50mm f1.8: upgrade to MKI from MKII worth the $?

[piku]

RE: posted here too (http://photography-on-the.net/forum/showthread.php?t=36655&highlight=wtb+50mm+1+8) (Marketplace)

can ppl give some insight if its worth the extra $ (ie. difference, quality, pros/cons, etc)? TIA

[drisley]

I dont think I would bother...

But, upgrading to a 50mm f1.4 might be something to consider.
I use my 50mm f1.8II a lot. It's sort of my "walk-around lens".
I've been thinking about the PRICEY 24-70L for a walk around, but it's big, heavy, expensive. And, did I mention it's expensive?! :shock:
But now, I may consider the 50mm f1.4 instead. I dont care much about the extra stop, but I do like the improved build, and especially the USM motor.
For the range that the 24-70mm offers, I can move my feet to compensate. Oh well, I'm off on a tangent.
But these are just my thoughts. Hope I didnt confuse you.

[piku]

i think i'm set w/ the 1.8s instead of a 1.4...so just back to my original question ^^

can ppl give some insight if its worth the extra $ (ie. difference, quality, pros/cons, etc)? TIA

i guess i just need some ellaboration between the two and the major + of the MKI over the MKII

[blinking8s]

i wish the f.8 mkII's AF-MF switch was easier, thats the only thing about it that pisses me off, although with it i am on MF 95% of the time...

i want a 17-40L for my "walkt-around" lens...badly...but the kit lens is similar focal length, so i cannot justify it, but since i got the 70-200L it has barely come off my camera :)

[sGu]

17-40mm is my walkaround lens, but i also have 70-200mm in my bag all the time, just in case, now i've sold my 24-70mm, gonna get a 50mm f1.4 and 85mm f1.8 for the empty space in the bag :D

[piku]

thats great to know all... but pls, enough tangents haha =p

[Ballen Photo]

thats great to know all... but pls, enough tangents haha =p

The 50mm MK 1, and MK II, are just about identical optically, but a comparison I read gave the nod to the MK 1. The motor in the MK 1 is a bit more noisy, but not bad. The MK 1 is also less inclined to lens flare, and it's been said that it doesn't need a lens hood. The biggest factor, IMHO, is the fact that the MK 1 has a metal mount, as opposed to the cheaper plastic one on the MK II, so the MK 1 build quality is better. I've seen MK 1's go for upwards of $200 on ebay. :shock:
Having said that, I also owned a MK II for quite a few years until my Daughter inherited it along with an old 630 body, and I never had a problem with it. :D
........Bruce

[piku]

so you think getting a MK1 a good investment as the price for a well kept mint-condition lens goes for about $140-200 on ebay? just wondering when its time and have the proper amount of $ to upgrade to a 1.4 in 10 years lol

[Ballen Photo]

so you think getting a MK1 a good investment as the price for a well kept mint-condition lens goes for about $140-200 on ebay? just wondering when its time and have the proper amount of $ to upgrade to a 1.4 in 10 years lol

I personally like my MK 1, and would want to get one if I didn't have one. This of course will depend on how much you will have to pay for it. I got lucky when I got mine as a bonus, as it was on a camera I bought at a second hand store, both being in mint shape. :D
If you already have a MK II though, I'm not sure you'll notice enough difference in your photos to make it worth while. I really hope someone remembers the address to the comparison between the MK 1 and the 50mm f/1.4, and will post it here. The MK 1 did quite well.
.........Bruce

[piku]

well, i do have the MKII but am willing to hand it down to my bro's GF and just grab a MKI for myself

[Ballen Photo]

well, i do have the MKII but am willing to hand it down to my bro's GF and just grab a MKI for myself

In this case, I recommend you mount one on your camera, and spend at least twenty minutes with it shooting a variety of subjects, then process your photos. I think you'll like it, but in the end, YOU have to decide if it's worth it to you.
DO let us know what you decide, and GOOD LUCK! :D :shock: :D
........Bruce

[piku]

yah, i'm waiting for my bro's GF to decide if she want to get my week-old MKII from me. and have her check out the MKI first-hand, and inspect it for me for condition.

i've shot w/ the MKII this past weekend, greeeeat pics. took pics of my godson and his cousin playing outside in the sun. but as an amateur who never have taken any classes on photography (just learning mainly online and experience) most came out really well.

i guess i'm pretty much exploring ISO, aperatures, and exposures so far. but hey, its fun =p meanwhile, any recommendations on a great-to-own photography/digital photography book that is nice-to have?

[Csst]

i have a 16-35L as my walk around lens but i hear alot of good stuff about the 50mm 1.8 and its not worth going to the 1.4 for the price i have done alot of research on this and trust me its not worth the upgrade stick with a 50mm 1.8.

