The New EF 50mm f/1.8 STM is here!

oh, forget everything i said....i must've missed that it was the MK II...i thought that it was the new lens...my mistake

So i tried it again.
I moved the target to the living room with the big bay window with lots of natural light coming in. I did single shot and burst in AI servo and AF was pretty much on for 21 shots between the 2 modes.
I moved it back down to the game room with window closed and only lights on. I have all LED bulbs and out of 9 shots it only got focus on 4 the rest where OOF. its lower light down here as well. So not sure if its the lower light or the type of light LED messing with its AF. but like I said my 85 1.8, 70-200, and 24-105 all had perfect focus in game room with LED lights

I too have noticed a couple of times when the 50 STM didn't focus reliably far away. This is in comparison to all my other lenses. But I haven't tested it methodically to be sure. Just a cursory observation.

Talley wrote in post #17581152
just go shoot real stuff.... figure out your lens nouf' said.

it's not just that, you can get clear cut data that shows the original nifty fifty was particularly poor:

"The 50/1.8 has a lot of data associated with it however, and from personal experience in the FoCal lab, we can definitely say that the EF 50mm f/1.8 lens is not the best focusing lens out there! It’s cheap and the motor drive is somewhat inconsistent, so it’s not surprising that there’s a lot of range to the results and a poorer CoF value."

http://www.reikan.co.u​k …is-statistics-from-focal/

I'm sure someone has tried the consistency tests with the reikan tool right? Their test targets are more fool proof than random uncontrolled tests.

the nifty fifty is horribly inaccurate, and best bet is to focus and recompose center point. Forget about outer points on any camera, you just wont get that consistency.

In my experience it is NOT horribly inaccurate. A program cannot compensate for the AF's shortcomings, the way a photographer can.

I can shoot a chart until the cows come home... The AF is antiquated and slow, but not horribly inaccurate.

I sent mine back for a refund.
I was sitting on the porch with my son and was taking pics of him with it. he was like 5feet away and I would say 40% of the images were completely out of focus and missed badly. He wasnt moving around fast just standing there blowing bubbles. So dont know if it was my copy or what but I dont find that acceptable to miss almost half the shots taken on easy subject in good outdoor light.
it was nice when it hit but that was IF it got focus

Just received my economy lens hood for my economy lens which is fitted to a ancient EOS which
focuses as it should. Can't believe all the hoopla over this lens its just a nice low priced lens what
are some of you people expecting for $125.00 Leica quality and results.

Forgot to mention hood is rubber will not crack, split and so on cost was $4.59 which included a
Magic Fiber cloth which I'm told is going to blow me away. The price included shipping.

um I would expect to be able to atleast focus reliably on pretty much static subjects in good light.

05Xrunner wrote in post #17582987
um I would expect to be able to atleast focus reliably on pretty much static subjects in good light.

When I read things like this I wonder: are my standards are so low that I fail to recognise a piece of junk when I use one? Mine seems to focus just fine, in informal testing, a little better and bit more smoothly and quietly than the 50/1.8II. This seems a minor but noticable improvement over it's predecessor. As are a number of things about the lens. I'm happy enough that I bought one. Will it rival my 50/1.2L or a Sigma Art series 50? Of course not! But I didn't expect it to, not at that price. For $125 it seemed worthwhile to me, even though I have the older one. Others may take a different view: why spend even that amount of money on something with only minor improvements? That's a question each of us can only answer for ourselves.

...Mike

To elaborate on my last post, my first (utterly unscientific) impressions of the 50/1.8STM vs 50/1.8II are:

• The new lens feels nicer and more solid in the hand.
  
• Focus is quieter and less 'jittery' with the STM, but I couldn't say if it's faster or more accurate - I seem to get focus pretty well with both.
  
• Out-of-focus areas, especially highlights, seem slightly less 'crunchy' with the STM than the II, which I prefer but others might not. The difference is subtle, though, and would be hard to pick in real-world photos. I had to view identical test scenes shot side-by-side to see any difference, and I was looking for it. Different scenes would no doubt produce different results.
  
• The STM without hood seems about the same as the II with hood in terms of flare resistance. I prefer the new hood arrangement or, at least, I think I will as I don't have one yet. (Note: the II looked considerably worse than the STM until I removed the filter on the front of the II, which improved things substantially.) [EDIT]The postman just arrived. I very much do prefer the new hood arrangement.[/EDIT]
  
• I don't like either lens for manual focus. The MF ring on the STM is easier to use, but fly-by-wire so you have to have AF on to use it; the II feels tacky and wobbly, but doesn't need power.
  

I took a few minutes to try a small test. 6D on a tripod 1/200. f/2.3 ISO 800. Shot with the 2 second timer. This chart was on my kitchen door and was shot with indoor overhead lights, nothing special, just what's in the house. Between shots I defocused using the manual focus,sometimes turning it clockwise, sometimes counterclockwise, then refocused with AF and took the shot with the timer. Here are 11 consecutive shots. Everyone can judge for themselves, and I'm sure there are many other methods of testing. It is what it is. In any case, so far, I am pleased with the lens.

This is the full shot, the others are all crops. The focus point was on the circle in the center.

IMAGE LINK: https://flic.kr/p/u6NJ​Dx

IMAGE LINK: https://flic.kr/p/u6h7​f1

IMAGE LINK: https://flic.kr/p/u4ju​f5

IMAGE LINK: https://flic.kr/p/t9ND​AD

IMAGE LINK: https://flic.kr/p/u4ju​tw

IMAGE LINK: https://flic.kr/p/tPcz​Hk

IMAGE LINK: https://flic.kr/p/tP4e​nf

Continued.

IMAGE LINK: https://flic.kr/p/u4ju​Qo

IMAGE LINK: https://flic.kr/p/u6DR​pP

IMAGE LINK: https://flic.kr/p/u6h8​iJ

IMAGE LINK: https://flic.kr/p/tPcA​Ac

IMAGE LINK: https://flic.kr/p/tP4f​9L

to the death of test charts...

mfunnell wrote in post #17583023
When I read things like this I wonder: are my standards are so low that I fail to recognise a piece of junk when I use one?

...Mike

I was just thinking the same thing about myself. I bought a A6000 today and passed on the primes and got the kit zoom.

Patrick H wrote in post #17583630
I was just thinking the same thing about myself. I bought a A6000 today and passed on the primes and got the kit zoom.

I'm with you guys on this one! I think some people are too picky, some have unrealistic expectations and forget that it is just a $125 lens (not a $2,000+ lens), some convinced themselves there was something wrong with it and are determined to find something wrong, and some people actually have a bad copy. Hard to tell who is who though.

Just shoot with it. If you are happy with the photos then keep it, if you are not then don't. No need to break out charts and start pixel peeping on a $125 lens to prove it is crap or not.