nifty fifty (i.e. 50 1.8 II) - wow!

I have been there and back with L lenses and finally the other day I got the nifty-fifty for the first time and all I can say is WOW!

That little plastic thing can rock with the 1Ds III and some know how.

I used it at a pool party last night to get some all around photos with some fill flash and I was very pleased with the sharpness, even when cropping and zooming.

Albeit, it isn't an 85L (my only beloved L), but when you are around the pool, you don't get the L glass out, if you can help it (at least I don't).

Oh, don't give me a bunch of jazz about not getting the L out, but using a 1ds III around the pool. I know, I know...

Underscore wrote in post #8178867
I have been there and back with L lenses and finally the other day I got the nifty-fifty for the first time and all I can say is WOW!

That little plastic thing can rock with the 1Ds III and some know how.

I used it at a pool party last night to get some all around photos with some fill flash and I was very pleased with the sharpness, even when cropping and zooming.

Albeit, it isn't an 85L (my only beloved L), but when you are around the pool, you don't get the L glass out, if you can help it (at least I don't).

Oh, don't give me a bunch of jazz about not getting the L out, but using a 1ds III around the pool. I know, I know...

a 50L would finish the weatherseal.

alt4852 wrote in post #8178882
a 50L would finish the weatherseal.

Sure. I will PM you my paypal ID and you can send the funds for that weather sealing, like quick. I wouldn't want to disappoint.

I think I'm the only person who seems to dislike this lens. The lens is sharp enough, but there is always a pixellated look to the images it produces. They remind me of snaps you get out of a high quality phone camera.

fly my pretties wrote in post #8178941
I think I'm the only person who seems to dislike this lens. The lens is sharp enough, but there is always a pixellated look to the images it produces. They remind me of snaps you get out of a high quality phone camera.

Depends on the camera and possibly the ISO you are using. What body have you used with the lens?

fly my pretties wrote in post #8178941
I think I'm the only person who seems to dislike this lens. The lens is sharp enough, but there is always a pixellated look to the images it produces. They remind me of snaps you get out of a high quality phone camera.

That's pretty much the way I felt about the Tamron 17-50, but not the thrifty 50. Something about the Tammy's IQ I didn't like...

I used to get a kick out of using my 50mm f/1.8 on my old 1DmkIIn. Ya know, the thought of using a $75 lens on a $3k+ body .

As far as you being the only person around here not liking the little 50mm f/1.8, there are plenty of folks on these forums who think it's a piece of, well, junk. As for me, I don't use the FL so my wife uses my 50mm f/1.8.

I borrowed my neighbors 50 1.8 and hated it! Then when I couldn't find a good 50 1.4 locally I bought a used 1.8 again to try, thinking I could always sell it if I didn't like it. Well this little lens really can pack a punch! Compared to the first copy I tried it's magic! I use it in daylight and get great shots and I use it at my husbands gig using 3200 ISO at 1.8 and get great shots! Not really good (like being able to print 16x20) but good shots. I wouldn't ever print anything 16x20 at ISO 3200 anyway!

gardengirl13 wrote in post #8179053
I borrowed my neighbors 50 1.8 and hated it! Then when I couldn't find a good 50 1.4 locally I bought a used 1.8 again to try, thinking I could always sell it if I didn't like it. Well this little lens really can pack a punch! Compared to the first copy I tried it's magic! I use it in daylight and get great shots and I use it at my husbands gig using 3200 ISO at 1.8 and get great shots! Not really good (like being able to print 16x20) but good shots. I wouldn't ever print anything 16x20 at ISO 3200 anyway!

I am curious if your first try at this lens was a mark I or II. They are different in terms of build and glass.

It was a mark II. Not sure why this lens is so much better? QC I quess??

gardengirl13 wrote in post #8179107
It was a mark II. Not sure why this lens is so much better? QC I quess??

Should be explained on Canon's website or in the sticky here on lens work. As I understand, when a lens goes from I to II, there is supposed to be areas of marked improvement in IQ enough to change their manufacturing operations.

My Nifty made some awesome images... stopped down. I figured whats the point of a fast prime if I'm not satisfied using it as fast apertures. Granted, for the price it packed a punch, but my summer job permitted a little more gear indulgence. I upgraded to the 60mm f/2.8 macro and couldn't be happier!

I was quite surprised at the quality of my 50 1.8 MK2. I used it for some studio portraits of my son for school, 2nd grade and the images came out really sharp. I had the lens stopped down by two stops, and I used a muslin backdrop also. The focus is noisy and slow, and inconvenient, but for 70 bucks, (that's what I paid) it's a good even disposable lens.

Underscore wrote in post #8178945
Depends on the camera and possibly the ISO you are using. What body have you used with the lens?

450d, 50d, 5d2. Basically all of my cameras. I'm not knocking the quality of it for the price, in that respect it cannot be beaten. But it's a very shoddy lens. But, but, again, the price is fantastic. For me it just didn't live up to the hype when I bought it.

I HATE IT.....

I have been a photographer for over fifty years, much of that time professionally. I severed several tours as a combat cameraman in Vietnam and have placed myself and my gear in some precarious positions during my life. BUT I HAVE NEVER BROKEN A LENS - EVER!

That is until I had the "Not So Nifty Thrifty". A simple soft ding against a doorframe ended with the front element of that lens rolling on the floor while the remainder was still on my camera. I have dinged other lenses quite hard and even once fell to the concrete with my 70-200mm f/4L IS lens hitting the ground first. The lens hood was toast but, the lens was fine.

The 50mm f/1.8 Mk II remains the MOST EXPENSIVE LENS per shot that I have ever used. It was a LOT MORE EXPENSIVE than any of my "L" lenses because I had only shot about fifty images before the accident.

That totalled out to somewhere around two bucks per shot!

BTW: I have a Mark I 50mm f/1.8 and the build is far superior. That is why a used Mark I costs more than the new Mark II which replaced it. However, it doesn't cost that mush more and is well worth IMO the difference in price.

RPCrowe wrote in post #8179488
I have been a photographer for over fifty years, much of that time professionally. I severed several tours as a combat cameraman in Vietnam and have placed myself and my gear in some precarious positions during my life. BUT I HAVE NEVER BROKEN A LENS - EVER!

That is until I had the "Not So Nifty Thrifty". A simple soft ding against a doorframe ended with the front element of that lens rolling on the floor while the remainder was still on my camera. I have dinged other lenses quite hard and even once fell to the concrete with my 70-200mm f/4L IS lens hitting the ground first. The lens hood was toast but, the lens was fine.

The 50mm f/1.8 Mk II remains the MOST EXPENSIVE LENS per shot that I have ever used. It was a LOT MORE EXPENSIVE than any of my "L" lenses because I had only shot about fifty images before the accident.

That totalled out to somewhere around two bucks per shot!

BTW: I have a Mark I 50mm f/1.8 and the build is far superior. That is why a used Mark I costs more than the new Mark II which replaced it. However, it doesn't cost that mush more and is well worth IMO the difference in price.

This is specific only to your situation. If I use a Mk II for the next 10 years and don't bump it against a door frame the cost per shot is minuscule.

You people know what you are getting into build quality wise with a MK II - there should be no surprises in that category so why the complaining after the fact? Doesn't make much sense to me.

I personally applaud Canon for making the MK II at the build quality level they do so that it can be at the price point that it is at. Opens up a nice prime to a nice large audience.