I need a 50mm

[JDMvW]

<blockquote>

<p>My concern is only about the F1.8 durability.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>It looks "cheap" because of some kind of misconception about what "plastic" is. This is not a Japanese toy car from the 50s. No, it's a Japanese toy lens from the 80s! Well, if someone can point to the reports of f/1.8 50mm lenses falling apart, I wish they'd do so or shut up about how "fragile" it is. My off-hand impression here is that there have been no reports that I have seen of failures with the f/1.8 except from one person who dribbled one down a stone staircase, or some such. I seem to remember rather more accounts of problems with the f/1.4.<br /> I am not saying the f/1.4 is cheap tinny junk, I am just saying that the empirical evidence does not seem to support any "durability" problems with the cheaper lens.<br /> The 35mm f/2 is a dandy too. It, like many other of the primes in the line-up are old designs that go back to FD days, and they have noisy focus motors without full-time manual focusing. For all that, you just have to know that when Canon does upgrade these babies, they will cost a whole lot more than they do now.</p>

[scrivyscriv]

<p>JDM - I've seen a lot of your postings, you have quite a lot of excellent information. Good to have photogs like you share insight.</p>

<p>Personally speaking, I've had problems with the 50mm f/1.8 because of its fragility. I'm not rough on my equipment, but I need it to be sturdy enough to handle part-time professional use. It's simply not made for pro wear and tear... The plastic innards are nowhere near spec for what I would say is professional.<br>

I say this from personal obervation: Last week I took mine apart to repair a plastic tab holding the front group to the main assembly... The platic is brittle and thin there, and will easily crack or break upon impact. I believe that's the main "fragility" issue with the f/1.8 II - the front group is anchored with small plastic tabs and prone to impact damage. I haven't seen any other common issues related to things breaking on the lens, and have had three. As a side note, this type of damage is easily repaired, and is detailed in this link:<br>

<a href="http://www.ejarm.com/photo/ef5018iidis/">HOW TO REPAIR YOUR BROKEN CANON EF 50MM <em>f</em> /1.8 II</a></p>

<p>I don't have personal observation to write about the <em>f</em> /1.4 version. I've rented it for about a month and really enjoyed shooting it, but since it was rented I was extra careful to baby it and never felt that it was any less durable than the <em>f/</em> 1.8 version.</p>

[JDMvW]

<p>Robert, I appreciate your coming forward with some real first-hand experience. I'd argue that lots of lenses are likely to "crack or break upon impact" ;)<br>

I still think most of us have had less problems than one would think from looking at the thing. I have one and bought my daughter another, and she is in photography school and uses hers in a "semi-professional" way with no problems.</p>

[yurgens_f]

<p>new sigma 50 1.4 kick a.s.s nikon and canon this time.</p>

[pauloriskas]

<p>I found one 1.8 MK I at Ebay should i think about it instead 1.8 MK II ?</p>

[scrivyscriv]

<p>Not really. Mark I offers a distance scale and metal mounting flange, and that's about the only difference. Same optical formula. I doubt very much you'd get enough value from those to justify the USD$100+ price increase.</p>

<p>It does look nicer though. More like the rest of Canon's older primes.</p>

[joe_kras1]

<p>I am really pleased with the photos i get with my Canon 50mm 1.4. As far as build, the size and weight is a pleasure to deal with compared to the heavy, oversized, L lenses - a few of which I own. Never used the 1.8. </p>

[axel-cordes]

<p>You may check this thread: http://www.photo.net/canon-eos-digital-camera-forum/00Ubd6</p>

 

[pauloriskas]

<p>My last options: after have read miles of tests,reviews,forum posts,opinions etc, my choise it will be among canon 50mm 1.8 MK I, canon 50mm 1.8 MK II, Sigma 50 mm 1.4 or sigma 50mm 2.8 macro.<br>

I would like to know yours suggestion,please!</p>

[pauloriskas]

<p>Well ,the decision it will be between sigma 1.4 or 2.8 for my 5D. I pretend an all-round 50mm lens and i do not use flash.</p>

[scott_ferris]

<p>Paulo,</p>

<p>You are making a very easy and obvious choice into a saga. 50mm lenses come in so many varieties but they all have a main purpose, from the exotic f1 Canon to the humblest f1.8.</p>