Csst

[piku]

i have a 16-35L as my walk around lens but i hear alot of good stuff about the 50mm 1.8 and its not worth going to the 1.4 for the price i have done alot of research on this and trust me its not worth the upgrade stick with a 50mm 1.8.

Csst


who said anything about 1.8-to-1.4??? the thread is about 1.8 MKII-toMKI

[Ballen Photo]

who said anything about 1.8-to-1.4??? the thread is about 1.8 MKII-toMKI

You know, after thinking about this awhile........if you can get the MK 1 at a reasonable price, JUMP on IT! :shock:
.........Bruce

[Belmondo]

I was just prowling through some pawn shops and came across an old Rebel (film) with the Mk I on it. It was priced at $199.00 (had a chuckle over that). I offered the guy $50. We settled on $75, and I let him keep the body. (it was trashed anyway).

I'm not sure if I got a good deal or not, but the lens is perfect....not a mark on it. The autofocus is a little noisy, but that's normal for this lens. It sure takes sharp pictures.

[Ballen Photo]

I was just prowling through some pawn shops and came across an old Rebel (film) with the Mk I on it. It was priced at $199.00 (had a chuckle over that). I offered the guy $50. We settled on $75, and I let him keep the body. (it was trashed anyway).

I'm not sure if I got a good deal or not, but the lens is perfect....not a mark on it. The autofocus is a little noisy, but that's normal for this lens. It sure takes sharp pictures.

You got a good deal. :D :D :D
......Bruce

[Conk]

I never realized how popular this MkI was until I got mine. I bought it and didn't even know what I had. All I knew is, it was a metal bodied Canon 50mm 1.8 and the guy wanted $25.00. As soon as I posted it here, I found out I had just bought a jewel for next to nothing.

[piku]

who said anything about 1.8-to-1.4??? the thread is about 1.8 MKII-toMKI

You know, after thinking about this awhile........if you can get the MK 1 at a reasonable price, JUMP on IT! :shock:
.........Bruce

whats reasonable? $140-150 range for MINT condition?

[CyberDyneSystems]

No.. it's not reasonable,. nor is it worth the upgrade.

This time last year the going price used was about $90.00 at the high end.. and as low as $40.00....

"Switching" to this lens is not an upgrade... it is the same lens in a different package. Yes i am aware o the amenitites it offers.. but now paying for one is paying for an infalted E-bay callectors price... not what the lens is worth in my opinion.

This lens is "worth it" when you find a deal on one... paying double what it cost new is not a deal. If you found one at a flea market or even in a camra shop used you'd pay around $50.00 or less.

IMHO...

:)

[piku]

oh kay...passing the offer up.

[aeroshots2003]

My 1.8 MkII went broke last week - something with the aperture. Strange, because I don't remember dropping/bumping it. And I rarely used it since I mostly work at 70 to 100mm. I suppose it's no use sending it in for repair?

I consider replacing it by the 1.8 Mk I but second-hand this is priced at about 150 euros. That's over $ 180.00 !



Aero.

[Tom W]

I never realized how popular this MkI was until I got mine. I bought it and didn't even know what I had. All I knew is, it was a metal bodied Canon 50mm 1.8 and the guy wanted $25.00. As soon as I posted it here, I found out I had just bought a jewel for next to nothing.

I did similar - just over a year ago, I bought one from KEH for $75. Sold it for $130 3 months ago when I got my 1.4. It was a good lens.

[Ballen Photo]

whats reasonable? $140-150 range for MINT condition?

To me, reasonable for this lens is in the sub $100 range, or more specifically, whatever you're willing to pay. Like I said earlier, I've seen them sell on ebay for upwards of $200, but then again, there doesn't seem to be any logic to what some people will pay on ebay.
Just did a search for the MK 1 on ebay, and didn't find a single copy for sale. :shock: This tells me that there may be a collectability factor to go along with it's apparent better build quality.
........Bruce

[piku]

found one in LA for $145--guy is selling it b/c he got a 50mm f1.4. dont know what to do, so i just said no thanks =|

[aeroshots2003]

To me, reasonable for this lens is in the sub $100 range, or more specifically, whatever you're willing to pay. Like I said earlier, I've seen them sell on ebay for upwards of $200, but then again, there doesn't seem to be any logic to what some people will pay on ebay.


OK, just to make sure : you're talking about MkII? Sub $ 100.00?

[Ballen Photo]

found one in LA for $145--guy is selling it b/c he got a 50mm f1.4. dont know what to do, so i just said no thanks =|

I would have countered his offer with $50-$60 just to see what his reaction was. :shock:
.......Bruce

[piku]

To me, reasonable for this lens is in the sub $100 range, or more specifically, whatever you're willing to pay. Like I said earlier, I've seen them sell on ebay for upwards of $200, but then again, there doesn't seem to be any logic to what some people will pay on ebay.


