all of the 50mm's

[rya794]

hey guys

Recently I've been interested in buying a 50 mm lens for my 300d however, I'm not quite sure which route to go and I thought you guys could help me out.

First option EF 50mm f1.8 MK II - Extremly cheap. However I've read that the bokeh isnt quite as good as the f1.4 version. Also I'm not all that excited about the cheap build quality.

Second option EF 50mm f1.4 - Pretty Expensive. But it offers better build, better bokeh, f1.4, and a shaper image.

Third option EF 50mm f1.8 MK I - Around 150 on ebay. I like the fact that it has a metal mount but I'm not sure if there is any/much improvement over the MKII version.

Fourth option Canon FD 50mm f1.2L with a FD to EF lens adapter - This lens is going for about the same price EF 50mm f1.4 on ebay. I like the sound of an L lens and f1.2. However I have heard that the lens adapter required to fit this lens to an eos body will not allow me to focus to infinity, another draw back is that i will lose auto focus capability (not a big deal to me).

For those of you that know about these lenses could you please give me any additional info/comments and which way you think is the route i should go.

Thanks
Ryan

[Sam North]

Hello Ryan

Have you considered the 35mm f2?

http://194.100.88.243/petteri/pont/Reviews/da_Canon_35_mm_2/a_Canon_35_mm_f2.html

The perfect normal lens for the 300D. :)

Sam

[cmM]

fifth option: Canon EF 50mm f/1.0L USM

Seriously, it depends under what kind of condition you use it. I find the 50mm f/1.8 great.
It is very sharp, and I have no complaints about the boke

http://www.photography-on-the.net/forum/showthread.php?t=43983&highlight=

[timmyquest]

Hello Ryan

Have you considered the 35mm f2?

http://194.100.88.243/petteri/pont/Reviews/da_Canon_35_mm_2/a_Canon_35_mm_f2.html

The perfect normal lens for the 300D. :)

Sam

Thanks for that link, i honestly have never even heard of that lens. That has just been put on my list.

[Sugrat]

Seriously, it depends under what kind of condition you use it. I find the 50mm f/1.8 great.
It is very sharp, and I have no complaints about the boke

I agree, it is an excellent lens for the price and I've had no problems.

[nat869]

I agree with what others have said about it, the 50mm 1.8 is sharp and a great lens for the price. It may be a cheaper build, just don't drop it. :lol:

[DaveG]

hey guys

Recently I've been interested in buying a 50 mm lens for my 300d however, I'm not quite sure which route to go and I thought you guys could help me out.

First option EF 50mm f1.8 MK II - Extremly cheap. However I've read that the bokeh isnt quite as good as the f1.4 version. Also I'm not all that excited about the cheap build quality.

Second option EF 50mm f1.4 - Pretty Expensive. But it offers better build, better bokeh, f1.4, and a shaper image.

Third option EF 50mm f1.8 MK I - Around 150 on ebay. I like the fact that it has a metal mount but I'm not sure if there is any/much improvement over the MKII version.

Fourth option Canon FD 50mm f1.2L with a FD to EF lens adapter - This lens is going for about the same price EF 50mm f1.4 on ebay. I like the sound of an L lens and f1.2. However I have heard that the lens adapter required to fit this lens to an eos body will not allow me to focus to infinity, another draw back is that i will lose auto focus capability (not a big deal to me).

For those of you that know about these lenses could you please give me any additional info/comments and which way you think is the route i should go.

Thanks
Ryan

I bought the 50 f1.4. It's build is much better - as you say - than the 1.8. It wasn't all that expensive and I bought it new so there was none of the potential used problems from eBay. It gives me speed in a focal length where speed is 90% of the reason to own it, and the images are sharp and contrasty.

If there's a weakness to this lens it's that it is not E-TTL 2 complient, but then none of the Canon 50's are. If you do a lot of flash work with the E-TTL system you already know how bad it is since E-TTL is easliy the weakest and worst part of the Canon digital system. I'm buying a 20D just to solve that problem. With luck E-TTL 2 will work as well as Canon pretended that E-TTL did, and not be their latest con. We will see.

[rya794]

thanks for all the replys guys

and i havent even considered the 35mm f2 until now

but im still curious about the fd 50mm f1.2 does anyone have any experiece with the fd lenses and a lens adapter.

