Canon 50mm f/1.8 II Camera Lens for $69.94

[seiswirth]

I found this lens on Amazon.com. It seems too good to be true. Has anyone bought one?

[defordphoto]

Pretty much the standard price. Nice sharp, but cheap lens.

[Belmondo]

Pretty much the standard price. Nice sharp, but cheap lens.

IMHO, probably the first lens anyone should own. It is sharper than many lenses costing a lot, lot more, and it's fast enough (f/1.8 ) to be somewhat versatile. As CDS says, this is about the going price.

[MCB]

I bought the same lens from B&H photo for the same price. Well, the same price plus about $4 for 3-day UPS shipping. That seems to be a pretty standard price. I'm hoping it arrived tomorrow! :)

[NickC]

Is it possible you think it's too good to be true because you may have confused it with the f/1.4 which is about $309?

[seiswirth]

Can anyone explain to me why a Canon 50mm f/1.8 II Camera Lens costs $70 but a Canon EF 50mm f1.4 USM Medium Telephoto Lens is $332?

[Jackal]

50mm 1.4 has USM (faster and more accurate focusing), it's 1.4, and better build overall.

I hear alot about the 1.8 being innacurate at focusing.

[Belmondo]

Can anyone explain to me why a Canon 50mm f/1.8 II Camera Lens costs $70 but a Canon EF 50mm f1.4 USM Medium Telephoto Lens is $332?

quality. performance. faster, quieter autofocus. dof scale.

Just a better lens all the way around.

[grego]

Can anyone explain to me why a Canon 50mm f/1.8 II Camera Lens costs $70 but a Canon EF 50mm f1.4 USM Medium Telephoto Lens is $332?

It's one whole stop. That's a big difference. Besides that, its also built so much better. The 1.8 is one of the 10 best deals there are at there when you combine prince and quality.

[uumode]

I found this lens on Amazon.com. It seems too good to be true. Has anyone bought one?

That is incredibly cheap!! UK equalvalent price is $139 from Jessops
Amazon.co.uk don't do the lens

[SSquared2000]

My wife surprised me with the 50mm f/1.8 last month and I am continually amazed at the pictures it produces. Colors...clarity...depth of field...well worth the $70. I now keep it on around 80% of the time, switching to the kit lens when I'm looking for a wider shot.

I originally wanted the lens due to slow shutter speeds inside our home, at the inside swim center, gymnastics, etc. It has easily met my concerns in these areas. But I continue to find more and more uses for it. Yesterday we took a tour of the sand dunes. We were bouncing around like crazy and I wanted at least 1/1000 sec shutter speed...talk about camera shake. The kit lens couldn't do it in Tv, so I switched to the 50mm and it worked great.

Some things to watch for, there can be a slight soft focus at full 1.8. I sometimes go down to 2.2 and things get real sharp. You also need to be real careful of your focusing at 1.8. Small camera movements will make a huge difference. But the power of 1.8 is wonderful.

Yes! It does sound too good to be true, but it's real and definitely worth it. If you can afford it, get the 1.4. Better construction, USM, more aperture blades for better bokeh (out of focus part of depth of field).

[robertwgross]

It's one whole stop.

Actually, it is not a whole stop.

One whole stop up from f/1.4 is f/2.0.

---Bob Gross---

[uumode]

In the 'old days' the bundled lens was a 50mm.

Sadly is no standard 50mm kit lens bundle these days, the default being a cheap slow zoom lens instead.

[johneo]

I found this lens on Amazon.com. It seems too good to be true. Has anyone bought one?

Bought one yet? LOL I think most people with a Canon camera have. For that price it's a great lens to keep around (unless you spend the extra for the f1.4)

I bought mine in November of '03, putit on my 10D right out of the box (I think the UPS truck wasn't even gone yet) and took this shot ...

http://members.cox.net/johnori/k133595n.jpg (resized and cropped slightly, nothing more)

I don't use it often but it's nice to have for that price. It does feel cheaply made but I've had no problems (including focusing) with it at all. Worth the money!

[willg]

my fifty is amazing..focus is dead on and it starts getting pretty sharp at f/2.2...i had some trouble with the aperature getting stuck but i wiped off the contacts and it hasnt been a problem since

[fotogeek]

Yeah, I have the 50 1.8, the 1.4 is nice too, but I don't see the need to spend the extra money. I love it. I love primes though... dunno what it is.

[Alexandre Gabriel]

Ditto. This 50mm f/1.8 has the best ratio performance/price you can find.

[Steve Parr]

I overpaid for my 50mm f/1.8; bought it at Ritz for $89.00. Still, I'm glad I bought it. If I'd have bought it from somewhere like B&H, I'd have ended up paying about the same once the express shipping got added in (I'm an impatient sort).

I've noticed, occasionally, that it has some focusing issues in low light. I shoot, primarily, live bands, and while most of the shots I take with it are fine, I get one or two, every so often, that are completely out to lunch.

Overall, though, I'd buy it again, and I'm still toying with the idea of the 50mm f/1.4. I can't imagine not being totally satisfied with it...

Steve