50mm f/1.8 -- Great Lens or Great For The Money?

[lancemcvay]

I've long read the virtues of this lens, and bought one when I bought my 20D.

Problem was, though, that I was never that enamored of the lens. At f/1.8, it

was way too soft. It improved a little as I stopped it down, but by f/2.8 it

still wasn't as good as my Tamron 28-75mm f/2.8 zoom, so I never used it all

that much.

 

The lens especially suffered compared to my 85mm f/1.8, which has taken some of

my favorite shots of my kids.

 

So those of you with both the 50mm f/1.8 and the 85mm f/1.8, how would you

compare the two? My 50mm was stolen a few months ago (along with my 100mm f/2.8

macro, a loss that truly hurt) and I haven't been in a hurry to replace it.

I've long wondered if I just had a bad copy, though.

[lovcom_photo]

People are too forgiving of that lens because it's only $70.

 

It's not a bad lens, but it is so idealized...because people focus on the $70 versus the $290 cost of the F1.4 version....making the mistake of equating quality with cost.

 

In other words, if you told me that I could buy the F1.8 for $5 or get the F1.4 for $400....I'd get the F1.4.

 

A lens is something not to skimp on....skimp on the body instead if you most....the lenses should often stay with the owner for decades, so why be so happy spending $70 for a so-so lens, when for another $210 you could get one that is better?

[jim_larson1]

http://www.photo.net/equipment/canon/ef50/

 

I go with great lens.

And I have spent lots of money on lenses. . . .

[eric friedemann]

With all due respect, your stolen lens presumably suffered from unfavorable sample variation at f/2.8. Photodo tested a Canon 50mm f/1.8 EF II lens, which exhibited a weighted MTF score of 77 at f/2.8. By way of comparison, the hideously expensive Leica Summicron-R 50mm f/2.0 scored 79 at f/2.8 and the well-regarded Zeiss Contax Planar T* 50mm f/1.7 rated a 78 at f/2.8. For $80, I would regard the Canon 50mm f/1.8 EF II as a lens worth owning.

[chuck_c_charlottenc_]

Lance,

 

In my opinion, the 50mm f1.8 is a little soft at f1.8... but I consider it only slightly softer than the 85mm f1.8 at f1.8.

 

So, my guess is that your copy of the 50mm f1.8 might have had a problem.

 

//Chuck

[j.kivekas]

Let's put figures above opinions. Go to see www.photozone.de and you'll find tests of both 50/1.8 and 50/1.4. To put it short. The f/1.8 version has better MTF50 value at border area, has less distortion, and in general MTF50 figures are in the same league as with the f/1.4 version.<p>

You can also find a comparison test here at PN <a href="http://www.photo.net/equipment/canon/ef50/">here</a>. Short conclusion - not much difference in photo quality. You could say the f/1.4 has better bokeh (blaah) and, certainly, better build quality because it is metal and not plastic like the f/1.8.

www.photodo.com values EF50/1.8 at 4.2 and EF50/1.4 at 4.4 - both are excellent marks.<p>

The EF50/1.8 is an excellent lense and even more excellent value for money. For those who are filthy rich due to good business or by heritance money won't make a difference - get the f/1.4 and add it to your bragging list. For those who need to think equipment more like business investments - get the f/1.8 and make the same money as with the f/1.4. The return on investment is better. There is no practical difference in photo quality.

[lovcom_photo]

Well, I have both, and I assure you there is a difference on contrast, and in color rendition. You make it sound like the differences are minimal...not so at all.

 

Remember, the charts and MTF's don't spell it all out. Take them both out and shoot, and you will see that there are differences, and often very noticable.

 

Surely you don't really think the F1.4 is exclusively for the rich, trustfund babies, and the like?

 

Bragging rights? You are kidding, yea?

 

If I wanted bragging rights, I'd have paid $2,000 for the F1 version.