[slin100]

All the reports I've seen are unanimous: it's not worth it. Canon's FD-to-EOS converter is the best one, but it only works on FD telephoto lens due to a protruding front element. The 3rd party offerings are really low quality. It'd be a waste to mount a FD 50/1.2L on such a converter.

[mmartinfan]

I have the 50mm MkI go for it! or the 1.4 if you have the $$$$ dont waste the $$ on the FD to EOS convertor

[Cal Maier]

All the reports I've seen are unanimous: it's not worth it. Canon's FD-to-EOS converter is the best one, but it only works on FD telephoto lens due to a protruding front element. The 3rd party offerings are really low quality. It'd be a waste to mount a FD 50/1.2L on such a converter

You obviously havn't used one of these converters, as they do not have a protruding front element, you must be thinking of the EOS 1.4 TeleConverter. The Canon FD-EOS converter was designed to allow you to use an FD Canon lens with an EOS body. I have this converter and it works very well for Macro work. In fact, it was called a Macro Lens Mount Converter by Canon, when it was being produced. It does not have any glass elements in it at all, and it basically works like an extention ring between the body and the lens. You have to shoot the camera in the manual mode, and you lose the ability to focus to infinity, as this converter moves the lens farther from the film/sensor plane, but you will get excellent close-up results from an older FD mount lens.

Cal M

[DocFrankenstein]

I have complaints about 50mm f1.8 bokeh (both mk 1 and II). It is distracting. You get doubling and sharp diamond-like shapes in the background.

They take away attention from your subject. :?

[Andy_T]

Most likely you've already checked this comparison with sample shots:
http://www.photo.net/equipment/canon/ef50/

The result in a nutshell: Both lenses are great.
If price is of importance, then you might consider that the 1.4/50 is better than the 1.8/50 ... but not 5x better (but it is 5x more expensive).

Best regards,
Andy

[elm54]

Hiya,
I have the 1.4. I love it , but hardly ever use it, Usually when my 24-70 is out of touch for some reason or other. From what I have heard about the 50 1.8 MK2 I would probably buy it if I were to buy it over again. It really depends on how much you will use it and how much you need the speed, and as for the build quality you could buy 2 and still get off cheaper then the 1.4 . I had never heard a negative statement about the 1.8 until I read a few of the posts in this thread. I also bought a 85 1.8 and really like it but again the 24-70 lives on my camera. Oh and I don't know anything about the L FD and I've seen a few posts about the 50 1.0 which is supposed to be the cat's meow :wink: but would really break the bank. I hope this helps and know you will be happy with which ever way you go.
Peace Eric

[rya794]

well im starting to think i should just go with the mkII. i feel like im not getting everything i wanted but i can barly but a filter for 70 bucks... so if im not happy with it i guess ill just have to upgrade in the future. I would have really like to see the FD to EF converter work perfectly. I have see shots all over the internet of the ef 50mm 1.0 L and they make my heart sink every time, but its a little out of my price range. hell the f1.4 was a little out of my price range (but i was goin to stretch for that if need be). Anyways thanks for all the posts and info. And if anyone has another opinion to add please do i still like to hear about these lenses.
thanks again,
ryan

[DocFrankenstein]

well im starting to think i should just go with the mkII. i feel like im not getting everything i wanted but i can barly but a filter for 70 bucks... so if im not happy with it i guess ill just have to upgrade in the future. I would have really like to see the FD to EF converter work perfectly. I have see shots all over the internet of the ef 50mm 1.0 L and they make my heart sink every time, but its a little out of my price range. hell the f1.4 was a little out of my price range (but i was goin to stretch for that if need be). Anyways thanks for all the posts and info. And if anyone has another opinion to add please do i still like to hear about these lenses.
thanks again,
ryan
I feel the need to say this. If you are even remotely considering shooting as a pro or if you want to make portraits which you want to look good when compared with pro work, you're gonna been the smooth bokeh of 1.4

1.8 of both versions sometimes produce distracting bokeh. It's sharp... even if it's normally lighted objects. You may get used to it, but if you compare it with other people's work it will be extremely noticeable.

