Want to buy a nifty fifty f/1.8...should I really be concerned with its build quality

My 1.8 fell apart after not too much use. I snapped it back together but it can only be used in manual focus, the automatic is really rough, loud and hunts for too long. I'd go with the 1.4, at least it will hold it's value if you decide to get rid of it.

How did it fall apart? I had one for a year and used it almost full time since it was my only lens.

jubu wrote in post #8535794
It seems like it's a 50/50 split from the posts I've read on here about the lens breaking

i don't know what posts you're reading...but i don't think it has a 50% chance of breaking apart...just don't drop it and you'll be fine

after using it for over nine months I've had no problem with my cheap 50mm 1.8

It feels very poorly built, but it's not especially weak.

However, if you have had even minor experience with decent lenses, the 50mm will infuriate you almost instantly.

It's worth noting that when a lens is so cheaply built that one actually resorts to making the mount out of plastic, that should tell you something about the materials used *inside* the lens, too.

After all, metal is not that much more expensive than plastic--it's not like the mount is made of platinum So if the mount is plastic, what does that tell you about the barrel and the focusing gears? I'm sure if Canon could have gotten away with it, they would've made the elements out of "optical resin" too....

It's not simply that the 50/1.8 II has plastic components--it's that it has plastic components where it ought to be made of a harder, wear-resistant metal.

For some really bizarre reason, Canon just can't seem to make a decent 50mm lens. The 50/1.8 II is just flimsy, the 50/1.4 has problems with the AF motor, and the 50/1.2L has mediocre performance and focus shift issues relative to its price. Part of the problem is that the basic design of the f/1.8 and f/1.4 have not changed since, what, 1982? It'd be really nice to see Canon devote some attention to the 50mm primes. No need for IS, just better build quality and optics.

It defs feels how you'd expect given it's price range. Though it doesn't matter, because it can deliver great results.

The only percaution I took with the lens, was making sure the focus barrel was brought back in, and then the lens was locked onto AF to prevent it from sticking out again. I've heard many a story about it dropping front of lens first, and having the gears stripped.

Bad News: This lens is a POS when it comes to build

Good News: This lens is easily fixed if you break it (I have shattered it in half, and have superglued it back together on no less than 5 occasions....oh and I only use it about once a year)

It is one of the best value lenses that Canon make, buy two and keep one as a spare and I bet you will never need it.

Thanks for all the replies guys. I just placed my order for one last night and I can't wait to test it out...I'm hoping this will tide me over for my low light needs until I'm worthy of a better, more expensive lens.

Will let you all know how it goes!

You should be fine! Mine is years old and still works like new. It's sharp, somewhat fast and fun to use. I've never had too many AF problems and I shoot with it at very dark concerts. It gets banged around a tiny little bit and nothing has ever happened. Of course I baby my stuff a bit, but not a lot.

As for the 1.4, I think the 1.8 is better. Not really a better lens, but as for build quality, AF reliability, and IQ it's a better deal. I had tried 3 1.4s and didn't buy any of them because of AF issues. I wound up just keeping my 1.8 and still love it!

how does a metal mount really make much of a difference?...i bought the MK I because i got a deal on it...and honestly...the metal mount didn't make me love it anymore than the MK II...the pictures pretty much came out the same...the focusing was better on the MK II though...so i gave my bro the MK I...never once did i really care what the mount was made of...also i believe the optics are the same for the MK I and MK II...so technically the optics they put in were actually for a metal mount...

wickerprints wrote in post #8537423
It's worth noting that when a lens is so cheaply built that one actually resorts to making the mount out of plastic, that should tell you something about the materials used *inside* the lens, too.

After all, metal is not that much more expensive than plastic--it's not like the mount is made of platinum So if the mount is plastic, what does that tell you about the barrel and the focusing gears? I'm sure if Canon could have gotten away with it, they would've made the elements out of "optical resin" too....

It's not simply that the 50/1.8 II has plastic components--it's that it has plastic components where it ought to be made of a harder, wear-resistant metal.

For some really bizarre reason, Canon just can't seem to make a decent 50mm lens. The 50/1.8 II is just flimsy, the 50/1.4 has problems with the AF motor, and the 50/1.2L has mediocre performance and focus shift issues relative to its price. Part of the problem is that the basic design of the f/1.8 and f/1.4 have not changed since, what, 1982? It'd be really nice to see Canon devote some attention to the 50mm primes. No need for IS, just better build quality and optics.

wickerprints wrote in post #8537423
It's worth noting that when a lens is so cheaply built that one actually resorts to making the mount out of plastic, that should tell you something about the materials used *inside* the lens, too.

I think it probably just says that the lens is so light that there was no reason to pick metal. At 130g, cardboard might have even worked!

I've never seen a lens, even a plastic one, with a worn out mount. Have you? I think it is silly to worry about theoretical failure rates when either a plastic or a metal lens will likely withstand more lens changes that its user can go through. Also, it is not a pro grade lens for many other reasons, so those changing lenses 45 times a day will likely not use it.

Agreed, which Is why I bought the 50 1.8 II. It is $80, so at least when I run into issues with it I don't have to mad that it was an expensive lens giving me problems. If it fails, I can go through 3 more before I equal the cost of a 1.4 (which have been known to fail, too).

DreDaze wrote in post #8538300
how does a metal mount really make much of a difference?...

Under casual usage conditions, it doesn't make much difference at all. The ones who really need the durability of metal are going to buy the f/1.4 or the f/1.2L anyway. But that wasn't my point. My point is if metal is not much more expensive than plastic--the material cost difference might be only a dollar or two--then why did Canon choose the cheaper plastic? The decision to go with plastic on the mount is an indicator for what else is going on inside the lens that you are not seeing.

Plastic mount = plastic gears = shorter lifespan.

It means that things that should be metal inside the lens are not metal.

I never said the optics were any different between the two versions. They're not. The optical performance was not in question here...the OP wanted to know about the build quality. And what I brought up was the idea that the plastic mount is an indicator of internal components quite possibly being made of materials of lower durability than they should be, but you can't tell until the lens fails.

^^^^sorry when you said inside i assumed you meant optics...

either way i still say go for it...plastic build or not, i just think everyone should have at least one prime...even if it's just the fifty, i think it opens up a different way of looking at things