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

LonelyBoy wrote in post #17584429
And, if I may ask, why do you have both the 18-55 and 18-135? I've been wondering a while.

The 18-55 STM came as the kit lens on my SL1. I keep thinking I might use it one day when I don't feel like carrying the extra weight of the 18-135 STM. I can't see myself getting rid of it because it is not worth much but it is still a very nice lens. So it sits on the shelf most of the time. (along with a bunch of other rarely used lenses)

I have the 18-55 IS STM and have invested some filters in it now. I don't do landscape much so the 18-24mm of the 18-55 STM is just fine for me - the IQ is actually surprising for the price.
That said - I've also looked at the 18-135 STM and the IQ is impressive!

But... like I said, I have invested in a few filters for the 18-55 STM.

Back to the 50 STM.

I'm experiencing somewhat of an enigma.

I was shooting at f/1.8 and f/2 and f/2.2 and f/2.5 and f/2.8 and of all my 600-800 images taken - I have quite frankly as of yet to see a shot I'm quite pleased with... with "my" copy.

I've most recently been shooting purple Iris flowers at f/4 and f/4.5 and f/5.6 but dang if I can't nail the "yellow tongue" of an Iris as Sharp! (Iris shooters will know what I mean...)

I'm tempted to blame my copy but am as yet blaming myself....

But, previous shots with the 24-105L IS and even the 18-55 IS STM have yielded really good results so I have to ask what the f#%K is so difficult in taking quality flower shots with this lens versus others!??!


again, I qualify this who thing with "what's wrong with my copy?!"

All that said - please please someone post some shots of flowers that are better (sharper) than this...
(and the below image is Lightroom'd)

have you tried stopping down the lens some more even? i mean at near the MFD you're looking at like 3/8's of an inch of DOF at f5

DreDaze wrote in post #17584580
have you tried stopping down the lens some more even? i mean at near the MFD you're looking at like 3/8's of an inch of DOF at f5

That has crossed my mind and will try it but yeash... I figured f/5.6 would get me the sharpness of the Iris Tongue I need...

that looks fine to me with the thin DOF and any swaying of your body will move the focus. If copy I had acted like that with all the shots I woulda loved to keep it. if you have any issues like mine you will get one shot focused and then next shot will be a total miss. As not even close just really blurry.

05Xrunner wrote in post #17584607
that looks fine to me with the thin DOF and any swaying of your body will move the focus. If copy I had acted like that with all the shots I woulda loved to keep it. if you have any issues like mine you will get one shot focused and then next shot will be a total miss. As not even close just really blurry.

I've been reading your posts and I can't help but think you got a bad copy. Mine's not perfect, it's been a little off here and there, and I haven't put it on a tripod yet, but it hasn't been wildly inconsistent like yours. I guess that's the chance we take when we buy a newly released lens. Sorry yours didn't work for you.

I might buy another down the road.

Immaculens wrote in post #17584603
That has crossed my mind and will try it but yeash... I figured f/5.6 would get me the sharpness of the Iris Tongue I need...

If you haven't tried MFA, that might help. I have mine at +5 and am pleased with the sharpness. When I first got it it seemed just a very little soft without adjustment. Mine at least seemed quite sensitive to adjustments, and I'm happy with it now. Perhaps something similar would happen if you adjust yours. Good luck.

Yeah, each of you write like you have a good understanding of the challenge of my subject ~ Cheers ~

DreDaze wrote in post #17584580
have you tried stopping down the lens some more even? i mean at near the MFD you're looking at like 3/8's of an inch of DOF at f5

05Xrunner wrote in post #17584607
that looks fine to me with the thin DOF and any swaying of your body will move the focus. If copy I had acted like that with all the shots I woulda loved to keep it. if you have any issues like mine you will get one shot focused and then next shot will be a total miss. As not even close just really blurry.

repete7 wrote in post #17584640

Hosted photo: posted by repete7 in
./showthread.php?p=175​84640&i=i176606186
forum: Canon Lenses

My iris flowers are done, so I can't help you there. I think focusing on iris is difficult because there's no real "center" to the flower. Here's a photo of my geranium, wide open, 1/200 sec. I was focusing on the center of the flower on the right, but this is slightly back-focused. Not on a tripod and I was probably swaying so, not complaining.

vorlon1 wrote in post #17584722
If you haven't tried MFA, that might help. I have mine at +5 and am pleased with the sharpness. When I first got it it seemed just a very little soft without adjustment. Mine at least seemed quite sensitive to adjustments, and I'm happy with it now. Perhaps something similar would happen if you adjust yours. Good luck.

Thanks, yes I tested mine with a chart and it was bang on....
After shooting so many with nothing up to my standard - I did some in-camera adjustmensts, and I was led back to -0-
So I will continue to shoot my Iris subjects with a wider DOF and patience, hopefully I will capture detail in the Iris fuzzy tongue yet

vorlon1 wrote in post #17584722
If you haven't tried MFA, that might help. I have mine at +5 and am pleased with the sharpness. When I first got it it seemed just a very little soft without adjustment. Mine at least seemed quite sensitive to adjustments, and I'm happy with it now. Perhaps something similar would happen if you adjust yours. Good luck.

For the benefit of some "Newbies" who might be reading this, I wanted to point out that Micro Focus Adjustment doesn't make your lens sharper. It just makes the focus point more accurate. It moves the focus point ever so slightly which can be critical when shooting at large aperture lenses like f/1.4, f/1.8 etc.

Some people might think it magically makes lenses sharper. If the photo looks sharper after MFA it just mean your focus was off slightly.

If you shoot at f/5.6 or f/8 MFA probably would make no difference and the photo won't seem any "sharper" no matter what you set MFA to.

msowsun wrote in post #17584741
For the benefit of some "Newbies" who might be reading this, I wanted to point out that Micro Focus Adjustment doesn't make your lens sharper. It just makes the focus point more accurate. It moves the focus point ever so slightly which can be critical when shooting at large aperture lenses like f/1.4, f/1.8 etc.

Some people might think it magically makes lenses sharper. If the photo looks sharper after MFA it just mean your focus was off slightly.

If you shoot at f/5.6 or f/8 MFA probably would make no difference and the photo won't seem any "sharper" no matter what you set MFA to.

That's a good clarification. I wasn't meaning to suggest that the lens was magically sharper, just that the focus was more accurate and therefore the images were sharper, i.e. in focus and therefore sharper than when focus was slightly off.

05Xrunner wrote in post #17580224
just double checked to make sure its maybe not the body. tried same thing with my 85 1.8, 24-105, and 70-200 and taking multiple shots with them every shot was dead on focus. the 50 is the only one that is all over the place with accuracy. So it seems like it has the same inconsistent AF as the old MKII

Just got mine yesterday and mine is inconsistent as well, especially wide open, on three different bodies.i was shooting one shot in manual mode. Indoors in moderate low light it misses AF 30-40% of the time. Often it's just missing slightly, but it's still missing. Even stopped down it misses far mre than it should. It seemed to pass the battery test with 5 double A batterie, so I don't think it's front or back focusing and it passed the centering tests. I took shots of the same subjects with my only other STM lens, the 10-18, and when zoomed in it nails focus almost 100% of the time. So far very disappointed with my copy of the new 50.

05Xrunner wrote in post #17581072
well maybe you can tell my lens that. it acts much better closer. and its junk further away.
if it cant keep proper focus on a target that is flat on a wall not moving with easy high contrast to focus on then its not reliable in anyway.

Agree, I'm frustrated as well. I may send mine back to B&H and try one more copy before I give up.