Dissappointing build quality

<p>Hi all</p>

<p>I've just today received an EF 50mm f1.8 mk II, and to say that i'm less than impressed with the build quality of this lens would be a great understatement. I did research this lens before deciding to buy and understood in advance of receiving it to be a very 'plastic' lens, but nothing really prepared me for just how 'cheap' and flimsy and fragile this lens feels, and the manual focus ring is very poor! I am deeply unimpressed and dissappointed at the construction standard of this lens by Canon. Why is this lens so poor? Budget build? </p>

<p>I did consider buying the mk I version but opted for the more recent version assuming it would be more 'appropriate' for my 40D. I am really tempted to trade-in my mkII for a mkI as soon as i can! Am i being unfair on the mkII? I haven't used it yet, i am almost scared to use it incase i break it attaching it to my camera, it feels so flimsy! What do others think of this lens? Why does Canon manufacture such an insubstantial lens when they normally produce such solid lenses? I have the EF-S 10-22mm and the EF-S 60mm macro, both are great solid lenses that i consider a benchmark in affordable quality, the 50mm EF falls so far short of that quality. So dissappointing! Maybe i'll be writting back in a couple of days raving about its image quality! Should i give my 50mm f1.8 mkII a chance? Or should i try out a mkI? </p>

<p>Kind regards<br>

Donaldo</p>

 

<p>You're entitled to your opinion of course, but this lens is faster than either of your lenses and yet cheaper and lighter. They had to cut corners somewhere.</p>

<p>The Mk. I is only available used and cost several times more then the Mk. II from what I've seen. I guess you get what you pay for here.</p>

<p>The old saying, you get what you pay for" certainly applies here. I used a friend's copy of this lens several years ago and wasn't that impressed. Instead I picked up a 50mm 2.5 CM. Although this isn't built like an L lens, I preferred its build quality and image quality over the 50mm 1.8.</p>

<p>IMO, the 50mm f/1.8 isn't adding much to your setup if you already owned the 60mm macro (which is a better lens in every respect). The 60mm is sharp wide open at f/2.8, and it has much better bokeh than the 50mm lens as well. True, the 60mm doesn't open as wide, but the 50mm is pretty soft at f/1.8 and f/2 anyway, so you are really only getting 2/3 of a stop of usable aperture range. I've never tried the Mk I version of the 50mm prime, but I've read that it's no better (except in build) than the Mk II. I think that you should forget about "upgrading" to the Mk I version of the 50mm f/1.8 lens and instead just use your 60mm lens, with the 50mm lens that you currently have being used only occasionally for those instances where you need to shoot at wider than f/2.8 and are willing to put up with the softness. Under these circumstances, the 50mm will hold up just fine. BTW, this is what I do with my 50mm prime, but I had the 50mm lens for years before I bought the 60mm macro. YMMV.</p>

<p>You buy a $100 lens and complain about the build quality? What were you expecting?</p>

<blockquote>

<p>Why is this lens so poor? Budget build?</p>

</blockquote>

<p>er. Yes.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>I have the EF-S 10-22mm and the EF-S 60mm macro, both are great solid lenses</p>

</blockquote>

<p>remind me - how much do they cost?</p>

<blockquote>

<p>Should i give my 50mm f1.8 mkII a chance?</p>

</blockquote>

<p>What have you got to lose?</p>

<blockquote>

<p>i am almost scared to use it incase i break it attaching it to my camera</p>

</blockquote>

<p>I find that comment almost laughable. You read it was flimsy and you bought it. If you don't like it sell it second hand and lose $30. Many here (including very experienced photographers) haev it precisely because it is so cheap and it does not matter if it gets stolen, broken etc.<br>

By the way - image quality is excellent.</p>

 

<p>You should have bought the 50 f/1.4 if you were worried about build quality. Is it possible that you spent more than $100 on the lens? If you were ripped off then I could see some questions being asked. But if you got it for $100 then you've bought the cheapest lens that you can buy for a Canon camera (one lens is cheaper, the Tamron AF 28-80mm f/3.5-5.6 according to <a href="http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/search?ci=274&N=4293919655+4294185281&Ns=p_PRICE_2|0">B&H</a> ).</p>

<p>So how do the images look? Can you notice a difference in low light between an f/2.8 lens and an f/1.8 lens at a decent ISO?</p>

<p>Yes. Give it a chance. (Preferably on a rebel, the best light weight high image quality combo.)</p>

<p>My suggestion is to quit fondling the lenses and shoot through them. The 50/1.8 is sharp and has good contrast. It's too stubby to be phallic so just put it on the camera and use it for its intended purpose.</p>

<p>In my experienc the 50mm f1.4 has a pretty cheap feel too: a little loose, and when turning the barrel it feels rough/coarse.</p>

<p>The EF 50 1.2L USM has the best build quality of the current 50s. And you do pay extra for that. A lot extra.</p>

<p>Like Jack mentioned, the EF 50 2.5 CM strikes a good balance between decent built quality and cost. It's made a little better than the EF 50 1.8 (MK I) and, although the MF ring is tiny, it is smooth and finely geared for an AF design. Certainly much better than the MF ring on the EF 50 1.4 USM & 50 1.8 (MKI/II). And, if it matters, is optically the best of all Canon's 50 designs. Mine is critically sharp wide open and is virtually distortion free. My old 50 1.8 needed to be stopped down several stops to sharpen up and had terrible barreling at 2 meters or less.</p>

