Anyone here use the 50mm F1.8 on a 5D?

ed rader wrote in post #4444999
it's a rare man that shells out the big bucks for a 5d and then "saves money" by buying a $70 lens with a plastic mount !

i'm going to put 70 bucks into my gas tank today before making the rounds !

ed rader

Yes I agree, but there is always the usage factor, if its only a lens that gets very minimal use then its not always cost effective to have "the best".

I read the MK II 1.8 is basically a cut down version of the MKI 1.8, Canon wanted to make it less attractive as people were not buying the 1.4 due to the fact the MKI 1.8 was decent build & "good enough for most" however even the 1.4 doesnt do much for me, yes its got a metal mount, better build, better AF, but its still not got that "wow" factor for me to spend the extra on.

Nick_C wrote in post #4446008
I don't suppose you have any 100% crops to see? all I find online are crops taken from 1.6x bodies which is a useless test for me.

nick, I do at home. I am at work now. I can post them later on.

kevindar wrote in post #4446037
nick, I do at home. I am at work now. I can post them later on.

That would be most helpful, thanks!

If you could include edge crops in particular, this is the area im most interested in as the central portion is usually pretty decent anyway regardless of what lens is used.

Go for the happy medium, pick up the 50mm f/1.8 MkI. That way you can be happy with a good lens for a good price and not have people who tell your gear sucks because it's not expensive.

SolidxSnake wrote in post #4446076
Go for the happy medium, pick up the 50mm f/1.8 MkI. That way you can be happy with a good lens for a good price and not have people who tell your gear sucks because it's not expensive.

I would if it was still in production, im never happy buying second hand

Yup. I have a 50mm 1.8 Mk11 lens on a 5D.
Image quality is superb, with pin sharp results the equal of my other L lenses.
Focus is poor and the lens mount is tacky, but it works well enough and adds no weight to the body so is even easier to use in v-low light hand held.
It is said that the Bokeh on OOF highlights is poor because of the 5 bladed aperture but I can honestly say I have never noticed this effect and may only notice it if shown side by side.
I would not hesitate to buy one, and make some money with it while saving up for the usm 1.4 if thats where you want to go.

Yes as far as build & looks are concerned, I couldnt care less about the construction or the mount, if I want to show off I have my L for that but its optics that are paramount, its really just the focus accuracy thats a little concerning.

Its not a lens I will be using for "money shots" I use my L for those, but its really just as a lens to take pics of the family, stuff like that, maybe the odd product photo but nothing where sales are concerned, I would always be using an L for that as I find the consistency far better.

I regularly use a 5D and 50 1.8 combo. For a "piece of crap" I do alright...

http://www.pbase.com/e​ltwitcho/image/7401603​1

elTwitcho wrote in post #4446152
I regularly use a 5D and 50 1.8 combo. For a "piece of crap" I do alright...

http://www.pbase.com/e​ltwitcho/image/7401603​1

Very nice image there mate, its got a "Silent Hill" kinda look about it, if you have seen that movie you will know what I mean

It's no doubt my favorite shot of her, haven't had a chance to see the movie though

I think it's a wonderful lense. Focus sucks, beyond that I have no issues at all and I typically use manual focus for portraiture. I've since bought a 28 1.8, 85 1.8, some extra memory cards, a ringflash, some backdrops and some extra RAM for my computer, and nowhere in my spending have I found any justifiable reason to use some money towards upgrading to a 50 1.4 . The 50 1.8 is an excellent lense

ed rader wrote in post #4444936
you mean that it's a POS? sorry i'd have to agree.

plastic mount + no USM = junk, imo !

it's a good beginner lens tho like the kit lens.

ed rader

don't dismiss a lens just because it is cheap. some people have more money than sense.
plastic mounts work as well as metal, but may be less durable.
no USM simply means no USM -- the lens still has ability to auto-focus, just uses diff motor/system
most cheap primes yield better IQ than an L zoom.

Seefutlung wrote in post #4445041
That's moi. I also have a 24-70 covering that range ... but the $69 dollar lens works very well ... and as a former professional photog .... mmmh... I believe I have pretty high standards.

It is all about the final image ... not how you get there.

Gary

so you think the 50 1.8 is a better lens than the 50 1.4? don't you find that a USM lens focusses better than a non-usm lens?

ed rader

freaking102 wrote in post #4446386
don't dismiss a lens just because it is cheap. some people have more money than sense.
plastic mounts work as well as metal, but may be less durable.
no USM simply means no USM -- the lens still has ability to auto-focus, just uses diff motor/system
most cheap primes yield better IQ than an L zoom.

yeah right !

ed rader

elTwitcho wrote in post #4446152
I regularly use a 5D and 50 1.8 combo. For a "piece of crap" I do alright...

http://www.pbase.com/e​ltwitcho/image/7401603​1

you'd probably do better with the 50 1.4, and you will eventually buy it just like you did the 5d !

ed rader

Nick_C wrote in post #4446033
Yes I agree, but there is always the usage factor, if its only a lens that gets very minimal use then its not always cost effective to have "the best".

I read the MK II 1.8 is basically a cut down version of the MKI 1.8, Canon wanted to make it less attractive as people were not buying the 1.4 due to the fact the MKI 1.8 was decent build & "good enough for most" however even the 1.4 doesnt do much for me, yes its got a metal mount, better build, better AF, but its still not got that "wow" factor for me to spend the extra on.

well i own two primes and they are both consumer lenses, and they are my least used lenses.

you can get a used 50 1.4 for about $250. where else can you get an f1.4 lens for that price?

the way i see it the 50 1.4 is the real bargain between the two, not the 50 1.8.

how many pictures of the 50 1.8 have you seen on this forum where the lens was in pieces?

sorry i'm not one of your pious 5d users...the $180 difference of the 1.4 is well worth it to me and, again, i won't buy a lens that has a plastic mount.

ed rader