You decide

[BearSummer]

Hi Rya794,

talking about just the eos EF mount,

50mm f1.4 - good build guality, very sharp, nice lens, ftm

50mm f1.8 - plastic, very cheap, good bang for buck, manual focus by twisting from element, stll nice and sharp

50mm f1.0 - huge, heavy, rare as hens teeth, expensive, no longer made. the only 50mm L, mtf's rate it as slightly softer than the 1.4

50mm f2.5 macro - one of the most corrected lens in canons lineup, no pincushoning/barreling, sharp and will do half life size.

personally I picked the 1.4 and I no longer look for the 1.0.

Best regards

BearSummer

[Sam North]

Somebody here correct me if I'm wrong here, but back in the early days of SLRs, a 'normal' lens was considered to be 50-58mm. Recent trends with 35mm have taken that down past 50mm to the 35mm's field-of-view.

But Ryan is using the 300D which will mean a 50mm will effectively be 80mm (how useful is that, generally?) whereas a 35mm lens will become a 56mm, the original preference.

I find the 50mm on my 300D is just a bit too long for general hand-holding use. On the other hand, the 35mm f2 is more useful all round, which is why I think it's the ideal normal lens for the 300D.

:D

Sam

[ron chappel]

Look, if you have to stretch your budget even a little to get the 1.4 version then you really shouldn't do it.Yes it is slightly sharper,has slighly better boke and better build than that 1.8 but the point is the 1.8 is easily good enough to do what you want.
The only good argument i can think of to get the 1.4 is : -You WANT the nicer lens- hey,who am i to tell you what you should buy :) ,after all it IS a great lens and will last for years. Every time i see good pics from my stageringly sharp canon 100 macro lens i see a good argument for buying the best! :D

However i personally would buy the cheap 50 and then buy an 85/1.8 when i could afford it.It's a far better portrait lens (in my opinion) and having the option of the shorter 50mm would be ideal.

As for the 35mm f2- i would avoid it like the plague.Not because it is remotely bad in any way but because it has a boring 'normal' perspective on a digital SLR.Just a personal choice.
The 1.6 crop digital's have given us a great bargain in lenses .
Suddenly the cheap sharp 50mm (but incredibly boring)standard lens becomes a very usefull portrait lens :D

Anyway...just my opinion.

As or the FD lens.A nice idea but there are serious problems:

The FD-EOS converters are either unusable and expensive (us$500+ 2nd hand!!!) genuine ones.
Or there are cheap brand ones but -let's not stuff around being polite here-they are crap :x
Putting one on a L lens would be bizzare
The canon macro converter mentioned above is pointless-it won't give you any distance focus.

The 50/1.4 will very likely beat it at all apertures (except 1.2 of course).Just like the later canon 50mm f1 Lens it is compromised just too much.Nice to own and all but stupidly impractical


One final option is to modify an FD lens to fit your EOS body.Only certain lenses can be changed because short lenses have rearwards protruding lens elements that will block the larger EOS mirror.I'm not sure if the 50/1.2 L is do-able or not.
I know any lens 135mm and above can be used on an EOS film body-and the DSLR's have more mirror clearance than them so wider lenses are possible (see below)
Finding someone who will do this conversion will be tricky.I simply glued an EOS mount onto the back of a partly disassembled FD lens :lol: :lol: .It worked well but the aperture control dial will allways be annoying to adapt.Parts need to be machined up to do a complete conversion.

You will have much trouble focusing acurately at wide apertures.I used a modified FD 85/1.8 for awhile but didn't get many in crisp focus

[Sam North]

As for the 35mm f2- i would avoid it like the plague.Not because it is remotely bad in any way but because it has a boring 'normal' perspective on a digital SLR.Just a personal choice.
The 1.6 crop digital's have given us a great bargain in lenses .
Suddenly the cheap sharp 50mm (but incredibly boring)standard lens becomes a very usefull portrait lens Very Happy

Hello Ron

Describing the 80mm focal length as "a very usefull portrait lens" may raise a few eyebrows. If a face is quite close to the camera, the 80mm length might not be the most flattering. It just depends...

The classic length was always considered to be 135mm, and beyond that features may appear a little too flat to some. 80mm is the very shortest length you should use, and most pros I've read up on over the years will start at 85mm for chest and shoulder shots. Michael Busselle recommends 85mm to 150mm as a general rule.

"A moderately long lens, about double the normal focal length, is usually preferred for portraiture because it permits photographing the subject at a distance that produces pleasing perspective and allows the photographer to avoid 'crowding' close to the subject" (Ansel Adams, The Camera, p.59).

