.. It's probably a aps-c camera profile, as the rendition was perfect on 1000D (rebel xs in the USA) and it's so bad on 5D.<br />I already dropped it (well, I didn't actually do it myself, a friend of mine hit the camera with a soccer ball, great, isn't it :D). It's working great, anyway.<br>

I'm really looking forward to receving the nikon mount adapter that I ordered a few days ago so that I can start using my Nikkor 50 1.4 AI instead of this plastic lens (it's a great lens, I admit, but I think a metal lens is better).</p>

<p>the older mk I has the following over the mk II:<br>

- metal mount<br>

- better focus ring<br>

- distance scale<br>

<br />It feels more akin to the ef 50mm 1.4 in terms of touch and feel.</p>