Canon 50 f/1.8 MKII, anyone around for that "upgrade"??

Were any of you folks around back in 1990 when Canon discontinued the 50 f/1.8 in lieu of the current MKII model? I wonder what the consumer reaction was to such a model change. Did Canon make the change just to drop the price on it?

Canon still sells some lenses that are built the same as the old 50 f/1.8 was (i.e. 15 f/2.8 Fisheye, 35 f/2, 28 f/2.8, etc), so its not like they stopped using that technology.

I'd be curious what the reaction would be if Canon dropped the current 35 f/2 or 24 f/2.8 for a MKII model built like the 50 f/1.8 MKII.

MKI

MKII

Discuss.

I've been burned by Canon's experiments in plastic before - with the ol' FD 35-70mm f/3.5-4.5. That thing was a steaming POS. One of the first all plastic lenses; lens mount included. It broke in short order and I've had to repair it several times. I still have it, but it's pretty ugly (though it works). Never really got to use/enjoy it though.

Not that the EF 50mm Mark II is *that* much different than the Mark I (really just the lens mount and distance scale) but I won't buy anything that cheap again, $75 (err, $90) or not. I do own the Mark I, but at least it still has a metal lens mount!

I also own the 35mm f/2 lens. For the money, it's a great little lens. But again, it's not a total plastic piece of crap, either. I shot with it for over five years quite regularly. If they made it a plastic Mark II - I probably wouldn't have bothered with it.

That's not to say the optics are garbage in these low-end lenses. Usually they're actually pretty good. The rest of the lens might be questionable though. Plastic lens mounts? That's where I draw the line.

I got my 50mm 1.8 mkI in 1989 to go with my EOS 630 and 28-70 3.5-4.6 mkII.

When the new 50mm 1.8 mkII came out I was initially envious of the slightly faster, and slightly quieter AF. But I stayed with the metal mount version for many years. I eventually sold it and got a 50mm 1.4, but now that is gone too.

When they announced the Sigma 50 1.4 HSM, I thought I better dump the Canon 50mm 1.4 before they drop too much in price. (I never really liked the Micro USM and clutch thing anyway)

Double Negative wrote in post #5448886
I won't buy anything that cheap again, $75 (err, $90) or not. I do own the Mark I, but at least it still has a metal lens mount!

I also own the 35mm f/2 lens. For the money, it's a great little lens. But again, it's not a total plastic piece of crap, either. I shot with it for over five years quite regularly. If they made it a plastic Mark II - I probably wouldn't have bothered with it.

That's not to say the optics are garbage in these low-end lenses. Usually they're actually pretty good. The rest of the lens might be questionable though. Plastic lens mounts? That's where I draw the line.

Awh, why the hate? I like this lens... at least at my budget

Persoanlly, I don't hate it, it actually works quite well I found, both on 400D and 40D, and IQ is very good. Better IMO than teh 50 F/1.4 . I never had a problem with focusing either, just that it is a little slow. However, I did opt for the Mark I, because I like the build better, although I don't care much for the slightly more waspy sound of the AFD drive it carries.

Kind regards, Wim

Double Negative wrote in post #5448886
I've been burned by Canon's experiments in plastic before

Double Negative wrote in post #5448886
Not that the EF 50mm Mark II is *that* much different than the Mark I (really just the lens mount and distance scale) but I won't buy anything that cheap again, $75 (err, $90) or not. I do own the Mark I, but at least it still has a metal lens mount!

I dunno, I've never used a 50 f/1.8 MKI, but I did have a 35 f/2 which is built much better than the 50 f/1.8 MKII. But its interesting, the 35 f/2 is actually $250 @ B&H, I guess if they couldn't offer the 50 f/1.8 MKI at a much lower price than that, no one would buy it over the 50 f/1.4.

Double Negative wrote in post #5448886
That's not to say the optics are garbage in these low-end lenses. Usually they're actually pretty good. The rest of the lens might be questionable though. Plastic lens mounts? That's where I draw the line.

I agree, the 50 MKII was a great lens to get into low light / shallow DOF stuff, but there is nothing redeeming about how its made.

msowsun wrote in post #5449144
When the new 50mm 1.8 mkII came out I was initially envious of the slightly faster, and slightly quieter AF. But I stayed with the metal mount version for many years. I eventually sold it and got a 50mm 1.4, but now that is gone too.

Really? You weren't thinking "what the heck is Canon doing discontinuing a decent lens for something built like a toy??"

But really, I think if Canon could come out with something like a 28 f/1.8 built like the 50 MKII, they'd probably sell a ton of them to crop camera users. Maybe in an EF-S mount. Interesting idea anyway.

I had the Mkii. I didn't mind the plasticky toy feel to it. It worked and that's all that matters. The only reason I sold it off was b/c I found a Mki for only a few dollars more so why not. I probably wouldn't buy it for $200 like I've seen it go for though.

The build is a little nicer but the first thing I did notice was that the AF was slower. I thought it was just my imagination because other people have confirmed too.

timnosenzo wrote in post #5450319
I dunno, I've never used a 50 f/1.8 MKI, but I did have a 35 f/2 which is built much better than the 50 f/1.8 MKII. But its interesting, the 35 f/2 is actually $250 @ B&H, I guess if they couldn't offer the 50 f/1.8 MKI at a much lower price than that, no one would buy it over the 50 f/1.4.

Hmm, good point. Differentiating the price a little more between the f/1.8 and f/1.4...

Every camera manufacturer needs a couple of "freebie lenses" that they can kit up with a camera body. It makes for a nice display box - "everything you need, no extras to buy!" if nothing else.