50mm mark I

[sandro9mm]

There are no reviews about this lens... no info nothing :( I just bought it and I think I paid allot more, since mark II costs 70$ in a local store... and I paid over 140 for mark I...

damn... what do u think?

p.s. I didn't get it yet... waiting it to ship, so no test results so far :(

http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&ih=010&item=200006858673&rd=1&sspagename=STRK%3AMEWN%3AIT&rd=1

[sandro9mm]

and yes... I did choose it for metal mount and DOF meter :S

[steved110]

It is just a much better-built version of the mark II - optically the same, but build quality far superior. It is pretty much a collector's item so that accounts for a lot of what you paid for. but the market for these lenses is strong and you would certainly get your money back on a resale.
It's a nice lens, enjoy it!

[sandro9mm]

yes, I heard about it being a gem... but it has been said that results are same, and I'm not really after expensive stuff... result is what matters to me... glad to hear that I can sell it in case if I dont like it :D

thx, u just made me feel better about my purchase... it will be a big hit on my student budget though :D

[Adam Hicks]

Well as far as lenses go for these things... I don't think I'd consider $140 'expensive' by any means. You could get the same optical quality for $70, but it does feel like it came out of a Happy Meal.

Enjoy it and shoot away, then save $100, sell it as fast as you can and get the 50mm 1.4. Then REALLY start shootin!

Adam

[claudermilk]

That's about the right price and still a deal. I love mine & it is nicer than the Mk II. I'll only sell it when moving to a 50/1.4 which is even nicer.

[Coco-Puffs]

i keep on hearing that the optics on the 1.8 is better compared to the 1.4 though...

[Tee Why]

same optics, better build.
They go for about what you paid for it.
Just go ahead and enjoy the lens and stop worring about $70

[BryanP]

Better build is pretty much all you got.

IMO unless you're seriously going to beat up the 50s, then the mark II wouldn't have made a difference. It has a plastic mount but the lens don't require a metal mount in the first place (that little thing is super light).

It's cheap, but it performs exactly the same way. Feels almost like the Nikkor 50/1.8s that I've had for /years/. Lenses don't fall apart if you take care of them just because of the cheap quality build (as people make it seem like) .

If you were just going to use the lens for walking around or something, then I personally would have just gotten the mark II version. But paying 70 dollars more for build isn't a huge issue if you know you couldn't have invested that money into something else.

[prep]

Better build is pretty much all you got.

And the focus scale. But you don't get the distance info that is in the II, so it is not as clear as first seems if you use a lot of flash.

[BryanP]

And the focus scale. But you don't get the distance info that is in the II, so it is not as clear as first seems if you use a lot of flash.

You're right. It does have a distance scale. My fault.

[sandro9mm]

:D anyways should I consider moving to 1.4? is it USM? cause this makes terrible sounds :D I scared off couple of kids yesterday :D :D abit early to think about new one for me, but still :D

[BryanP]

:D anyways should I consider moving to 1.4? is it USM? cause this makes terrible sounds :D I scared off couple of kids yesterday :D :D abit early to think about new one for me, but still :D

I believe the 1.4 version is micro-USM. The 1.4 produces some NICE pictures though and worth the upgrade. :)

[led hed]

does the 1.4 have more aperature blades compared to the 1.8? i thought i read that somewhere, hence the bokeh shapes (round compared to octagonal).

re:coco-puff's post

[delhi]

The mkI focuses slower than the mkII. Not like the mkII is an AF speed demon. If I could only dig up that info.... :rolleyes:

[René Damkot]

same optics, better build.
Better build is pretty much all you got.

Not everyone thinks so.... (http://www.prime-junta.net/pont/Reviews/g_Fifty_versus_fifty/a_Fifties_duel_--_f1.4_vs_f1.8.html?page=7)

Going by this test, I'd take a Mk1 over a Mk2 any day....

[sandro9mm]

René Damkot

hey, thx for the link :) it appears 1.8 mk1 is quite powerful piece.... mk I > mkII that's for sure, but according to those tests, 1.4 hasn't gone far enough either :S

[BryanP]

Not everyone thinks so.... (http://www.prime-junta.net/pont/Reviews/g_Fifty_versus_fifty/a_Fifties_duel_--_f1.4_vs_f1.8.html?page=7)

Going by this test, I'd take a Mk1 over a Mk2 any day....

