50mm 1.8 II Build Quality

No slop in the mount, just a bit of play in the front element. I'm guessing that's just the way it is, not being USM and having a very light body etc.

Sorry, should've said, it's on a 350D

I don't have any play in mine either. I broke mine a few weeks back an replaced it with the 1.8. I'm happy with mine. Sharpness is good. It does hunt a bit sometimes.

Yeah, you're absolutely right...who knows if I am any good, but I have certainly gotten better learning with nothing but a powershot a75 and a minolta from the 70s with a 50. I just today bought an xt and a 50mm f/1.8.

I've got plenty of play in my nifity, and i got it brand new. You are not alone.

I still say the 50mm 1.8 is the best bargain in the Canon lens inventory. Extremely sharp and the colors are fantastic. I don't use mine much but I love it when I do!!!

Sure, it's a bit fragile but if I broke mine I would replace it immediately!!!

About 1mm play is normal for this lens.

I've been playing around with it a bit and it grates and grinds a bit when I switch from AF to MF and turn the focus ring. If I then switch back to AF and back to MF it usually sorts itself out. It probably took a hit during shipping as the box has a bit of a dent in it and the lens bubble wrap is deflated in areas.

Not to worry, it takes lovely sharp pics.....

While I agree with everything you say, it should be kept in mind that the 'equivalent' of the old days' 50/1.8 is nowadays a 28-35 mm lens (considering the 1.6 crop factor). The 35/2.0 and 28/2.8 are two inexpensive Canon primes (ok, they are more expensive than the 50/1.8, as they are not made in the same numbers) that are also great walkaround lenses.

I got the 50/1.8, was absolutely smitten with it, upgraded to the 50/1.4 and got the Sigma 30/1.4 in addition. This lens now stays on my 20D most of the time, as it is just a very versatile focal length for 'candid' shots.

Stop your 50/1.8 down to f/2.5-f/2.8, and you'll see what image quality is...
DOF is too shallow at f/1.8 for most applications anyway...

Best regards,
Andy

Yes. Both bias and ignorance have been exposed. I have not upgraded to a DSLR because, in part, I am totally turned off by the crop factors. That's why my first DSLR is going to be a 5D. I forget that the vast majority of the posters here have to deal with that factor and after over 40 years of film photography, 50mm to me, means "normal." That's why I said in my post that it took me a while to understand why the posters were referring to the 50 as a "portrait" lens.

my 50mm F/1.8 feel like garbage, but it's also sitting beside my 85mm F/1.8 . It takes very very crisp sharp pictures, so I'm not complaining

My 1.4 is what I term "unremarkable"

Sharp, never hunts but the focus ring feels cheeseball and it has the ugliest colour of any lens I own. All shot taken with it are flat and need way too much sat boost.

That being said I pays for itself nightly when I do the dinner shots here at the resort.

Mine ha play on MF but is a little tighter on AF but I still LOVE it

Al,

I used to think exactly like you until I came to the conclusion 'Hell, why not just get wider lenses if need be?'

I have been very happy with my 20D and Sigma 30/1.4 ever since. It's the camera I always wanted.

And my 17/3.5 is currently wide enough for me, if needed, I'll go for one of the UWA lenses.

And on the long end ... I certainly don't find much wrong with getting a 280/2.8 lens for the price of a 200/2.8 lens ... go compare

Best regards,
Andy

I agree with andy, crop factor is no big deal if you have the right lenses. but I would agree that 50mm on a crop factor camera is not a great focal length - in my less than expert hands, it's pretty much good for portraits and sitting on my tubes for the odd macro attempt.

but i do miss my 50mm 'standard' view from film camera days - and to this end am planning to get the sigma 30mm 1.4 as a christmas present to self - with any contributions from right-minded family members being gratefully received!

As far as build quality goes, yes, the front element does rock a bit , but the wobbles don't bother me and don't affect the IQ. This lens would not survive a knock, but it's so small anyway you'd hardly use it to batter your way through a crowd of competitive paparazzi, would you?

Mine has a lot of play, too. MF is sloppy and it sounds like a wood rasp in AF, but I've been packing it around since I bought it new in 1994, and it still works fine. I'm a little less thrilled with it on a 1.6x crop digital body, and I think I'll get myself something like the 28/1.8, now that I've finally converted. Optically, it's great, and the only lens in my lineup that stands up to pixel peeping.

Seems to me I read something like a 50mm lens on a 35mm body gives images that have similar perspective and field of view to what we perceive with our eyes. Thus the 'normal' designation. Whatever the case, I've found it to be a great lens for my way of thinking about / doing photography.