OK, just to make sure : you're talking about MkII? Sub $ 100.00?

he's talking about an MKI

[piku]

found one in LA for $145--guy is selling it b/c he got a 50mm f1.4. dont know what to do, so i just said no thanks =|

I would have countered his offer with $50-$60 just to see what his reaction was. :shock:
.......Bruce

tried to, he wont budge--firm @ $145 ...oh well--they are MINT condition

[Tom W]

Frankly, I'd be willing to pay $130-140 for the Mark I. If you swap lenses a lot, the metal mount will be much more durable and will not wear out. Plus, the focus scheme on the Mk I is much easier to operate manually.

[Ballen Photo]

Frankly, I'd be willing to pay $130-140 for the Mark I. If you swap lenses a lot, the metal mount will be much more durable and will not wear out. Plus, the focus scheme on the Mk I is much easier to operate manually.
I have to agree with Tom on this point too.
Just checked the price of the US version 1.4 lens at B&H, and it's listed at $309, minus a $15 rebate. So the MK 1 you found is less than half the cost, albeit used. Just thought I'd toss that option in here while playing the Devils Advocate. Here's the link.
http://www.bhphotovideo.com/bnh/controller/home?O=productlist&A=details&Q=&sku=12140&is=USA
.........Bruce

[CyberDyneSystems]

Frankly, I'd be willing to pay $130-140 for the Mark I. If you swap lenses a lot, the metal mount will be much more durable and will not wear out. Plus, the focus scheme on the Mk I is much easier to operate manually.
I have to agree with Tom on this point too.
Just checked the price of the US version 1.4 lens at B&H, and it's listed at $309, minus a $15 rebate. So the MK 1 you found is less than half the cost, albeit used. Just thought I'd toss that option in here while playing the Devils Advocate. Here's the link.
http://www.bhphotovideo.com/bnh/controller/home?O=productlist&A=details&Q=&sku=12140&is=USA
.........Bruce

But by getting the MkI you don't get any of the advantages that the 1.4 has over the 1.8 except for a metal mount.. you don't get the added sharpness wide open, you don't get the extra 2/3 aperture,..


....and most importantly you don't get the USM focus motor.. to me this is huge!

Thus.. you either settle for the non usm but feel o-kay because you only spend $75.00 be it on a MkII or a used reasonably priced MkI... or if your need the better lens.. you get the 1.4

Again. yes I'd grab the MkI in a heart beat if I found one at a reasonable price in a shop spomewhere.. but I would never hunt one down at double it's cost... it's this semi mythical idea about the lens that is driving it's price waaaaaaay out of proportion.. this is the same reason I will never own the 200mm f/1.8... :( unless I stumble across one in some god forsaken middle of nowhere... the resale price is being blown way out of proportion.

[Yeager]

Where is this guy wanting 150 bucks for the lens?! Point me to him! :lol:

[drisley]

But by getting the MkI you don't get any of the advantages that the 1.4 has over the 1.8 except for a metal mount.. you don't get the added sharpness wide open, you don't get the extra 2/3 aperture,..
....and most importantly you don't get the USM focus motor.. to me this is huge!
Thus.. you either settle for the non usm but feel o-kay because you only spend $75.00 be it on a MkII or a used reasonably priced MkI... or if your need the better lens.. you get the 1.4
Again. yes I'd grab the MkI in a heart beat if I found one at a reasonable price in a shop spomewhere.. but I would never hunt one down at double it's cost... it's this semi mythical idea about the lens that is driving it's price waaaaaaay out of proportion.. this is the same reason I will never own the 200mm f/1.8... :( unless I stumble across one in some god forsaken middle of nowhere... the resale price is being blown way out of proportion.

I totally agree.

[Tom W]

But by getting the MkI you don't get any of the advantages that the 1.4 has over the 1.8 except for a metal mount.. you don't get the added sharpness wide open, you don't get the extra 2/3 aperture,..


....and most importantly you don't get the USM focus motor.. to me this is huge!

Thus.. you either settle for the non usm but feel o-kay because you only spend $75.00 be it on a MkII or a used reasonably priced MkI... or if your need the better lens.. you get the 1.4

Again. yes I'd grab the MkI in a heart beat if I found one at a reasonable price in a shop spomewhere.. but I would never hunt one down at double it's cost... it's this semi mythical idea about the lens that is driving it's price waaaaaaay out of proportion.. this is the same reason I will never own the 200mm f/1.8... :( unless I stumble across one in some god forsaken middle of nowhere... the resale price is being blown way out of proportion.

