50 1.8 MK I Vs. 50 1.8 MK II

[chris.sager]

Given that prices for used 50mm f1.8 Mk I lenses are about $100 and

the new cost of a 50mm f1.8 Mk II is about $80, does it make sense to

spend the extra dough for the Mk I?

 

The metal mount is obviously a benefit. Is the optical quality any

better? What about build quality?

 

Thanks guys.

[bennyboy]

Optically identical. The Mk I has a distance scale whereas the Mk II does not.

[sheldonnalos]

Build quality is definitely better with the Mark I. That's the primary reason for the price difference. If you can get a Mark I for $100, I'd say do it. I've seen them selling as high as $150 used.

[tommyinca]

I have both. If you do manual focus, the MK1 is the one to get. This focus ring turn 180 degree compare to only about 60 degree or so for the MK2. The build and quality of the MK2 is molded plastic slap together with a scale-less filmsy / put-your-finder-away focus ring. Other then that, the optical side is the same. The plus side for the MK2 is that it is lighter. It hardly add any weight to the bag.

[tommyinca]

OOps typo, "put-your-fingers-away" because it is way up-front and can block view as one focus.

[chris.sager]

I guess you're right.

 

Think its worth spending twice the price? Seems like $75 for a metal lens mount might be a bit much.

[bennyboy]

Personally I'd buy a 50 1.4 before spending 150 on a 50 1.8 MK I. But then I own one already...

[PuppyDigs]

I have the EF 50 1.8 MK I (1988 vintage!) and it's a gem: sharp as a tack and build like a BMW

compared to the MK II. I personally find the DOF and distance scale useful. Having a real MF

ring is nicer vs turning the front of the barrel too. Being able to use a dedicated hood (ES 65

III) without an adapter is kinda cool too.

 

I've seen a minty MK I command prices as high as $175 on ebay. The funny thing is

sometimes you'll find them attached to an old 600 series body and sold as a combo for $50,

so look around. Obviously the owner didn't know the value of the lens...

[davemmm]

The MK I is generally acknowledged to have better build quality than the MK II... but rather than waste time searching around for a tough Mk I, why not get a MK2 with the same optics, for a lower price... and know you'll be getting a pristine set of unmarked optics rather than playing the ebay gamble?<br>

Second, you can chuck it around knowing that genuine Canon EF lenses don't come any cheaper. If you do manage to break it (unlikely) you can replace it with another new one, for about the same price as your one secondhand MK I.<br>

The Mk I won't blow you away with it's build quality, focusing speed or the noise of its focusing... but the same applies to the MkI, plus it'll have wear and tear.<br><b>

Get a MkII today and take some pictures. You won't be amazed, but you won't be disappointed.</b>

[jimstrutz]

The Mk I has a noisy focus motor, and weighs more. There is nothing wrong with a plasitc mount on a lens this small and light. Buy the Mk II.

 

Or buy my minty Mk I for $150. I bought mine on ebay for $100, and I sold the EOS 630 that was attached to it for $80. Having done this a few times, I'm up for turning a profit.

[rob_murray]

Having owned at least 6 of the mk1 and 3 of the mk11 lenses, I sell the Mk1's everytime I find them. Couple of reasons. 1. I think they focus slower, the focus is not very smooth on them and I can get up

to $200 for them! Both optically are great from F2.8 on. Wide open they are soft.If you want better build quality, sharper lens and Macro get the Canon 50mm F2.5 macro lens. Its razor sharp at any setting, has metal mount, smooth focusing and can be found for about $200 or less.