I've never done a lot of portraiture, but a fixed focal length would never be my choice. A decent zoom would be more useful - saves you moving the camera/tripod about.

The 35mm f2 on the 300D and 10D has a lot going for it, like street shooting, etc.

Just my views,

Sam

[BearSummer]

Hi Rya794,

Look, if you have to stretch your budget even a little to get the 1.4 version then you really shouldn't do it.Yes it is slightly sharper,has slighly better boke and better build than that 1.8 but the point is the 1.8 is easily good enough to do what you want.
The only good argument i can think of to get the 1.4 is : -You WANT the nicer lens- hey,who am i to tell you what you should buy :) ,after all it IS a great lens and will last for years. Every time i see good pics from my stageringly sharp canon 100 macro lens i see a good argument for buying the best! :D SNIP

As Ron said, its more expensive but is sharper, better bokeh, built better, half a stop faster, has a metal mount rather than a pastic one (ie the bit that actually mounts to the camera) and has ftm ...

FTM is full time manual focussing. It doesn't appear with many consumer grade lenses but is very handy when you get it. If you have got confirmed focus (and lets expect you to be working with shallow dof so the lens is wide open) and you have the tip of their nose in focus but you can't get the eyes to be "just rigth" and you have tried using autofocus but its not doing what you want. You would normally switch to manual focus by flipping the switch on the lens and manually focus. FTM allows you to touch up the focus without switching to manual first, just focus using autofocus and then touch up to get it just right. When working down at 1.4 or 1.8 you need to nail the plane of focus as a small mistake will be enough to trash the shot.

That's was enough to push me over to the 1.4

BearSummer

[ron chappel]

Yes,personally i much prefer the '135mm-on-film' perspective of the 85/1.8-as i said above.
Actually most people think the 50/1.8 makes a pretty good portrait lens on a DSLR-they're allways going on about it on the net :)

[shiningstardv]

FTM is full time manual focussing. It doesn't appear with many consumer grade lenses but is very handy when you get it. If you have got confirmed focus (and lets expect you to be working with shallow dof so the lens is wide open) and you have the tip of their nose in focus but you can't get the eyes to be "just rigth" and you have tried using autofocus but its not doing what you want. You would normally switch to manual focus by flipping the switch on the lens and manually focus. FTM allows you to touch up the focus without switching to manual first, just focus using autofocus and then touch up to get it just right. When working down at 1.4 or 1.8 you need to nail the plane of focus as a small mistake will be enough to trash the shot.

That's was enough to push me over to the 1.4.

Very well put. Thanks.

[Kenski]

It is funny, you go to all these sites that rate the 1.4 vs the 1.8 and they show you a handful of pictures only. What you need to do is what I did, I know it isn't any better then some of these testers but it sold me... My buddy grabbed his rebel and I grabbed mine, we borrowed a 1.4 and a 1.8 and set it to manual mode and the same exact settings and then when to town and shot the same exact shots over and over changing the setting exactly over and over.... We were both happy with the 1.4... He was PRO 1.8 and I was 1.4 and we argued for awhile and finally after this, I convinced him to go with the 1.4... Now, I'm trying to convince him to go with the canon 70-200 2.8 over the sigma 70-200 2.8... That is going to be alittle harder... ;)

[DocFrankenstein]

Now, I'm trying to convince him to go with the canon 70-200 2.8 over the sigma 70-200 2.8... That is going to be alittle harder... ;)
I think if you give him 500 bucks.... :lol:

[slin100]

You obviously havn't used one of these converters, as they do not have a protruding front element, you must be thinking of the EOS 1.4 TeleConverter. The Canon FD-EOS converter was designed to allow you to use an FD Canon lens with an EOS body. I have this converter and it works very well for Macro work. In fact, it was called a Macro Lens Mount Converter by Canon, when it was being produced.
Cal M
It's true, I've never used one before. OTOH, several references state that there are two Canon FD-EOS converters. One is the Macro Lens Mount Converter that you mentioned. The other one, which I am talking about, is very rare, and as a consequence, very expensive (they regularly go for several hundred $ on Ebay). Unlike the Macro Lens Converter, it does not sacrifice infinity focusing. It has an effective 1.26x enlargment factor. And from the pictures I've seen, it has quite a large, protruding front element.

You can see a picture of one here. (http://www.wildpicture.com/images/Photography/fdeos.jpg)