<p>So, you buy the cheapest prime lens out there and complain about the build quality and you have not even taken a picture with it? To say that your expectations were way off is an under-statement. Despite the cheap feel, this lens delivers and is probably the best value you can find.</p>

<blockquote>

<p><em>By the way - image quality is excellent.</em></p>

</blockquote>

<p>Pentagon-shaped bokeh (hyper cheap iris in this lens). I warn those that "come near me" to avoid this plastic 1.8 at all costs. Cheap focusing system too. Ain't worth a dime.</p>

<p>it's the best lens in the world you can get for $100. Don't worry... it won't break (untill you fight with the camera)</p>

<p>I have used mine regularly for years without ever having a problem. It focuses fine and the photos are fine. I have had problems with two more expensive Canon lenses, one about 16x more expensive. Sample photo...</p>

<p><img src="http://spirerphoto.files.wordpress.com/2009/11/lilyblue.jpg" alt="" width="700" height="525" /> <br /> <em>Lily's Blue Wedding, Copyright 2009 Jeff Spirer</em></p>

<p>Don, you forgot to complain that the 50 f/1.8 does not have full time manual focus capabilities and pentagon bokeh because it has fewer blades. Of the numerous L series lenses I own, I never travel without the nifty fifty in the bag. Actually it is so small I can put it in my pocket. Use it and have some fun with it. I think you will be surprised with how long this lens will give you good results. Doug</p>

<p>I had mine for tens years used it alot and it still worked fine when I sold it. It was sharp but had horrible bokeh though. The 50mm 1.4 is said to me better.</p>

<p>A 50mm f1.4 L would be nice, likely could be a priced a lot cheaper than the behomoth 1.2.</p>

<p>Come on, it's the cheapest lens in Canon lines, and still gives you very decent result.<br>

I have Mk-I and like this lens. <a href="http://www.prime-junta.net/pont/Reviews/g_Fifty_versus_fifty/a_Fifties_duel_--_f1.4_vs_f1.8.html?page=7">The test</a> shows that Mk-I is a tad better than Mk-II.<br>

If I have to offer you advice, don't play too much with manual focus on Mk-II, that tiny ring is prone to break.</p>

<p>You have a lot to say about build quality but dont seem to have taken a single picture with it, give the old girl a chance. You have spent more time typing and moaning about it than trying it.</p>

 

<blockquote>

<p>Maybe i'll be writting back in a couple of days raving about its image quality</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Look forward to hearing from you in a couple of days then ;-)</p>

<p>EF-S 10-22mm is in the $700-800 range and the EF-S 60mm is in the $400 range. The 50mm 1.8 is all of $80 many consider it to be disposable but it still produces nice images. If you wanted something , as you say, in the build quality range of the other 2 lenses you should have bought the 50mm 1.4 which is last I checked nearly $400 and in equal price range of the 2 lenses you compare it too. <br>

To put it in comparison it would be the equivalent of me comparing my L lenses to non Ls and saying they should be of similar build quality. You get what you pay for and for a $80 lens you get better image quality then you should for the price. <br>

If it's that big of a deal then return it get a more expensive lens. If it's not shoot with it enjoy it and in a year buy another one if this one breaks and you are still ahead in $$ because again it costs all of $80. </p>

<blockquote>

<p>The 50mm 1.8 is all of $80 many consider it to be disposable but it still produces nice images.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>It was a few years back. Most internet dealers like B&H and Amazon now sell it for $100 or so. </p>

<p>I'm going to have to side with the OP's camp and say that Canon isn't doing anybody a service with the cheap 50mm f/1.8. This lens is a staple to all kinds of photography, and Canon's is the cheapest, junkiest piece of dung in the world for this lens. Nikon's is the same price, but worlds better in quality. Canon dropped the ball years ago on this lens, and has refused to pick it back up. While of course the lens performs well, it is probably the single least reliable lens in the entire Canon lineup. I would even trust the 18-55mm EF-S to last longer than the 50. This cheap 50 has a long reputation already of increased failures and necessary repairs. You just can't trust it to stand up to even regular use.</p>

<p>At last, someone who seems to see where i'm coming from regarding this wee lens! Mr Hal B, thank you :-)</p>

<p>Thank you also to the most of you guys who have responded with your opinions and experiences and suggestions about Canon's EF 50mm f1.8 mkII, i appreciate your time and your thoughts. I only just got the lens today, i will certainly take a few shots with it and see how i get on. I will do my best to enjoy this lens!</p>

<p>To the one or two of you guys who took the opertunity to ridicule me and my expectations of this lens; naughty naughty! ;-)</p>

<p>Regards<br />Donaldo</p>

<p>Nikkor 50/1.8 is generally more expensive, though not by far. In my home country it's sold like 1.5x canon price, while here in France the difference between the two is very small.</p>

<p>As for reliability, I bet it's more reliable than 18-55is (except the focusing ring) because of its simple design. I owned 50/1.8 II for a few years and have no problem before I sold it and get the Mk-I. EF-S 18-55IS has poor AF motor (I owned this lens with a dead AF motor), but it's another discussion.</p>

<p>I agree that the built quality could(must) be better. But more importantly, Canon need to upgrade overall lens design including AF and its ugly pentagon aperture blades, and they could sell it at higher price. Call it 50/1.8 Mk-III. </p>

<p> </p>