EF 50mm f1.8 I vs II

[Loekito]

Hi guys...

What is the difference between the mark I and mark II.
I know that mark I have non-plastic body. But in term of optical quality, is mark II better than mark I?

My local camera store have mark I in stock, and it claims that it's brand new (not used/second ones) from their old stock, they said that even the warranty is stil valid (i doubt it...). The interesting part is, the price are about 25% cheaper than mark II.

regards,

Loekito

[neoshady]

Loekito

Second-hand MkIs usually go for more than MkIIs so it would be a bargain if it was used, as long as it is not faulty or damaged in any way.

Sounds like you've found a bargain there!

[Haifidelity]

Major difference is build quality, DOF Scales and Metal Mount, all more desirable.

If it really is a MKI for less than a new MKII, jump on it, it's a great lens.

-hza

[daaaveman]

Buy all of them and sell them on this forum for a few extra $$ or just to make all your friends here happy!!

[Loekito]

hear somewhere, that mk I have more flare problem if exposed into direct light, is that true?

But, why canon discontinue mk I (replaced with mk II) if mk I is actualy a great lens? there should be an improvment going from I to II. or it's just matter to reduce cost?

regards,

Loekito

[Andy_T]

Most likely to reduce cost.

Best regards,
Andy

[jfretless]

Below is a link to a lens test between the 1.4 and mk1 1.8 and a 35mm F2. Scroll down a bit and there are a two images, mk1 @ 1.8 and mk2 @ 1.8. A big difference.

http://www.seittipaja.fi/data/Pontification/b_Photography/g_Fifty_versus_fifty/a_Fifty_versus_fifty.html

I would buy all of them and sell them on Ebay... the going rate for a MK1 in mint, near mint condition is about $150. Just sold one for $140. Make sure you keep a couple for yourself. I think the inflated price will hold. As many of you know, the 50mm is a common answer to all of the "which first lens?" questions.

John

[Haifidelity]

hear somewhere, that mk I have more flare problem if exposed into direct light, is that true?

But, why canon discontinue mk I (replaced with mk II) if mk I is actualy a great lens? there should be an improvment going from I to II. or it's just matter to reduce cost?

regards,

Loekito

I have the F/1.8 MK1 and a F/1.4 USM. Of course there's flare problems if you point it directly at a light SOURCE, but have never had flare problems otherwise (talking abuot the MK1 f/1.8).

I'm sure Canon discontinued it for various reasons: Most likely to reduce cost and differentiate it from the F/1.4 USM.

Either MKI or MKII are good lenses, but I would prefer the MKI because of reasons I listed above.

-hza

[slin100]

I have a Mk I and the front element is deeply recessed, so I can't imagine that flare would be a significant problem, except when shooting directly at a light source.

The 50mm is a great portrait lens on a 300D or a 10D with the 1.6x crop factor.

[Ballen Photo]

Hi guys...

What is the difference between the mark I and mark II.
I know that mark I have non-plastic body. But in term of optical quality, is mark II better than mark I?

My local camera store have mark I in stock, and it claims that it's brand new (not used/second ones) from their old stock, they said that even the warranty is stil valid (i doubt it...). The interesting part is, the price are about 25% cheaper than mark II.

regards,

Loekito

Sounds like you had better grab it quick! I've seen used examples go for upwards of $200 on ebay. The optics are identical to the MK II but the build quality is better, albeit a bit noisier(Pre USM motor).
I've got mine. :D
.............Bruce

[Loekito]

Sorry, what I mean with exposed into direct light is not really-really "direct into it", but while comparing between mk I and mk II result, the flare are more significant in the mk I than mk II.

[Volatile]

I agree with jfretless, there is a pretty noticable difference with the MKI compared to MKII. Now I want to upgrade grrr...