Well, the focus scale, metal mount, and superior build quality alone make it worth more than the Mark II. Yes, the 1.4 is a better lens than either of these, even with its non-ring type USM (and it costs a good deal more than either of these), but the mark I sits in a position between the 1.4 and the mark II. Its a better built version of the Mark II and is sought after for that reason. I don't think $130-140 is unreasonable at all for this lens.

[Belmondo]

I didn't really mean to exhume this thread, but felt I should give a progress report on the used Mk I I bought at the pawn shop last week.

I believe that it might possibly be the sharpest lens in my kit. I hate to bore you with the actual pictures because the subject matter is pretty dreary, but the detail is amazing. (a light industrial area in Reno, Nevada, taken from our 25th-story hotel window) You'd have to see it full size to fully appreciate why I'm excited. A crop at screen resolution doesn't help that much, but I send it along for your viewing enjoyment. (Note: no sharpening done----taken with Mk II)

This is the best $75.00 I've ever spent.


The full picture
http://www.bytephoto.com/photopost/data/500/353W7C0867_Web_Size.jpg

A 100% crop (for VW fans)
http://www.bytephoto.com/photopost/data/500/353W7C0867_Screen_Res.jpg

[Ballen Photo]

I didn't really mean to exhume this thread, but felt I should give a progress report on the used Mk I I bought at the pawn shop last week.

I believe that it might possibly be the sharpest lens in my kit.

This is the best $75.00 I've ever spent.



Very sharp shots. :shock: :D :shock:
I'd say this was a good thread, proving the merit of the Canon EF 50mm F/1.8, be it the MK 1 or MK II. Photos like these show people how sharp these little 50's can be.
..........Bruce

[ron chappel]

some facts:

The metal mount is no better than polycarbonate on this tiny,light lens.No you won't wear the mount out :? .The metal one does look better! :)

The mk I is no better optically -they are ever so slightly different due to coating differences
I've compared several of them and can only see very subtle colour cast changes at 100% pixels.Sharpness is the same

Both of them have crap am/fm switches

The mk II looks cheap ,the mk I looks very cool except for the dull plasic texture

The Mk I has the worst manual focus ring feel ever :x (except for maybe an EF 35-105 macro :P )

The Mk I motor sounds scary! :lol:

Buy the Mk I for the distance scale and/or looks
Buy the Mk II for value for money

[Tom W]

some facts:

The metal mount is no better than polycarbonate on this tiny,light lens.No you won't wear the mount out :? .The metal one does look better! :)

Install that polycarbonate lens mount on and off the camera daily for a couple of years and see where those inevitable plastic filings go. Plus, it will get loose after time as the material wears away. Its not the lens weight - its the wear. They did away with the plastic mount of the original film Rebel for a reason - plastic has its advantages but wear isn't one of them, especially when worn against a machined surface.

The mk I is no better optically -they are ever so slightly different due to coating differences
I've compared several of them and can only see very subtle colour cast changes at 100% pixels.Sharpness is the same

Both of them have crap am/fm switches

Agreed, optically, they are about equal.

The mk II looks cheap ,the mk I looks very cool except for the dull plasic texture

The Mk I has the worst manual focus ring feel ever :x (except for maybe an EF 35-105 macro :P )

I don't know how you could say that. The Mk II's focus ring is about worthless, particularly if you decide to wear gloves (like in winter).

The Mk I motor sounds scary! :lol:

Buy the Mk I for the distance scale and/or looks
Buy the Mk II for value for money

I've read a number of accounts where the Mk II literally broke apart after just bumping on the car door or dropping 2 feet onto carpet. No such reports with the Mk I. I suspect that its more than just the mount that was changed to plastic.

Buy the Mk II for its apparent value
Buy the Mk I for its longevity
:D

[nosquare2003]

I've got the 50/1.8 MKII for many years without problem. Well, I haven't swapped lens heavily enough, BTW.

If this 50/1.8 MKII turned to be defective, I'll get a 50/1.4 instead of 50/1.8 MKI.

[Tom W]

I've got the 50/1.8 MKII for many years without problem. Well, I haven't swapped lens heavily enough, BTW.

If this 50/1.8 MKII turned to be defective, I'll get a 50/1.4 instead of 50/1.8 MKI.

Actually, I sold the Mk I shortly after I got the 1.4. The 1.4 is a little better, but the Mk I wasn't bad at all, especially considering that its been out of production for a number of years.

The fact that most of us don't swap lenses daily means that the Mk II really is OK - I just had to point out that the plastic mount can wear with heavy use.

[Belmondo]

Here's someone with delusions of grandeur. It’s at almost $100 and the seller’s reserve is higher than that. Makes the $75 I paid look better and beter. BTW, I ordered a Canon lens cap to replace the generic unit that came on the lens when I bought it, so now I look absolutely 'regulation'.

http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=3827504734&ssPageName= ADME:B:SS:US:1