Prime question

[imhotep]

Prime lenses have become a recent source of fascination for me. My understanding is that they can provide increased sharpness and IQ over zoom lenses. With this said, I notice that Canon does not make L primes. I assume this is because there is no need for that designation on a prime lens.

My question:

Canon's Normal EF 50mm f/1.8 II Autofocus Lens looks like a good lens for $75. How does an entry-level prime like this one measure up to an L lens in terms of sharpness and overall IQ?

Would the USM version or the macro version of this prime be a better investment?

[blonde]

no L primes? i think you are mistaken...:

14 F2.8L
24 F1.4L
35 F1.4L
50 1.0L
85 1.2L
135 F2L
180 F3.5L MACRO
200 F1.8L
200 F2.8L
300 F2.8L
300 F4L
400 F4 DO L
400 F2.8L
400 F5.6L
500 F4L
600 F4L

[blonde]

oh as for your question, i loved my cheap 50 1.8. i think that the optics are fantastic for such a low price lens. however, the crappy build quality (it is all plastic) was getting to me so i upgraded to the 1.4. as for quality compared to the L, there is no L 50 prime so i can't really tell you. all i know is that i got images with that $80 lens that were sharp as hell..

[imhotep]

WOW. So in my case, 'L' is for 'laughing stock'....

That's what I get for relying on B&H to list Canon's full inventory.

[liza]

Of course not. We're all here to learn.

[blonde]

WOW. So in my case, 'L' is for 'laughing stock'....

That's what I get for relying on B&H to list Canon's full inventory.

not at all. like Liza said, we are all here to learn :)

[lmitch6]

As mentioned above, Canon does make a boatload of L primes.

The basic answer as to why primes are typically shaper than zooms is "Less is more". It's easier from an enginering standpoint to yeild higher image quality from the fewer lens elements that make up a prime versus those that make up a zoom. L zooms can come very close, and equal in some cases, the quality of a prime, but typically will require larger and more expensive lens elements to do so.

In regards to the 50, the 1.8 is considered to be a lof of bang for the buck. The 1.4 USM version will provide you with better build quality, USM/FTM, and an 8 blade aperture (which will yield better background blur, or bokeh). I'm not familiar enough with the 40 f/2.5 macro, perhaps others can offer opinions/reviews.

[imhotep]

Thanks for the input. So perhaps the f/1.4 USM would be a better investment.

[Ronald S. Jr.]

You betcha'.

[mrclark321]

Thanks for the input. So perhaps the f/1.4 USM would be a better investment.

Much better, the 1.8 is IMO not worth the headache.

[Ronald S. Jr.]

I'd take a 2gig cf over that annoying piece of plastic anyday. :eek: Granted...CF's are plastic. :|

[blonde]

here we go again... :) i still think that the 1.8 is well worth the money and it is a fantastic lens. i was happy with mine for over a year. i wouldn't even think about upgrading if i didn't start getting money for my portraits..

[Ronald S. Jr.]

Well, to be honest, I wasn't even happy with the 50 1.4. If I buy a lens with a certain max aperture, I want it to be perfectly useable at that aperture. For example, the 35L is plenty sharp for most everyday purposes at 1.4, and insanely sharp after that. The 50 1.4, however, (the two that I've owned) have not been satisfactory below about f/2-2.8. Granted, there's a huge price difference, but still. They should make a new 50L.

[steved110]

Check out this review site, it is a great record of what is available:
http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/
But beware, it will give you a bad case of L fever, and the tone of your first post suggests you are incubating this strangely satisfying yet impoverishing malady....

[mrfourcows]

as for quality compared to the L, there is no L 50 prime so i can't really tell you.

actually, you missed out on the ef 50mm f/1.0 L!

[NBEast]

B H has separated their lens posts into "Digital" (for the EF-S) and "Film". Maybe that was the problem.

This (http://www.photodo.com/prod/lens/35lensesmtf.shtml#Canon)site rates the 50mm f1.8 at 4.2 on a scale of 0-5. That's very very good. The 50mm f1.4 rates 4.4. Only a few Canons go above that mark. Not the final word in IQ, but a scientific measure of some important aspects.

As someone pointed out, the bokeh (background blur) is poor. I found the focus to be inconsistant. If you look at the build quality of it (feels like it'll fall in two if I lay it down too hard) it's no wonder. So the ones that turned out were great, but the others were focused wrong or the bokeh looks like pentagrams.

I had to send my 50 f1.4 in for service (front focusing), but now it's perfect! Very good IQ, incredibly sharp, beautiful bokeh (albiet not like the 85L or 35L or even 85 f1.8 ), quite fast and accurate focus, and feels solid. Also; it's $300 after rebate. 3x

The 50 f1.8 is worth it because it can sometimes produce some amazing shots.

[René Damkot]

(feels like it'll fall in two if I lay it down too hard)
It will . . . One half makes a great magnifying glass though. ;)

[imhotep]

blonde, it sounds like you and I share an economical way of thinking. I'll admit though, L lenses are calling my name. For now I'll compromise and give the f/1.4 a try and see how it goes. The upside is that I'll be able to afford a 2gb card along with it with the money I save :)

[braduardo]

Get a f1.8 just for the heck of it. It's cheap enough, and if you don't like it, you can probably find someone to give you $50-60 for it. At least then you will know if you like that focal length enough to spend $300+ for a nicer one.

I think the Ls are calling my name too... grrr... can't afford one yet.

[NBEast]

Get a f1.8 just for the heck of it. It's cheap enough, and if you don't like it, you can probably find someone to give you $50-60 for it. At least then you will know if you like that focal length enough to spend $300+ for a nicer one.

I think the Ls are calling my name too... grrr... can't afford one yet.
Same reasoning; go for the more expensive one.

If you had to live with a single prime on your camera, 50mm (x1.6 crop) is probably the most useful

[kwsanders]

WOW. So in my case, 'L' is for 'laughing stock'....

That's what I get for relying on B&H to list Canon's full inventory.

They are there, you just have to know how to look for them. :)

Seriously, don't look for digital photography lenses. You will not find any of the L glass. You have to look for Canon film lenses.

[Lord_Malone]

Well, to be honest, I wasn't even happy with the 50 1.4. If I buy a lens with a certain max aperture, I want it to be perfectly useable at that aperture. For example, the 35L is plenty sharp for most everyday purposes at 1.4, and insanely sharp after that. The 50 1.4, however, (the two that I've owned) have not been satisfactory below about f/2-2.8. Granted, there's a huge price difference, but still. They should make a new 50L.

Ronald, please refrain from mentioning the 35L in your posts. You're making me miss my baby. :cry: