Dissappointing build quality

[michael_young3]

<blockquote>

<p>Considering the ultra-low cost of producing a steel flange ring in a 35mm camera mount, there's really no excuse to not include one on every lens. This practice adds maybe $2 per lens, tops. I'll bet any one of you die-hards would gladly have spent $102 instead of $100 for the 50mm f/1.8 II if it meant it would come with a steel mounting flange.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>I'm not a materials engineer, and never played one on TV, but the thought occurs to me to ask what would you attach to the metal flange that is now firmly affixed to the camera mount? I've been using the 50/1.8 for 6 years and don't have a problem with its plastic mount. I suppose if/when it wears out, I would just buy a new one. Or maybe something else. Probably something else. That Zeiss 50/1.4 looks and sounds ideal. (I'd buy it tomorrow, but it *is* holding me back that I have a perfectly serviceable 50/1.8, and it doesn't look like it'll stop working any time soon. I'm not sure which emotion if any to tie to that. Lamentable is not the thought.)</p>

 

[JDMvW]

<p>A simple search of this website will reveal more instances of the 50mm f/1.4 failing and or breaking, I think, than of the 50mm f/1.8. I don't think that past discussions here will bear out that the 50mm f/1.8 has higher frequencies of failure than any other Canon lenses. I have been on this site for some five years, and have looked into this on the www on earlier occasions, and I just don't see the evidence, even anecdotal evidence, for actual failures as opposed to people bad-mouthing it who are not actually using the poor little thing.</p>

<p>Donald McMillan-- the "failure of the imagination" I referred to was not that you had imagined a failure, but your own failure to imagine it could be better than your perception of it WITHOUT SHOOTING A SINGLE PICTURE!. I did not presume to know your mind, I only knew what you yourself had written in your post.<br>

I wasn't trying to be obscure, but perhaps, if English is not your mother tongue, you did not fully grasp the subtleties of what I was trying to say.</p>

<p> </p>

[darin_mccollum]

<p>Hal B. says "While of course the lens performs well, it is probably the single least reliable lens in the entire Canon lineup." Wow...that's the first I've heard of this. I've been shooting with this for more than 10 years...thousands of pictures...never had a single bit of trouble. Many of my photo friends use the same lens and have no problems.</p>

<p>If it ever fails, I wont hesitate to buy another. I'll take this "least reliable lens" any day...oh, and my legendary 70-200 has been in the shop twice in the past tens years...</p>

[matt_needham]

<p>I dropped my Canon 50mm f/1.8 mkII from shoulder height on to a marble floor. It hit so hard it bounced 4' back up into the air, and I caught it. Still works fine. </p>

[timothy_gray]

<p>Don,<br>

With all due respect, you're barking up the wrong tree here. The 50 f/1.8 Mk II serves the needs of the photo student, amateur on a budget, and/or budget conscious pro who's just starting out. From your original post it would seem you purchased the wrong lens.<br>

If build quality were truly an issue, why on earth did you buy this lens and not the more expensive 50 f/1.4, or hey, go for the gusto and pop for the 50 f/1.2L?</p>

 

[g dan mitchell]

<p>Complaining about the build quality of such a cheap lens is sort of like complaining that the food at McDonalds tastes like fast food.</p>

[simon_t1]

<p>Finally the reality about plastic materials has been highlighted, well done <strong>Hal B. </strong></p>

 

[JDMvW]

<p>Simon, you might want to check out "the reality of plastics" at Wikipedia (<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plastic">link</a> ).<br>

I think most of us had a fairly decent understanding of the topic who did not automatically jump to the Mongo-like conclusion: "Hey, dis is plastic! Plastic cheap stuff. Plastic lens no good!"</p>

<p>If a part is properly engineered to work without failure, it really does not matter what the material is. Cheap for cheap's sake is one thing, but over-engineering is no better.</p>

[zack_zoll]

<p>Yes, it's built like garbage. But it takes good pictures. And I'd be shocked if you could find anything better-built for the price. Considering it's probably the cheapest lens Canon makes, I don't see how there's any room for complaint here. Nikon's version is only a little bit better, and Sony/Minolta's isn't much better than that. All are $100-$200 lenses.</p>

<p>Actually, the Nikon 35mm f/1.8 DX is the only currently produced autofocus lens under $200 I've seen that is actually built well.</p>

[matroskin]

<p>dude, i owned the very lens you just got and it had thousands of miles on buses in South America and India - horrible roads and suspensions. it went through ocean travel and salt water dust, deserts, rain, snow and never even once failed. it perfect for 2.5 years until it got stolen.</p>

<p>people seem to be somewhat upset with your original post because you complain before even using it. brake it first then complain.</p>

