Canon 50mm Mk I vs MkII

What are the differences between the EF 50mm MkI and the MkII? I know about the metal mount, but is that what makes the MkI worth more than the new model, or is thre a difference in IQ as well?

KirkS518 wrote in post #14811611
What are the differences between the EF 50mm MkI and the MkII? I know about the metal mount, but is that what makes the MkI worth more than the new model, or is thre a difference in IQ as well?

I've had both. The only difference I noticed is that the autofocus on the older model is noisier. I don't know if that is by design or the fact that it was 20+ years old and the version II was brand new. Couldn't tell the difference optically.

Well, a little more researching, and this is what Ken Rockwell says inhis review of the MkII regarding differences:

That makes it hard to justify (in my eyes) the premium the MkI seems to get. I'd love to hear if anyone can some up with something I'm missing about the MkI.

I have never had the chance to use the MKI but if the durability is any better than the MKII, it may very well be worth the price difference. We all know the MKII is prone to failure quite quickly. A friend of mine had one for about four months and the AF has just died.

Durability of the old mk 1's is great. My mk1 is much more consistent in focusing than any of the mkII's that I have owned. In this sense, it is sharper because I do not have all of the misses on focus. Definetely prefer the mk 1 to the mkII.

I never like the MF ring being on the very front of the II, whereas it is in the middle of the lens body on the I. The I also has a distance scale, which is important if you want to zone focus.

AF on the Mk I is much better. IQ is about the same. The $40-$50 price difference between new and
obviously used is worth every penny.

The original 50mm has better build, a real focus ring and a distance scale. I would think it easily worth the premium were it not for the age of the lens. The newest one you could possibly find would be made in 1990, so that's a 22 year old lens. That kind of compensates for the durability argument in my eyes.

Does the distance scale/window also have the DOF markings? I think the focusing ring is going to be the selling point for me, along with the distance scale.

The Mk I uses an AFD motor, which has some advantages over the micromotor in the Mk II. Construction tolerances are tighter, manual focus is more precise, the lens does not rotate when focusing (Same as the Mk II), and there's an actual focus ring with a distance window. In AF mode, the focus ring decouples from the motor, which can protect it from damage.

Besides the metal mount, the plastics used for the inner and outer barrels are stronger than the Mk II and on par with Canon's mid-range lenses and L lenses. The inner barrel does not wobble at all.

The greatest thing about the Mk I is you'll sometimes find one attached to an old film Rebel at garage sales, flea markets, thrift stores, etc., in which case it will cost less than a Mk II. But the extra $50 over a Mk II to buy one online isn't bad, either, especially if you're not enthused by the EF 50/1.4.

KirkS518 wrote in post #14812390
Does the distance scale/window also have the DOF markings? I think the focusing ring is going to be the selling point for me, along with the distance scale.

The distance scale has DOF markings for f11 and f22. There is also an infrared index.

Mike Deep wrote in post #14812509
The Mk I uses an AFD motor, which has some advantages over the micromotor in the Mk II. Construction tolerances are tighter, manual focus is more precise, the lens does not rotate when focusing (Same as the Mk II), and there's an actual focus ring with a distance window. In AF mode, the focus ring decouples from the motor, which can protect it from damage.

Besides the metal mount, the plastics used for the inner and outer barrels are stronger than the Mk II and on par with Canon's mid-range lenses and L lenses. The inner barrel does not wobble at all.

The greatest thing about the Mk I is you'll sometimes find one attached to an old film Rebel at garage sales, flea markets, thrift stores, etc., in which case it will cost less than a Mk II. But the extra $50 over a Mk II to buy one online isn't bad, either, especially if you're not enthused by the EF 50/1.4.

Well, you've sold me on the MkI over the II. Now, to find a deal I (well, the wife actually) can live with.

look on ebay for deals...i'd never pay more than the price of the MK II for the MK I personally...but i've bought two off of ebay for $50, and $70...if you're willing to spend like $120 i'll send you a link where you can probably get one off ebay, i just watched one sell for $100

let me know and i can pm you

One more reason to get the Mk I is the way the hood mounts.

The hood on a Mk I mounts to the outside body of the lens and does not transmit any force to the front element.

On a Mk II, the hood attaches to the filter threads of the front element. The Mk II is already much more fragile than the Mk I so it doesn't take much to have the lens come apart.