[michael j hoffman]

I have a Canon EF 50/1.8 original version that came with my EOS 650 when I bought it new back in 1987. It is a great lens. Its not just great for the money, either. I am heavily invested in some more expensive Canon lenses, and also into the Leica rangefinder system. The image quality of the Canon EF 50/1.8 compares favorably with every lens I own. Another great, yet inexpensive offering from Canon is the EF 28/2.8. When the 28/1.8 came out, I had every intention of upgrading, but its performance lags behind that of the 28/2.8. The 28/2.8 is a great lens for the 1.6X crop factor DSLRs, offering a FOV equal to that of a 45mm lens. Another favorite offering from Canon is the 100/2 USM, a really fantastic lens which appears to be sharper than any other lens I own including the Leicas.

 

Michael J Hoffman

[sheldonnalos]

I've seen sample variation in 50mm f/1.8 lenses, so I would think that yours probably was a bad sample. On the good 50mm f/1.8's I've seen, sharpness at f/2.8 was excellent, and overall resolution was as good as anything out there at f/5.6 or f/8. My 50mm f/1.4 has always been slightly sharper than a good 50mm f/1.8, with better color rendition and bokeh.

 

I would say that a good 50mm f/1.8 is a great lens, regardless of the money. Compared to my 85mm f/1.8, I'd give the 85mm the edge, especially from f/1.8 through f/2.8.

[lancemcvay]

If the 85mm is just a bit better, then I truly had a craptastic 50mm. I might just try getting another 50mm f/1.8. Thanks for the input.

[awindsor]

Lance,

 

Are you sure that your lens was focusing correctly ? I now a number of people who had front focusing issues with this lens. With such shallow DOF any focus error is going to show up clearly.

[jbq]

I have both a 50/1.4 and 50/1.8, and both are excellent. I mostly use the 50/1.4 on my AF cameras, 50/1.8 on my MF EF-M.

 

In terms of image quality, I'd say that the 50/1.4 is best, then 85/1.8, then 50/1.8. All of them are very good throughout the frame from f/4 and f/8 in my experience.

 

There could be some sample-to-sample variation in all of those.

[brent chadwell]

Thank you Dan Lovell. People who look at photodo tests as a lens bible don't look at the amount of sample variation, build quality, contrast, or colors. The 1.8 is inferior in all of these respects. Sure, even L lenses have sample variation (early samples of the 400mm DO, or the 24-105 IS for example) but surely a $70 lens has more sample variation than a $250+ lens. It also doesn't take into account a brighter viewfinder image which allows easier manual focus. I personally use the Leica summicron-r 50mm f/2. According to Photodo, it is only slightly sharper than the $70 Canon f/1.8. However, if you looked at comparison pictures, you don't even have to pixel peep to see that the Leica runs circles around the Canon. Just one more reason not to use photodo or MTF charts as your only deciding factor.

[peter_rowe]

I have the 50mm f1.8 and it is very soft wide open. I have done extensive testing with it notching up to the next f-stop on my 20D one at a time (f1.8, f2.0 ...), tripod, cable release, MLU. I do this on an irregular basis as I read somewhere new about how fantastic this lens is, so out I go and try again. The results are that my copy is very soft at f1.8, not much change at f2.0, it starts to get better around f3.0, is okay at f4 (as good as I would expect it to be at f1.8 based on very positive reviews) and is best at f8 and f11, it starts to go downhill again at f16 and by f22 it's about as soft as wide open, maybe a little better. I simple don't use it because I have to use it from f4 and above but in this area I have other slower lens options. I bought this lens for indoor shots like museums where I can't us a flash or tripod. I tried it at the Getty Museum in LA with a plan to take it to France in two weeks time. The results are too soft though so I will be leaving it at home. I don't pixel peep -- in fact I never look at anything zoomed more that 50% and I print a lot but for me this lens is way too soft to commit important pictures to. I must have a soft copy since some compare it to "L" quality.

[sheldonnalos]

On the issue of sample variation...

 

Two out of the three 50mm f/1.8 lenses I have used/owned/tested were good to very good yielding decent sharpness wide open improving to very sharp at f/2.8. One copy was pretty soft, mushy wide open improving to decent at f/5.6 and f/8.

[rainer_t]

"Great For The Money" ?

 

absolutely

 

"Great Lens" ?