[marc_bergman1]

<p>"While of course the lens performs well, it is probably the single least reliable lens in the entire Canon lineup."</p>

<p>Hal B,</p>

<p>You made the assertion first. It is proper Net etiquette for you to post your own URLs first to backup your assertion before you ask others for their URLs. </p>

<p>It seems that people who own and USE this lens like it. Those that don't own nor USE it don't. I own it and I USE it therefore I like it.</p>

 

[simon_t1]

<blockquote>

<p>Simon, you might want to check out "the reality of plastics"</p>

</blockquote>

<p>JDM, Sorry, maybe I was to short and was not understood regarding the use of plastics. Today plastics are well developed that they can replace parts traditinally made up of metals.<br />I have seen plastics take impacts and resist without being worn out, and seen metals that were worn out with impacts from parts made up of resin belive it or not.<br>

I only agreed with these statements;</p>

<blockquote>

<p>There's nothing inherently wrong with the concept of using plastics as an engineering material.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>and</p>

<blockquote>

<p>There are thousands of varieties of polymers, and some of these engineered plastics are much better than others</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Here is where I agreed with Hal.</p>

<p> </p>

[Spearhead]

<blockquote>

<p>"While of course the lens performs well, it is probably the single least reliable lens in the entire Canon lineup."</p>

</blockquote>

<p>If this is true, then there is some statistical data to support it. If none can be shown, it's a worthless statement.</p>

[michael_young3]

<p>Nah, I don't think anybody is upset. I, for one, find it hard to work up an emotion about it. It's cheap! but it takes great pictures. I don't use it so much any more since getting relatively fast zooms with IS covering 50mm, but I still mount it from time to time.<br>

There's a definite difference in how primes, compared to even really good zooms, render details in the DoF twilight zone, the parts not quite in sharp focus but still has good detail. The 24-105/4L for example is tack sharp, but has a distinct "jangly" or unsettling feel to those areas. Primes, including the lowly 50/1.8, don't have this problem, whatever it is.</p><div></div>

[jamie_robertson2]

<p>I love the 50mm 1.8. I wish Canon would make even more plastic fantastic lenses. I only wish they made a cheap plastic 85mm f1.2 for £200 for example!</p>

[JDMvW]

<p>Me happy. Me love Sheriff Bart!</p>

[hal_b]

<p>I guess my statement caused quite a stir. Nobody ever posts "sources" for their outrageous claims. Geez, people, I just posted my opinion. Get off my back about it.</p>

<p>I would love to see someone explain how the 50mm f/1.8 II is actually more durable than higher grade lenses built sturdier and with a metal mount, and especially lenses with a metal body as well. I get that lots of people get good use out of this lens. Good for you. But nobody's disputing the quality of the simple glass deisgn.</p>

<p>However, I'm seeing in this thread JUST AS MANY fantastic claims that this lens has seemingly infinite toughness as claims that it is unreliable. When I said it was the "least reliable" what I really meant was "most fragile". Seriously, if you're going to use two different lens the same way until one of them breaks, it's going to be something like the lens in question, not the L lens.</p>

<p>Are we seriously saying that plastic lenses are better than metal ones? The OP was originally asking why doesn't Canon build the 50mm to the same standard as their other lenses. There's no excuse, except they seem to think it's good enough to make the sale. And apparently there's a whole market full of gullible photographers who are satisfied with whatever slip-shod quality that Canon hands out to you. The more discerning photographers, however, aren't buying the Canon 50 f/1.8 or the f/1.4. They are buying the Canon f/1.2L, or the Sigma 50 f/1.4, or the Zeiss Planar f/1.4, or the Nikon and using an adapter, or any other lens, because it's head and shoulders better than either of the other Canon lenses. The Sigma even costs more, because it's worth more. Canon can only sell their 50 f/1.8 by undercutting everybody else on price. There's no other reason to select it.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>You made the assertion first. It is proper Net etiquette for you to post your own URLs first to backup your assertion before you ask others for their URLs.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Marc, please post your source. I would be interested to see where you learned your net etiquette.</p>

[peter_j2]

<p><strong>Donald Macmillan:</strong> According to this website http://www.pixel-peeper.com/lenses/canon/, you have what appears to be the most popular lens sampled. So, be proud of your <em>budget</em> purchase.</p>

[jeff_livacich]

<p>Those janglies look like the ol' "double out of focus image" thing. I imagine that could be harder to correct for in a zoom design.</p>

[randy_ramkissoon]

<p>Personally if there the Canon 50mm 1.4 for build quality is where I feel true disappointment should be expressed. For the price the focus motor should not be so fragile. It's design choices like this which allows Nikon to bash Canon products.</p>

[markonestudios]

Sheesh! Donald, have you even taken a shot with the lens or did you jump straight to your computer to post this complaint? And all that <i>after</i> you had already read about its shortcomings before your purchase.