Thanks for the link. Now I know more about the lens than before :)

This is what's great about this website. Learning something new every day.

[sandro9mm]

BryanP

yes :) power of POTN :D

so I don't think I'm gonna bother about 1.4 at all... I'd better invest 300$ in a good all around zoom :S

[hudsonch]

I believe the 1.4 version is micro-USM. The 1.4 produces some NICE pictures though and worth the upgrade. :)

Yap. The f/1.4 has micro-USM, but it also have full time manual focus (according to many different sources).

I got a f/1.8 Mark I too, really like the metallic mount and distance scale.

[sandro9mm]

metallic mount isn't an issue itself... its an overall built quality... I tried out friend's mkII and it feels so cheap :S nah...!

[Lord_Malone]

i keep on hearing that the optics on the 1.8 is better compared to the 1.4 though...

I don't think so. I've owned two copies of the 50 f1.8 II, the 50 f1.8 mk I and the currently the 50 1.4. From what I've seen, the 50 1.4 isn't "far superior" optically, but it's a far better built and faster lens. Also there's less AF hunting in low light and better background blur than its 1.8 aperture brothers. I'm hoping and praying for that the lens Gods bless us with a Canon EF 50mm f/1.2L. :(

[chrisb99]

Interesting post Rene. I have the MKI and my wife has the mark II. While checking focussing accuracy (staggered battery test) it became apparent that the MKI was noticeably better wide open than the MKII. These were both bought second hand & it is possible that the MKII is not necdessarily in 'as new' condition although it does look mint.
As for build quality I would not put the MKII much higher than the 18-55 kit lens(although I have no problem with the kit lens and feel it has been judged a tad harshly in certain quarters).
The MKI is noisy and slower to focus but I would definitely take one over the MKII.
Incidentally, from the same tests I found the 28mm 2.8 (metal mount, like the 50 MKI) to be better still.

[sandro9mm]

ok, here are first results from the test shoot out :) amaizing quality :D check out this 100% crop... sharpness set to 0 on 350D no post editing / fine jpeg

http://img188.imageshack.us/img188/5452/mg2342tt5.jpg

[nadtz]

http://flickr.com/photos/nadtz/sets/72157594147565317/

http://flickr.com/photos/nadtz/sets/72157594217460069/

All hand held (on a boat, tripod = worse than useless). practice helps, luck helps (probably a keeper rate of maybe 10%? so a lot of bad ones) and dont expect magic! obviously they look "soft" full size or what have you but I have no problem with a 'sub par' shot for those times when you want the image, and by the time I downsize for web they look pretty darn good. I find a fast light prime the best for that kind of shooting, and my sigma 30 has pretty much done what i've asked of it.

[nadtz]

er, re: links above I should say some of the other groups are not work safe so you have been warned!

[sandro9mm]

huh? I don't get ur last post nadtz :D

[beano]

huh? I don't get ur last post nadtz :D

There are boobies on the page... ;) :p

[djdino]

I have the 50mm Mark1 because my pops bought along with his first EOS back in....1980--something. It's an awesome lens indeed!

[nadtz]

hrmm, I apologize, that somehow ended up in the wrong thread.

[grego]

i keep on hearing that the optics on the 1.8 is better compared to the 1.4 though...

Just to add, it has more aperture blades aside from the other features like full time manual focusing, micro usm(better than nothing), hunts less in low light, and AF is more accurate more often.

300 for a quality lens is a pretty good deal. It just happens that the 50 1.8 comes relatively cheaper.

Some of those quality primes:
50 1.4
85 1.8
100 f/2
100 f/2.8 Macro
30 1.4

All fall between $300-550(USD) range.

[pfogle]

After reading this thread, I started missing my old 50/1.8 m1, and then I saw one in a pawn shop on an EOS 620 body - both as new condition. Cost me 60 quid (about $115 US) :)

Anyone want a 620 body? ;)

It's true the mark 1 does hunt in low light - but at least it's practical to use manual focus, which I think is quite tricky on the mark 2. However, I've found the AF to be pretty good in practice. I mostly use MF - but that's 'cos I don't much like the noise!

ps just tried it out - it's as good as the Sigma 50/2.8 macro at all apertures from f2.8 down - and whips the Sig for flare resistance.