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

Heya,

You're comparing a good photograph done with the 18-55 and a poor photograph done with the 50 F1.8.

It's not the lens. It's you.

Very best,

In terms of sharpness, tests I've seen (digitalpicture.com) show that the 50mm f/1.8 is as sharp at f/2.0 as the 18-55 STM at 55mm f/5.6. That's three stops of light! Whether that's important to you or not is obviously for you to decide. Personally I stay away from 50mm primes on crop because I don't like the equivalent focal length. I will say that my 40mm pancake blows any Canon 18-55 kit lens out of the water in terms of sharpness and contrast.

Wide open. Not exactly dull...

IMAGE LINK: http://www.flickr.com …19201797@N06/13​156116295/

HairyBee,

What camera body? Test results that I've seen, wide open on FF is sharper than crop body. Take a look at this (FlashPlayer needed) comparison between 450d and 1DsIII at dpreview. There's a BIG difference. Nifty on crop body starts to sharpen at f/3.3

morph2_7 wrote in post #16759236
HairyBee,

What camera body? Test results that I've seen, wide open on FF is sharper than crop body. Take a look at this comparison between 450d and 1DsIII at dpreview. There's a BIG difference. Nifty on crop body starts to sharpen at f/3.3

6D but I've had similar results on my 60D. I have an excellent copy. I hope it holds up.

Here's one shot on the 60D sometime back. Posting cat shots is so sad...

IMAGE LINK: http://www.flickr.com …19201797@N06/13​156452925/

The biggest plus for the nifty is the shallow Depth of Field at large apertures which you don't get with the kit lens. It is an excellent choice to learn how to control DOF, without laying out big $$$.

Here are some examples:

IMAGE LINK: http://s37.photobucket​.com …1024_zpse6797f6​b.jpg.html

IMAGE LINK: http://s37.photobucket​.com …1024_zps65b09a4​d.jpg.html

IMAGE LINK: http://s37.photobucket​.com …rk/IMG_5677g102​4.jpg.html

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

Yeah, the nifty isn't an excellent lens, it's an excellent value. For ~$100, it does a great job for what it is. Sure, it ain't gonna stack up against the 50 1.2L, but it's less than %10 of the price. It's fun to play with wide open bokeh and low light you may not be able to do with a kit zoom. Compare it to a lens baby vs one of the TS-E L lenses. Lens babys look like fun, but a real TS-E is so much more.

I use a nifty now for certain shots. If the Sigma 50 Art 1.4 is anywhere near the hype, it will replace my nifty fifty without question. Or if some kind soul sends me a free Zeiss Otus.

For what an EF 50mm f/1.8 II costs, it's a great lens. I had an excellent 50mm f/1.8 II, but I dropped it. Don't do that.

I LOVE using my Nifty atm, as a prime it is really teaching me how to squeeze out more from my camera by forcing me to think and look at pictures differently than when my zoom lens is attached. Also side by side to me 18-135 stm lens, when set at 50mm, for one the 50 can take in more light because it can stop down further. Second of all the bokeh is MUCH more pleasing to my eye and my wife has remarked how different my pictures look compared to her under similar situations (I use the 50 she uses the kit 18-135 stm)

I know and see the 50 has some flaws but at the price paid it is a pound for pound (or dollar for dollar) heavyweight. But as long as you realize that it's flaws are minor. (What it has done is show me what the other side of the void looks like and convinced me to open my wallet even further!)

brycematheson wrote in post #16758626
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.

you really shouldn't have very many similar shots with each lens...they're entirely different...think of it as having a screwdriver, and a hammer...different tools for different needs...yes they both cover 50mm, but that's about all the share in common

the 50mm is a good cheap lens...it's an intro into what shallow DOF can do

do you do any sort of post processing? fixing poor contrast doesn't take long, and i'd say a large majority of the photos you see are processed in some way

The nifty fifty can deliver just fine wide open on crop body:

IMAGE LINK: https://www.flickr.com …71317677@N02/13​157587874/

IMAGE LINK: http://www.flickr.com …71317677@N02/13​157687433/

IMAGE LINK: https://www.flickr.com …71317677@N02/13​157563495/

HTTP response: NOT FOUND | MIME changed to 'image/gif' | Redirected to error image by FLICKR

IMAGE LINK: https://www.flickr.com …71317677@N02/13​158017024/

Along with these examples look through the 50's thread. It can, and does, get the job done if you need it too. As mentioned before, I think your expectations may have been a little far. Just because you bought a new "better" lens doesn't automatically make your photos better. Give it time. Learn what the lens can do well and probably more importantly what it doesn't do well. Once you learn that, and understand what your camera can do as well, then you'll like the results the 50 1.8 can give you.

brycematheson wrote in post #16758626
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.

The point of fast prime is to shoot different pictures from the walkaround zoom/ kit lens, there is no point in comparing similar shots unless to see if one has some sharpness or focus issues.

24-105mm F4.0 is not an upgrade to fast prime lens, it simply can't do what the prime can do (shoot f1.8 - f3.5).

If you think the 50 is lacking in contrast and IQ start by checking the focus and make sure there is no camera shake, live view focusing on tripod is a good way to check lenses.

Unlike the kit lens the 50 has no image stabilization so you need faster speeds handheld to get sharp pictures , something like 1/100s or 1/200s (or more) depending on how steady you are.

The issue might be faulty lens or back/front focusing, the two copies canon 50mm f1.8II I have tried have been very sharp when stopped down and fine for short DOF pics wide open.

If you want cheap high quality standard primes you may have to switch to Nikon since there is no Canon equivalent to the 35 f1.8G and 50 f1.8G