f1.8 50mm

[digitalfilm]

Why all the hype about the Mk1 version of the f1.8 50mm lens? Is it really that much better than the Mk11?

[DaveG]

The lens mount plate on the Mark I is metal. The one on the Mark II is plastic. Any other reasons needed?

[Persian-Rice]

The metal vs plastic is about the only diff, but the MK I also has a distance scale I believe. I know a site that shows you how to make one for the MKII though.

IMO there is no differnce, plastic or metal doesnt really make a differnce. Plastic is not as strong, but if you are putting enough force on the lens to actually break the plastic mount, you will also break the camera, it's pretty sturdy stuff.

[DaveG]

The metal vs plastic is about the only diff, but the MK I also has a distance scale I believe. I know a site that shows you how to make one for the MKII though.

IMO there is no differnce, plastic or metal doesnt really make a differnce. Plastic is not as strong, but if you are putting enough force on the lens to actually break the plastic mount, you will also break the camera, it's pretty sturdy stuff.

I'd be more concerned about wear. Put it on, take it off, put it on ... Eventually there is going to be wear and the lens won't be as stable as it was.

For those who can remember Canon used to use a metal breech lock mounting system for their original FD lens line. Then they switched to a bayonet system - like everone else - because Canon was worried that the METAL would wear!

[pierrot]

It's my only "plastic-plate" lens, and to be honest I don't see where a probleme could arise.
What's surprising is how light it is, but I suppose we've got to get used to a more generalised use of these (higly technical) plastics than some years ago.
Pics are crisp, autofocus very fast, and equipped with it the 20D looks pleasant, with a funny small bulldog face. ;)

[Persian-Rice]

DaveG, I really doubt that the 50 f/1.8 is the most used or even commonly used lens in most peoples lens repetoires, that why I still don't think wear would be a cause for concern. If you plan on removing and putting this lens on a ton of times then metal might be your better choice. BTW AF is not very fast it's actually REALLY SLOW.

[pierrot]

Fast enough for me, indeed. ;)

[tim]

Compared with the 100mm F2.8 macro USM, the 50mm 1.8 is kinda slow. It's faster than my Tamron 28-75 though. I don't use it all the often, if I did i'd consider the 1.4 USM version.

[Adam Hicks]

You're saying the 100mm f2.8 Macro is 'fast'? It's razor sharp and one of the best lenses in the line-up (especially for the money) but I never accused it as being fast. It hunts around more than any Canon USM lens I've used... especially for an f2.8. Otherwise I love it!

Now the 85 1.8 or 135 f2... them there are fast. I really enjoyed shooting with them and will be picking up the 135f2 in the next month or two just to have on hand :)

[tim]

It hunts occasionally, and if it has to move through it's entire focus range it's a bit slow, but for how I use it it's very fast. I'd love to try a faster focusing lens some time, just to see how it is.

[mdude85]

It hunts occasionally, and if it has to move through it's entire focus range it's a bit slow, but for how I use it it's very fast. I'd love to try a faster focusing lens some time, just to see how it is.

The lens doesn't hunt, the camera does ... this is my impression at least.

[mdude85]

The lens mount plate on the Mark I is metal. The one on the Mark II is plastic. Any other reasons needed?

That's not a reason to spend $100 more for the MK I. A metal mount does not increase quality ... tons of crummy lenses have metal mounts.

[DaveG]

That's not a reason to spend $100 more for the MK I. A metal mount does not increase quality ... tons of crummy lenses have metal mounts.
True, but only some. But ALL plastic mount lenses are crummy.

[tim]

True, but only some. But ALL plastic mount lenses are crummy.

A statement that broad can't be true. What is someone gets the lens and never takes it off their camera? Then it's fine. If they rarely change it, or are careful, it should be fine too. And last of all, you have to take price into account: for $65 or thereabouts, if it breaks or wears out you just replace it.

[FlyingPete]

The lens doesn't hunt, the camera does ... this is my impression at least.

Some lenses do seem to hunt more than others. My 75-300 is particularly bad. I have some theorys about why, the first being the amount of light coming into the lens, the second is the camera can't tell if it needs to focus closer or nearer as the image is so out of focus, my camera does this frequently when I have my 75-300 on, it focuses all the way in when it need to be going the other way!

[DaveG]

A statement that broad can't be true. What is someone gets the lens and never takes it off their camera? Then it's fine. If they rarely change it, or are careful, it should be fine too. And last of all, you have to take price into account: for $65 or thereabouts, if it breaks or wears out you just replace it.

Anyone who is reading the postings on this site is unlikely to be someone who will buy a 50 f1.8, bolt it to their camera and be done, forever. If they do then the lens' performance is not going to be a problem since with their skill set they wouldn't be able to tell. So let's exclude the three people out there who actually do what you suggest, for to them the Mark II is an L series lens.

Look, Canon has punched a ticket here. They've made an inexpensive (cheap) lens that covers the 50mm focal length. It's not supposed to be a great lens and it isn't. And you are right about it being disposable. But the original question was whether there's should be much fuss over the Mark I vs the Mark II. I want any lens that I own to be NOT disposable, but rather to be fully functional, and that means that it goes on the camera, and comes off; ad nausium, ad tedium.

I DO use the 50mm focal length a lot (my 50mm f1.4), and usually when I need speed. Since the 50 f1.8 is likely to be the fastest lens that many photographers own, I think that they too will reach for it when they need speed. To me this all like playing golf. You choose the right club for the right shot, and I wouldn't want that iron - that I use infrequently - to be the one whose head comes off when I need it most! When I need a lens' focal length or speed, I need it to be as sharp and as dependable as any other lens I own.