<p>Do you need macro? If so then get the Canon 50 macro, it is so sharp you will cut yourself on it and you need never worry about compatability. If you don't need macro then what speed do you need? If 1.8 works get the cheapest of the bunch, it is such good value even if you hate it you can use it as a doorstop. MkI or II, who cares, some prefer the MkI and the metal mount, most don't care, the glass is the same, either way at $100 it is not a big decision.</p>

<p>If you need 1.4 then the jury is out, lots of people who own them stand up for either of them, I have the Canon, I like it but for my use, food and portraits, edge sharpness is not critical (if it was I'd get a macro), lots of Sigma owners really really like their lens, the bokeh is apparently nicer and the edges sharper than the Canon. If you really don't know buy them both from a retailer that will take returns and return the one you don't want or go to a store with your body and take a few shots with both lenses, go home and pore over the results to see which you prefer. For my money (and the Sigma was not available when I got my 50) the Sigma would have to be much much better than the Canon to pay even more for it and it be off brand, but that is just me.</p>

<p>You shouldn't be considering a 1.4 or a 2.8 at this stage, you should know which you need, they are very different lenses with very different properties.</p>

[pauloriskas]

<p>I love to photograph indoors, outside later afternoon, love photograph street action, people reactions, instant portraits,landscapes (i live in front of a beach), friends reunions and i hat use flash unless to fill in. So because of save money i can't decide between sigma 1.4 and 2.8 . I want a lens for a couple years or more!</p>

[scott_ferris]

<p>Paulo,</p>

<p>You have made the choice, or rather the things you want the lens for have made the choice for you. Get the 1.4 it is way way more suitable for you than the 2.8.</p>

[manuel barrera houston,]

<p>other then some hunting in low light, I am very happy with the 50mm f/1.4, phonezone.de rates in very highly. The cameras are doing much better now with noise so I see no need to go to 1.2 unless you just need to have it. The Sigma is not as highly rated at photozone.de</p>

[pauloriskas]

<p>Well. i think we are at the end of this saga,eh eh! I find a new one Sigma 5omm 1.4 from a ebay power seller. $561 with delivery and insurance. It seems a good deal!</p>

[scott_ferris]

<p>Glad you found one Paulo,</p>

<p>Hope you like it, have fun and post the pics.</p>

<p>Take care, Scott</p>

[jorge_garcia1]

<p>My Canon 1.4 broke (because of gravity).<br>

I like the Sigma but have read many people claiming bad AF and that stops me from buying one.<br>

Any advice?</p>

 

[pauloriskas]

<p>Jorge: buy canon 50mm 1.2 L, if you can spend what it costs. If not, and talking about 50mm, you only have canon 1.4 and 1.8 MK II (MK I at Ebay, a lens with ten or more years), Sigma 1.4 and 2.8.<br>

And that's all!</p>

[pauloriskas]

<p>I want to thank every photo.net members who posted here for you kindness and advice<br>

God bless you!</p>

<p>Paulo</p>

[pauloriskas]

<p>Sorry! One more question! Do you think is a no sense to have canon 24-105 L IS and Sigma 50mm 1.4 for my 5D?</p>

[chris_clarke3]

<p>Paulo, thats a good combo.<br>

I look at all my recent shots and the 24-105 and the 50L on my 5D2, are my go-to lenses, but obviously lens choice is a very personal matter.</p>

[JDMvW]

<p>The 50mm prime should be sharper and have less in the way of distortions, etc., although 50mm is pretty good on the zoom. Nice as the 24-105mm zoom is, it's nearly impossible to make a zoom as good optically as a prime lens. Even if the prime were no sharper, you'd still find the f/1.4 invaluable for low light.</p>

[pauloriskas]

<p>So, the 50mm range the 24-105 L have is different from a prime 50mm range. So it justified to have the combo i have,wright?</p>

[steven_f1]

<blockquote>

<p>Sorry! One more question! Do you think is a no sense to have canon 24-105 L IS and Sigma 50mm 1.4 for my 5D?</p>

</blockquote>

<p>I don't like the Bokeh much on the 24-105. The Sigma 50 is much better. I low light situations the Sigma would give you higher shutter speeds. However in terms of overall flexability the 24-105 is better. I have both in my kit and I don't have any problem with that. Keep the 24-105.</p>

[mark_pierlot]

<p>Paulo, the 24-105 is a fabulously versatile lens. It's bokeh and speed may not be as good as the 24-70's, but it is my most used EF lens, especially outdoors. If I were you, I wouldn't consider getting rid of it.</p>

<p>By the way, I'm sorry that you're not getting an EF 50/1.4. It really is a very fine lens.</p>