I really feel like Canon has to step up their game in regards to their 50mm EF 1.8 lens.

[dillan k]

<p>I am personally very happy that Canon makes a very inexpensive 50mm f/1.8. It's a high quality lens for what you pay. My copy is very, very sharp. I have had it for many years now, and I've managed to avoid dropping it. The build quality isn't a problem. In fact, I find it very useful in part because it's light as a feather and very compact. If it's not on my camera, it's in my pocket. I cannot say that about every lens that I own.</p>

[Robin Smith]

<blockquote>

<p>the EF 5- 2.5 CM is the sharpest and best corrected among the 50s</p>

</blockquote>

<p>So easily stated, but where's the evidence? This certainly applies at close-macro distances, but not at infinity from what I have read.</p>

<p>I agree with the others that the Nikon equivalents are more expensive - always the case with Nikon, and yet not any better optically.</p>

[arie_vandervelden1]

<p>Hmmm. Interesting. I abuse my lenses, and my 8-year-old 50/1.8 is doing just fine.</p>

<p>As for improvements, all I ask for is four more aperture blades. And maybe a focus distance scale.</p>

[colin carron]

<p>I looked up Canon lenses on the website of a high volume retailer in the UK where you can list them by 'best selling' and other options. The order ...</p>

<p>Canon 50 / 1.8<br>

Canon 50 /.1.4</p>

<p>etc. Looks as though Canon know what they are doing.</p>

[abbas_haider]

<p>If you are a rough user then even dublex stanless steel will not be good with you I have the 50 mm F1.8 for more than a year and I am regularly shooting with it and never had a prblem. Whether its made of plastic or paper it depend how you take care of it </p>

<p>if you need a tank build that will sweep out all other 50 mm's try the sigma 50 mm f1.4 it has better IQ than both canon & nikon 1.4 and coast 450 $ </p>

[davyjo]

<p>I've owned the 50/1.8 lens for 5 or 6 years. It has been my "winter walk" lens for several winters. When I don't want to take the 17-55 IS out in the cold, I put the 50 on and it works, very well. It has also been my portrait lens of choice ( on the 30D, 50D, and now 7D) for all of those years. I have had two 1.4's that haven't given significantly better image so I've sold them.<br>

It takes great images, has stood up to the trials I have thrown at it, and keeps working.<br>

Would I like to have USM and full time manual focusing? Sure! But for the $80 I spent on this lens it is the best value in my camera bag by far.</p>

[rick_shanahan]

<p>Well, let me pose this question:</p>

<p>Putting aside all other Canon 50mm options, would you rather spend $100 on the existing 50mm 1.8, or spend $200 on one that was on par with the build of the Nikon?</p>

<p>My answer, I'd rather spend a bit more (but still a cheap lens even at $200) on the better build. </p>

[yakim_peled1]

<blockquote>

<p>well I thought build quality was what we were talking about</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Indeed so but what good it is to have superb BQ if IQ is inferior even to the 50/1.8? I just wanted to set the priorities in the right order. I currently have the ZE 50/1.4 and have no intent of putting it on my camera for the purpose of taking actual (i.e. not test) photographs. I mean, it's the photographs that we're after, right?</p>

<p>Happy shooting,<br /> Yakim.</p>

[desmond_kidman]

<p>I agree with Yakim; IQ does not have to be identified, does it? I believe it is a given, when we are all talking about lenses, that even when we are talking about build quality we always have the goal of high image quality.</p>

<p>I also agree with Yakim on the Zeiss. I have had several Zeiss 50 1.4 (Contax/Zeiss) and I was surprised when the Canon easily equalled or beat them.</p>

<p>As far as the Sigma, is it really better IQ than the Canon 1.4? If so, this would seem to be a great solution for folks concerned with build quality on the Canon 1.4. </p>

<p> </p>

[yakim_peled1]

<blockquote>

<p>As far as the Sigma, is it really better IQ than the Canon 1.4?</p>

</blockquote>

<p>WRT bokeh, absolutely. Other IQ issues are rather similar. Here's a pic from the Sigma 50/1.4. To say it's creamy is an understatement.</p>

<p>Happy shooting,<br /> Yakim.</p><div></div>

[ilkka_nissila]

<p>While not being an EOS user I can say I agree that the 50/1.4 ZF's bokeh at f/1.4 is poor but the lens is excellent at f/2.8 and in some ways its rendering there is better than Nikkors I've used (for specific purposes). Bokeh stopped down is also very smooth. It just depends on what you want to do with it. The premium Zeiss 50mm is the 50/2 Makro Planar.</p>

[brett_donley]

<p>I have the 50mm 1.8 and its alright by me im not afraid of some plastic :-)</p>

[xavier_henri]

<p>I had the <a href="http://www.fovegraphy.com/EF50-18.php">50 f/1.8</a> and now have the <a href="http://www.fovegraphy.com/EF50-14.php">50 f/1.4</a>.<br>

I am now craving for a new f/1.4 modern lens with:</p>

<ul>

<li>Fast Ring USM FTM autofocus </li>

<li>Eight rounded aperture blades for a silky bokeh </li>

<li>Spectra coating on the rear lens to reduce flare from sensor reflections </li>

<li>E-TTL 2 flash compatibility </li>

<li>A real and large depth of field indicator window </li>

<li>Same lens formula as the current f/1.4 </li>

</ul>

<p>Just dreaming, it will never happen...</p>

[rick_shanahan]

<p>Well, I picked up an old mark I on ebay in beautiful shape and I immediately noticed that my pictures at all focusing distances are much sharper. I will never buy the cheap plastic mark II again. </p>

[rick_shanahan]

<p>Well it took four years, but Canon finally listened to me:</p>

<p>http://www.usa.canon.com/cusa/consumer/products/cameras/ef_lens_lineup/ef_50mm_f_1_8_stm</p>