 

hmmm ... well there are better 50mm lenses (like the f/1.4 USM),

but the f/1.8 nevertheless is a great lens for its optical

capabilities. (Not for build quality).

 

Rainer

[pjmeade]

the 50/1.8 is a good lens, by no means a great lens.

 

My only other option if I want to take images at 50mm is the 24-105/f4, costing ten times as much. So, great value for money.

[j.kivekas]

You've got a table. One guy says it's 1.8 meters wide, another says it's 2.0 meter wide. Third guy comes with a ruler and measures it at 1.75 m. Who do you tend to believe?<p>

Sample variations - good question. I wonder if there is any tests done by independent sources to measure this. I believe - without any actual facts - that the MTF-curves provided by Canon (US site) are statistical. I guess standard deviation in user review ratings could be one way to analyze. The problem with user revies is that people tend to believe that the product they have just bought is the best. Subjectivity is human and objectivity difficult.<p>

MTF-figures at low lpm (say <10 lpm) is a measure of contrast. MTF-figures at hi lpm is measure of resolution.<p>

Color rendition is pretty case dependant. The EF50/1.8 makes (subjectively) warm tones which suit for landscape and portraitry. However, I can not see a clear cast - white is white.<p>

Personally, I had decided to buy the f/1.4 version (I could have afforded it) but the importer couldn't deliver it in time for an assignment. Therefore I had to pick up the f/1.8-version off-shelf. I was surprised to see that the lense was well good enough for professional work. The worries - many say it is not dust-proof and that it breaks easily when it falls. However, you can buy four of them at the price of an f/1.4. Not to say, that f/1.4 would be wasted money. The Ef50/1.4 is a better lense than the EF50/1.8 , but, optically only marginally better according to the credible sources like Photodo, Photozone - and even this site. Pragmatically, most people in the world could find better use for the price difference.

[chiswick_john]

The 50mm 1.8 is opticaly superior to most other Canon lenses - don't be fooled by it's price.

[shambrick007]

I've had four of them ﾖ 3 plastic mounts, and one metal. There is sample variation. My current one seems fine. However build quality is a joke. My previous plastic mount version literally fell apart on me. Looking at the two halves, I was amazed at how few mechanical connection points there were to hold thin thing together.<p> Two weeks ago, I picked up Nikon 50/1.8 AF for a co-worker and was immediately envious of itﾒs superior construction. I'd happily pay an additional $30-$40, for a better made lens.

[mark_chappell]

<I> I believe - without any actual facts - that the MTF-curves provided by Canon (US site) are

statistical</i><P>

 

And I've heard that they are theoretical -- computer-calculated based on optical formula.

Either way, they don't account for sample variation.

[yakim_peled1]

>> Great Lens or Great For The Money?

 

IMHO it is both but naturally there are better, like the aforementioned 85/1.8.

 

Happy shooting,

Yakim.

[thomas_hardy1]

I might get spanked for this but I'm going to go non-P.C. and voice what others are thinking......so here goes. Who cares about what lens goes on a 20D? Someone who REALLY cares about image quality would find a way to buy an EOS 1dsmk II, and mate it with some FINE glass.

 

Actually, I have a 20D and bought the cheapo 50 1.8. I only used it a few times, because I use zooms mostly.

 

Come on it's only $79.00 why complain about it being soft at 1.8 and all the subsequent girations about charts etc. which followed. My lunch today cost me $67.00 plus a 20% tip and that lasted 30 minutes. I bought the lens many months ago and still have it in my bag.

[madwand]

<i><q>I might get spanked for this but I'm going to go non-P.C. and voice what others are thinking......so here goes. Who cares about what lens goes on a 20D? Someone who REALLY cares about image quality would find a way to buy an EOS 1dsmk II, and mate it with some FINE glass.</q></i><br><br>

 

Of course, even the plebs can afford a 1Ds-II, the ones who really care already have 39 MP MF camears or better. You can see this in the fine print on Canon boxes -- <i><q>If you really care about resolution, please buy a Phase One."</q></i><br><br>

 

This line of reasoning is not only non-PC, it's irrational.<br><br>

[thomas_hardy1]

Hmmm.... 39 MP. Now where did my wife hide that credit card?