Nifty 50 Mk.1 vs. Mk.2

I picked up the 50mm f1.8 Mk.2 recently and was wondering if the older metal mount version was a better lens IQ and focus wise. The plastic mount one I have feels more like a toy lens replica than an actual lens.

I have both and have never noticed a difference between them IQ wise. Though I have to admit that I haven't really looked for one. Even though the mkII might feel like a toy it can still produce some wonderful images.

Throw it on a body and walk around with it for a day, shoot everything, and then look at your results. You might not care so much after that. Keep in mind that it's a cheap entry level lens and Canon had to put the money into either the optics or the lens body and mount, I think they chose right.

I no longer have the MKII, but from what I remember IQ was pretty darn close to identical. I think that AF is a little more accurate with the MKI. If it is, it isn't night and day. I use the 35mm and 85mm more frequently though.

Unless you find a great deal on a MKI, I'd save a little more and just get a f/1.4 and hood.

Optical formula is the same, but the build and AF is a bit more robust on the Mk1.

Keep in mind the newest mk 1 you will find is going to be 23 years old. They switched to the Mk II in 1990!

I actually just got the mark I today that I bought on here. The mark I I now have does seem to be a little sharper then the mark ii I had to sell last year (lost my job and needed money) however I attribute that to sample variation and nothing else!

Why do I attribute it to that? Because optically both lenses are exactly the same!!

The mark II was just made to be less expensive for canon to produce. The optical design was not changed at all from the mark I. Canon just made the mount plastic, took away the distance scale, and moved the focus ring.

If you want a metal mount, a distance scale, and the ability to use a hood without a screw on adapter then get the mark I. But If you're just looking to get better IQ then you'll have to look at other 50mm lenses not just an older version of the lens you already have.

EDIT: Also like tkbslc said, any Mark I you get will be between 23-26 years old at this point (it was on the market from 1987-1990)

Don't let the age discourage you, though. Those arc-form drives might just go on forever. There certainly won't be any Mk 2's kicking in 20 years...

IQ, as everyone says, is identical except for copy variation.
Build and AF is better on the Mk I.

Everyone is saying the IQ is the same and I guess that is right if you want to have IQ the same on only 40 to 50% of your shots. That's how bad the AF is on the MKII. The MK I is right in the mid to high 90% range. That was for two of the MK II vs one MK I that I've owned.

If IQ is important to you all of the time get an MK I, if on the other hand IQ is only important 40% of the time get the MK II. I guess I'm different than most people because I want a lens that will focus on the right thing most of the time when I do my part.

spur wrote in post #16160794
Everyone is saying the IQ is the same and I guess that is right if you want to have IQ the same on only 40 to 50% of your shots. That's how bad the AF is on the MKII. The MK I is right in the mid to high 90% range. That was for two of the MK II vs one MK I that I've owned.

If IQ is important to you all of the time get an MK I, if on the other hand IQ is only important 40% of the time get the MK II. I guess I'm different than most people because I want a lens that will focus on the right thing most of the time when I do my part.

This mirrors my experience as well.

Never missed a shot with the MkII... Sometimes you may have to wait for a fraction of a second for it to settle down, but that's no USM lens.

The accuracy of the AF is all I can ask for and it places the (very) thin DOF exactly where I tell it.

IMAGE LINK: http://s37.photobucket​.com …rk/IMG_5669g102​4.jpg.html

IMAGE LINK: http://s37.photobucket​.com …rk/IMG_5658g102​4.jpg.html