Canon Normal EF 50mm f/1.8 II Autofocus Lens

[Wasiq]

I've heard from some people on here and a few other guys that I have talked to that this is a good "cheap" lens for the Drebel XT that I just got. Is this true? B&H has this for $75, I might go to NYC to pick it up tomorrow. I don't know if any of you saw my other thread, but my biggest pet peeve with the Kit lens was the sharpness. Will this really be alot sharper than the kit lens for taking pictures of people? I am going on vacation so tomorrow is my day to decide, I will be taking alot of pics of people and alot of city/land scape shots and night shots of the cities. Thanks!



Wasiq

[TheObiJuan]

It's a prime lens! It will be sharp, especially from f/2.8 and smaller. For landscape shots try to keep it at f/8.

[hmongstang]

its my best lens :lol:

[tim]

It's worth what you pay for it, but you'll probably upgrade to a good quality lens eventually. Stopped down a bit it's good, when it manages to focus accurately.

[MegaTron]

I just got that lens in from B & H today actually. For the price, its a steal.

[Andy_T]

My own (unscientific) tests showed me that I get the tack sharp images (that means: Image is sharp to the eye without any post-processing when viewed at 100% crop) at 50 mm focal length with
- my 50/1.8 @ f/2.8,
- my Tamron 28-75/2.8 @ f/4.0, and
- my Canon EF-S 18-55 @ f/8.0 :shock:

So yes, it is sharper :wink:

But it has a drawback for portrait photography (that the kit lens most certainly has, as well) that is that it is optimized for sharpness, and the bokeh is affected by that.

However, a lens that gives you the 50/1.8's performance AND nice bokeh (50/1.4, 85/1.8 or Tamron or Sigma f/2.8 zoom) will cost you $ 350 ... so that is a bit more than the usual 'spur of the moment' purchase... you must decide if that is important for you!

Take a look on these threads to find out what I mean:
50mm f/1.8 ugly brokeh (http://photography-on-the.net/forum/showthread.php?t=69785) ... discussion of the issue
Got A New Lense...Critique Please (http://photography-on-the.net/forum/showthread.php?t=79977) ... look at the background behind the salesgirl for a less-than-optimal example!

My kids on the playground. (http://photography-on-the.net/forum/showthread.php?p=631700) ... this thread shows you VERY GOOD results with the lens ... most likely the photographer's to blame for that :wink:

Best regards,
Andy

[Wasiq]

Hey guys, thanks for all the help, Andy, haha, I don't have $350 to spend ;), but I will definatley pick this lens up today, you're pictures are very clear! Do you have any pictures of other things you have taken? Things other than people, like cars or buildings with this lens? Thanks!!

[Wasiq]

Also another quesiton, how far can the subject be from the lens for them to be in focus? I don't want to have to keep switching between the 50mm and the Kit lens....is there anything in the $100 range that would be better for portraits and city/land scapes? Thanks!

[jfrancho]

Specs indicate focus range 1.5 to infinity, for 50mm f/1.8 II. Kit lens is great for landscapes, plenty sharp enough. Many of these were taken with the kit lens, stopped down a bit: http://photography-on-the.net/forum/showthread.php?t=82583. You may need a tripod for low light situations, due to slower shutter speeds required when stopped down.

[Wasiq]

Is being sharp bad for portraits?

[bolantej]

it depends on what you want your image to look like.

[wilflee]

Is being sharp bad for portraits?
Absolutely!

In glamour & boudoir photography, the softar 2 is your best friend.

[elbirth]

It's worth what you pay for it, but you'll probably upgrade to a good quality lens eventually. Stopped down a bit it's good, when it manages to focus accurately.

did you have issues with your 50mm not focusing accurately? mine always has great focus, no issues with it

[jfrancho]

did you have issues with your 50mm not focusing accurately? mine always has great focus, no issues with itI can't speak for tim, but I tried out a used 50 f/1.8 Mark I (metal mount) and had no focus issues, but felt, based on information on this forum, I would "outgrow" this lens quickly. Therefore I opted for the f/1.4 USM version. If cash had been an issue at that time, it would have been a no brainer to get a f/1.8. Having a sharp, fast prime lens to compliment the kit lens is better than no prime.

[twalker294]

I've had my 50/1.8 since I got my 10D two years ago and it is still one of my most used lenses despite having a 28-70/2.8L, 85/1.8, and 80-200/2.8L. The 50 is light, small, and takes very good shots. Of course the bokeh isn't as nice as my other lenses but the 50 is just so handy for so many types of pictures. I've never wished I had the 1.4 either although if I had bought it instead I'm sure I would like it just fine.

The 50/1.8 is probably the best quality to value ratio in Canon's line. Get it.

Todd

[Andy_T]

Hey guys, thanks for all the help, Andy, haha, I don't have $350 to spend ;), but I will definatley pick this lens up today, you're pictures are very clear!

I hope I did not create a misunderstanding here by using the original thread title of the poster for correct reference, but these images were taken by Solinger!

Do you have any pictures of other things you have taken? Things other than people, like cars or buildings with this lens? Thanks!!

Sorry, don't have any available.

You can look at www.pbase.com ... there you can search by lens and see images from other people with that lens.

Best regards,
Andy

[johnmoss]

Hello everyone, new here.

I have both the 50mm f/1.4 and the f/1.8 II. Honestly I use the f/1.8 more than any other lens, except maybe my 17-85 IS, on my XT. It's light and the focus is fast and dead on accurate. I have no problems at all with mine.