[Ballen Photo]

Below is a link to a lens test between the 1.4 and mk1 1.8 and a 35mm F2. Scroll down a bit and there are a two images, mk1 @ 1.8 and mk2 @ 1.8. A big difference.

http://www.seittipaja.fi/data/Pontification/b_Photography/g_Fifty_versus_fifty/a_Fifty_versus_fifty.html

I would buy all of them and sell them on Ebay... the going rate for a MK1 in mint, near mint condition is about $150. Just sold one for $140. Make sure you keep a couple for yourself. I think the inflated price will hold. As many of you know, the 50mm is a common answer to all of the "which first lens?" questions.

John

WOW! According to this article, the MK 1 is at least equal to the 1.4, if not slightly edging past it in some respects? No wonder it's in demand. :shock: I'm DEFINITELY holding on to mine. :D
The review on the 35mm lens shows that lens is no slouch either, and a very viable to be used as a "normal lens" with the 10D's crop factor.
Thanks for posting this. :D
...........Bruce

[Loekito]

Yup, there's a significant sharpness difference between mk I and mk II.

Is this will be the final result: that is MK I ARE BETTER THAN MK II ???

Btw, there's only one mk I lens left in the stock, and I doubt that it's brand new one, must be the second one.

regards,

Loekito

[ron chappel]

Grab that new 50/1.8 mk I and resell it for a huge proffit on epay!!!!! :D :D

Look,i've had several mkI's and they are practically identical in sharpness to the mkII :x
I did extensive tests and found the mkII ever so slightly sharper
and the mkI slightly warmer in colour cast

If you want the features of the mk I then buy one -but be aware that everyone else wants them too so you have to pay stupid prices.

If you don't need the mkI's features but just want a simple razor sharp lens then buy the mkII new online and save alot of $ 8) :D

[Haifidelity]

Below is a link to a lens test between the 1.4 and mk1 1.8 and a 35mm F2. Scroll down a bit and there are a two images, mk1 @ 1.8 and mk2 @ 1.8. A big difference.

http://www.seittipaja.fi/data/Pontification/b_Photography/g_Fifty_versus_fifty/a_Fifty_versus_fifty.html

I would buy all of them and sell them on Ebay... the going rate for a MK1 in mint, near mint condition is about $150. Just sold one for $140. Make sure you keep a couple for yourself. I think the inflated price will hold. As many of you know, the 50mm is a common answer to all of the "which first lens?" questions.

John

WOW! According to this article, the MK 1 is at least equal to the 1.4, if not slightly edging past it in some respects? No wonder it's in demand. :shock: I'm DEFINITELY holding on to mine. :D
The review on the 35mm lens shows that lens is no slouch either, and a very viable to be used as a "normal lens" with the 10D's crop factor.
Thanks for posting this. :D
...........Bruce

I have both the MKI and F/1.4 = the F/1.4 Edges out with Micro-USM's quiet focussing and better (visibally at most all apertures) Bokeh. Sharpness and Focus Speed are the same to me.

I bought the F/1.4 for reasons why i listed above, but I decided to keep the MKI because it's such a damn good lens on it's own.

-hza

[Ballen Photo]

I have both the MKI and F/1.4 = the F/1.4 Edges out with Micro-USM's quiet focussing and better (visibally at most all apertures) Bokeh. Sharpness and Focus Speed are the same to me.

I bought the F/1.4 for reasons why i listed above, but I decided to keep the MKI because it's such a damn good lens on it's own.

-hza

It's good to hear the opinion of somebody that actually has and uses both. Thanks for your input here.
........Bruce

[Haifidelity]

yeah, and my atrocious spelling. I meant to say visibly.

Any of the versions of the 50mm, from what I have experienced and seen, are good performers.

It's just getting a different trim of a car = (inserting analogy here) Accord DX, LX or EX.

-hza

[Ballen Photo]

Any of the versions of the 50mm, from what I have experienced and seen, are good performers.

It's just getting a different trim of a car = (inserting analogy here) Accord DX, LX or EX.

-hza

LOL! Now that I know I have such a GREAT lens, I have to get off my butt and USE it. :D :shock: :D
.......Bruce