If I'm willing to pay a premium - for a lot of reasons - for an L series lens how could I justify buying cheap somewhere else in my lens line, just for a projected "infrequent" use? At the end of the day it's all about the quality of the gear and that original Mark I, would have been fine. The Mark II is not.

[DocFrankenstein]

50% of all my shots have been shot with that lens. I'm always swapping it...

IMO if you have any of the L series, then the 50/1.4 is the way to go. Especially if you're like me, who can't stand the feeling that there's "a better version" out there.

[cactusclay]

I'm not sure, but I thought I read somewhere that the mark 1 had a six blade apature and the mark 2 has a five blade. Please correct me if I'm wrong. The truth of the matter for me is that I think the little plastic bugger is plenty tough and it is my most used lens for portraits. The plactics these days are pretty tough, in fact most gun makers are using types of plastics for some of their semi auto frames.

[DocFrankenstein]

had it had 6 blades, I would've kept it.

Unfortunately it's 5 plades on mk1

[Monito]

There is a lot of noise posted about Mark I vs. Mark II. A bunch of nervous Nellies are afraid it will fall apart, and a bunch of L-glass bigots are sure it will fall apart. Fact of the matter is that I have seen no reports, zero, zip, zilch, of any Mark II lens going back for repair due to mount failure or build failure (maybe this will draw out one or two out of the millions manufactured). The amount of wear and tear resulting from taking the lens on and off the camera thousands of times is negligible. Even if it were not negligible, both human and automatic focusing systems adjust for that kind of wear automatically without noticing it and without it degrading photographic performance.

The optical performance of the 50mm f1.8 (Mark I or Mark II) is excellent. Some measurebators will find a difference between the two or between them and the 50mm f1.4, but they don't actually make many pictures. People who actually use the lenses to make pictures find that things like good light versus bad light, tripod versus no tripod, lens hood or no lens hood, no filter versus dirty filter, and good technique versus poor technique have huge effects on image quality, totally swamping the infinitesimally small differences between the lenses.

They've made an inexpensive (cheap) lens that covers the 50mm focal length [Mark II]. It's not supposed to be a great lens and it isn't. And you are right about it being disposable. But the original question was whether there's should be much fuss over the Mark I vs the Mark II. I want any lens that I own to be NOT disposable, but rather to be fully functional, and that means that it goes on the camera, and comes off; ad nausium, ad tedium.

I DO use the 50mm focal length a lot (my 50mm f1.4), and usually when I need speed.

[...] At the end of the day it's all about the quality of the gear and that original Mark I, would have been fine. The Mark II is not.
This is a load of codswallop. You really reveal yourself when you say "At the end of the day it's all about the quality of the gear". At the end of the day, millions of great photographs have been made with old gear that was unquestionably worse than the supposedly decrepit Mark II. The Mark II is not disposable. What a disgusting slur you post.

[FlyingPete]

Hmmmm, many of my best shots have come from that lens, it has well and truly (literally) paid for itself many times over, and I have only had it for a couple of months.

Not owning any L glass, when I need a sharp crisp image, it is the first lens out of my bag, plastic, noisy slow motor and all.

'At the end of the day' it may be plastic, it may have a slow noisy motor, it isn't the sharpest on the block at f/1.8, but stop it down and with some skill prepare for some great shots.

[René Damkot]

Fact of the matter is that I have seen no reports, zero, zip, zilch, of any Mark II lens going back for repair due to mount failure or build failure
Not mount failure, and I wouldn't worry about that. The lens *did* fall apart on me though: front part (which moves for focussing) came completely off after a (not so heavy) nock to the lens. Makes an excelent loupe though . . . :D
Some measurebators will find a difference between the two or between them and the 50mm f1.4, but they don't actually make many pictures. People who actually use the lenses to make pictures find that things like good light versus bad light, tripod versus no tripod, lens hood or no lens hood, no filter versus dirty filter, and good technique versus poor technique have huge effects on image quality, totally swamping the infinitesimally small differences between the lenses.
Have to disagree there... To me, the better bokeh of the 1.4 lens is worth the extra money. The better build quality and focussing scale is worth choosing the Mk1 over the Mk2... (Don't own the Mk1, handled it though and own a 35 f/2.0, which hase the same build)
Then again, I guess it all comes down to individual taste. If you can live with the (minor) drawbacks the 50mm f/1.8 Mk2 offers, by all means, buy it! I can't, so I bought a f/1.4... See and decide for yourselves: http://www.photo.net/equipment/canon/ef50/

[DocFrankenstein]

At the end of the day, millions of great photographs have been made with old gear that was unquestionably worse than the supposedly decrepit Mark II.
For your information, dear sir, there are many aruments that those old MF lenses are better than 50/1.8 ;):D

[Citizensmith]

I was always worried that the weight of the 50 1.8 would just tear itself off the front of the camera if it only had a plastic mount. :)

Actually I ditched my 1.8. I found it kind of boring and almost always went for my 85 f/1.8 instead. I'm considering getting the 50 f/2.5 though as at least that has some specific use.

[FlyingPete]

I was always worried that the weight of the 50 1.8 would just tear itself off the front of the camera if it only had a plastic mount. :)

Hmmm perhaps it should also come with a tripod mount ;)