[yoshio]

<p>Yawn</p>

<p>beer budget, champagne expectations</p>

<p>everything you read said it would be flimsy, but no, you probably didn't believe them ...your 40D must have been offended to have been pressed against its Cinderella sibling.</p>

<p>if you saw inside some of those more "well built" lenses you may be shocked. I pulled apart a Sigma 35-70 once I bought used for $5 cos "it didn't work" ... I found that the rubber band (could hardly call it a belt) had come off the motor (replaced it and it was fine). I thought it was hilarious that the flex-circuit board was held against the interior with sticky tape.</p>

 

[DickArnold]

<p>My Canon Xti weighs 19.6 ounces with batteries. The 50 1.8 II that I own weighs 4.6 ounces. That is about 7 ounces under two pounds. It is a relief to use that in non-critical applications instead of lugging heavy stuff around. After reading a lot about the use of composites (plastic) in the 787 aircrat and knowing that FAA airworthiness has approved the use of composites in aircraft for many years it occurred to me that a 70-200 2.8 composite lens with the same optical characteristics as the current 3 pound metal lens would be a boon to people like me who have had to carry that lens around to sporting and news events for years. It gets heavy. Yes I have a monopod. The 787 fuselage is 50 per cent composites. I bet you could halve the weight of the current lens. I wonder how white plastic would look?</p>

[Robin Smith]

<p>Sometimes I think I will get a 50/1.8 and use it instead of my 1.4. It's lighter and does not really need a lens hood and has about the same image quality (except for bokeh) and its cheap. I also do not think it is any more unreliable than the 1.4 which also attracts numerous complaints</p>

[hal_b]

<p>COMPOSITES ARE NOT PLASTIC! You can't say that since composites are used on aircraft that is makes sense to used injection-molded polyethylene parts (now THAT'S plastic) in any other application. They are completely different things.</p>

<p>I might as well say that it's okay to put mustard on a banana because lots of people are using relish on their hot-dogs. It's just not the same thing.</p>

<p>I think we've all established that the Canon 50 is what it is: a cheap lens. It may be cheap, but at least it's cheap, right? That doesn't negate the OP's right to express his disappointment in the thing. I, for one, would expect even Canon's lowest and cheapest lens to meet a minimal standard of quality in order to bear the "Canon" brand. You can judge a company based on its cheapest product, because it shows you just how low their company pride and standards really are.</p>

<p>The real crime isn't even that the 50 f/1.8 is so bad, it's that the 50 f/1.4 isn't built any better. Canon doesn't believe that anybody who spends under $1000 deserves quality.</p>

<p>On the other hand, I have Quantaray lenses that cost UNDER $90 that are built to a superior standard than Canon's bottom-of-the-line lenses. The optical quality isn't as good, but the build quality is superior. I would expect Canon, and any other major brand, to be able to produce not only a product which is optically superior, but also one which is at least as mechanically sound as their third-rate competitors. It's a shame that this isn't always the case.</p>

<p>Our job as photographers isn't to defend the corporations that make our tools. Our duty is to push those companies to improve, and provide superior tools. If we are willing to not only buy every cheap junker that Canon makes, hailing it's optical quality and ignoring it's mechanical quality, and then on top of that DEFEND the company that built the lens, we can only expect cheaper and cheaper junk to come out of that company.</p>

<p>If Canon's execs have any sense of pride in their work, they will keep their ear to the ground for complaints such as this, and work to improve their bottom-line products.</p>

<p>Photographers are too eager to accept any piece of camera gear that shows optical quality, and ignore all else. There is a desperation in those of us who can't afford the top-of-the-line, to compare each little cheap lens and find the absolute best deal for our money. It's sad that the end result means the Canon 50mm f/1.8 II, which is built like a Cracker-Jack prize. Photographers select this lens on its optical merit alone. If it were just a little better, and weighed maybe 1 oz. more, then the lens would truly be heralded as the pride of Canon's entry-level, rather than the joke lens that we recommend to new photographers, "Buy two or three as you need them, and just toss them in the trash when the lens mount gets loose or snaps off, or the AF motor poops out."</p>

<p>One last thing: You know why noone ever hears complaints about the f/1.8 version failing? Because when one breaks, the photographer is embarassed to come to a forum and complain about it. If the reception he gets is, "Well, what did you expect?" then of course you aren't going to see many complaints. A photographer is more likely to just buy a new one and forget about it. Now, when you spend $350 on the f/1.4 version and IT breaks, you complain about it, by dang.</p>