50mm 1.8 not all it's cracked up to be?

So I've always heard people rave about the 50mm 1.8 lens. I'm sure it's due to my lack of knowledge in regards to Photography, but I just don't see why people talk it up so much. At times, I feel that the 18 -55mm kit lens does a better job. I've used the 50mm on my T3i and 7D almost exclusively for the past 6-8 months, and I'm not so sure it holds up to the hype.

Maybe I'm just a terrible photographer? Below are some sample images. The first was taken with the Kit lens, and the second was taken yesterday while out shooting. Obviously the subjects and lighting are different, but the first image just looks so much better to me.

Suggestions? The first image has no PP done to it. The second has some contract, and sharpening applied using LR 5.

IMAGE LINK: http://s917.photobucke​t.com …n/media/IMG_812​9.jpg.html

IMAGE LINK: http://s917.photobucke​t.com …media/IMG_3041-1.jpg.html

The first is properly exposed in pretty good light. The second is overexposed in poor light. So its not the lens in either case. The 50 1.8 is at best a mediocre lens. But for $100 its a damn good value as a mediocre fast prime offers advantages that inexpensive zooms can't provide. Stopped down a little the nifty is pretty sharp, more so than the kit zooms. It is what it is, but in the above photos the problem lies just behind the viewfinder.

The lighting for one like the pp stated, also I only use my 50 1.8 for portraits, up close photos.

optically, it's pretty good, and for $100 an incredible value. AF consistency is among the worse of all lenses. If you're ok with the inconsistency, then it will work for you. I'm not really that comfortable with the amount of misses I get with the lens.

I have only ever used the 50 for portrait work. I think it is a very forgiving lens, and having a low-light capable prime (at that price!) is always a big plus.

Do you have any shots of the same subject, same lighting with both lenses? Comparing your two pics are kinda like apples & oranges.

brycematheson wrote in post #16758535
So I've always heard people rave about the 50mm 1.8 lens. I'm sure it's due to my lack of knowledge in regards to Photography, but I just don't see why people talk it up so much. At times, I feel that the 17-55mm kit lens does a better job. I've used the 50mm on my T3i and 7D almost exclusively for the past 6-8 months, and I'm not so sure it holds up to the hype.

Maybe I'm just a terrible photographer? Below are some sample images. The first was taken with the Kit lens, and the second was taken yesterday while out shooting. Obviously the subjects and lighting are different, but the first image just looks so much better to me.

Suggestions? The first image has no PP done to it. The second has some contract, and sharpening applied using LR 5.

yes, it's all about the light. you could be using the 50mm 1.8 as a "fast" prime for blurring the background

e.g.

60D
50mm 1.8
f3.2
iso 2000

Unfortunately, I don't have any similar shots with each lens that I can post up right now. I can go out and shoot some stuff after work if needed, but I'm sure you guys are already well aware of the capabilities (or lack thereof) with each of these lenses.

Any suggestions for working with a 50mm lens? I feel that a lot of my shots come out with poor contract no matter what I do. I was hoping to get a little more out of it? Ideally, I could upgrade to a nicer lens. Currently I've got my eye on a 24-105mm F4.0 as an upgrade, but at around $700, that's a bit out of my price range.

I actually would choose my new 18-55 over my 50 1.8 now that they are a lot sharper and provided a nicer shot than they used to.
this is with a 18-55, just bought it brand new,

IMAGE LINK: http://www.flickr.com …18036385@N07/12​975739394/

IMAGE LINK: http://www.flickr.com …18036385@N07/12​642505704/

When it's used "correctly" it can a good little lens to have around. Is it the sharpest? No. Is it the fastest? No. Is it's AF stellar? Hell no! Does it get the job done if you do it right? Yes.

When I say "used correctly" it's not a shot against you, so pleae don't take it as that. You just need to learn the limitations of the lens, and the camera you use it on, and work within those limitations. For what it costs you really can't go wrong with it. I think most times the 50 1.8 turns into a gateway lens to start playing with primes. I know it was for me!

Here's a quick portrait I shot with my 50 1.8 on my 50D. Sure, my 50 1.8 is the version 1 with the metal mount, but optically it's the same as the 50 1.8 II.

I'll have to go out tonight and get some shots with it before I give up. Guess I'm just another amateur photographer, eh? I see all the photos on here taken with a 50mm and think, "Whoa. Mine definitely don't like look that."

brycematheson wrote in post #16758812
I'll have to go out tonight and get some shots with it before I give up. Guess I'm just another amateur photographer, eh? I see all the photos on here taken with a 50mm and think, "Whoa. Mine definitely don't like look that."

You need to understand the difference between good light and bad light. Good light can make a bad lens look good, bad light can make the best lens look poor. The 50 1.8 doesnt handle flare very well, so avoid shots with the sun peeking in behind your subject.

I think you're expectations of the lens were greater then the lens is. I don't think I've heard people quite 'rave' about the lens. What I do hear and read is that it is a tremendous value optically, but build, AF, and bokeh are at best acceptable. IMO, the lens should be regarded as a lens that is optically excellent, but is a value lens that has limitations. I hardly ever use mine (Mk I), but I'll never get rid of it, because for the $150, it's hard to get similar quality when I need it.

If you're shooting with your 50mm opened all the way up to 1.8, it will not be sharp. It really only sharpens up nicely at 2.8 and smaller.

The samples you've posted are taken in different conditions and you've performed PP in one and not the other. Therefore, trying to compare the two is impossible.

gonzogolf wrote in post #16758819
You need to understand the difference between good light and bad light. Good light can make a bad lens look good, bad light can make the best lens look poor. The 50 1.8 doesnt handle flare very well, so avoid shots with the sun peeking in behind your subject.

this is a good point about light and lenses