Canon EF 50mm f/1.8 II = Far and away worst lens in my bag?

SimplyShane

The title says it all.

I'm getting extremely ....well...ticked off at this lens.

Anyway, ever since I bought this lens, I've had trouble with it, and that's no exaggeration.

At first, I thought it was on my end and indeed, I had learned that the focus and recompose line of thought is a horrendous idea for lower apertures.

But even after changing that aspect of my shooting style, I find this lens a real chore to use and generally not worth it's price of admission... (Under 100 dollars.)

Why do I say this? Well, even shooting at 2.5 through 3.2, the lens still has a strong tendency to misfocus. The slight blur I see over everything just depresses me every time I get the shots back on the computer. No, it doesn't miss every shot and if I shoot at 4.0 or beyond, it rarely falters. But for most low-light situations, every one shot that turns out well is followed by another four or five that don't. Very very depressing. Even my crappy 55-250 zoom lens, at full extension, typically grabs sharper shots than this prime, even in darker conditions.

Plus, the fact that I have to use the AF focus points in such a precise manner is a ---huge--- pain and stifles creativity. Instead of locking focus and finding the perfect composition afterward, you have to hope and pray that the AF points match up with your vision. Really sloppy method if you ask me.

I will say this though: Could I still be doing something wrong? If so, what is it? I will try to post example images for you guys so that you all have a better idea of how the blur looks like. Not sure how that will help, but maybe it can. One only hopes..

Wil Davis

Well, does it work when you put it in manual mode?

There are test charts and methods of checking focus which have been discussed extensively in other threads; try using search with "checking focus" or "focus test charts"…

Good Luck!

Happy July 4th!

- Wil

Punkybeth

Really?
I happen to think this lens ROCKS!!!! Maybe you got a dud? I use this lens for a lot of my pet photography and I usually shoot at 2.8 or wider to get snout shots, eye shots, or paw shots, etc. But the selective focus is what I am going for. Here's an example of one were the eyes are in focus and everything else is soft. The look might not be for everyone, but I just love what this little cheapy can do!

This is shot at 50mm 1.8 ISO 400:



I got mine back in 1997 or thereabouts, so it could be that mine was made differently...but I really LOVE this lens. I was totally bummed on my recent vacation to AZ because I left this lens at home (unknowingly). My only grip with this lens is that it is loud! There's no ultrasonic motor in it.

SimplyShane wrote: »

The title says it all.

I'm getting extremely ....well...ticked off at this lens.

Anyway, ever since I bought this lens, I've had trouble with it, and that's no exaggeration.

At first, I thought it was on my end and indeed, I had learned that the focus and recompose line of thought is a horrendous idea for lower apertures.

But even after changing that aspect of my shooting style, I find this lens a real chore to use and generally not worth it's price of admission... (Under 100 dollars.)

Why do I say this? Well, even shooting at 2.5 through 3.2, the lens still has a strong tendency to misfocus. The slight blur I see over everything just depresses me every time I get the shots back on the computer. No, it doesn't miss every shot and if I shoot at 4.0 or beyond, it rarely falters. But for most low-light situations, every one shot that turns out well is followed by another four or five that don't. Very very depressing. Even my crappy 55-250 zoom lens, at full extension, typically grabs sharper shots than this prime, even in darker conditions.

Plus, the fact that I have to use the AF focus points in such a precise manner is a ---huge--- pain and stifles creativity. Instead of locking focus and finding the perfect composition afterward, you have to hope and pray that the AF points match up with your vision. Really sloppy method if you ask me.

I will say this though: Could I still be doing something wrong? If so, what is it? I will try to post example images for you guys so that you all have a better idea of how the blur looks like. Not sure how that will help, but maybe it can. One only hopes..

Snowgirl

Me too.

Punkybeth wrote: »

I happen to think this lens ROCKS!!!! Maybe you got a dud? I use this lens for a lot of my pet photography and I usually shoot at 2.8 or wider to get snout shots, eye shots, or paw shots, etc. But the selective focus is what I am going for. Here's an example of one were the eyes are in focus and everything else is soft. The look might not be for everyone, but I just love what this little cheapy can do!

This is shot at 50mm 1.8 ISO 400:



I got mine back in 1997 or thereabouts, so it could be that mine was made differently...but I really LOVE this lens. I was totally bummed on my recent vacation to AZ because I left this lens at home (unknowingly). My only grip with this lens is that it is loud! There's no ultrasonic motor in it.

I also consider this cheapo lens one of the best bargains in my bag. I use is a LOT, for portraits, for pets, and, believe it or not, for landscape shots. I love this lens. Hubby gave it to me for Christmas two years ago.

Maybe you did get a dud? Show us a picture so we can see what you are talking about.

divamum

I've since moved on to a 50 1.4, but in some ways I actually preferred 1.8, if I'm honest.

It can be a piglet to focus, and the shallow dof - 2.5-3.2 is still pretty shallow - can mean you have to be VERY accurate with it to be sure it focuses where you intended, but it's sharp and reliable once you can get it to play nice. It is known to be unreliable in low light situations - if you use the focus assist on your flash (even if you don't flash), it can help A LOT.

The fact that you say it's pretty good at f4 and above makes me think that it's not the lens itself, but the low-contrast situations where one is more likely to use a wider aperture; you likely need to figure out a way of helping it focus accurately in those situations. I've heard that some people will use a penlight or small flashlight to illuminate their point of focus if they don't have a focus-assist flash to help out.

craig_d

I prefer the EF 50mm f/1.4 USM, but I have lots of great shots that I took with my f/1.8. Then again, I have the original f/1.8 (with the metal lens mount), not the all-plastic one they sell now. That could make a difference, I suppose, even if the optics are the same.

However, I spend so much time shooting manual-focus film cameras these days that when people complain about AF I have a strong temptation to suggest that they just learn to focus manually and forget about all this annoying modern technology that is nice when it works, but doesn't work consistently, and only encourages you not to think about what you're doing.

SimplyShane

I think a great deal about what I'm doing. I'd like to think that my gallery proves as much.

I personally like Auto-Focus and consider it a blessing. I CAN manually focus, but usually the moment disappears by the time I'm ready to shoot. I've been getting faster at it, but there comes a point in time when you're either going to get the shot or miss it entirely if you use manual focus...Time is ALWAYS of the essence.

craig_d wrote: »

I prefer the EF 50mm f/1.4 USM, but I have lots of great shots that I took with my f/1.8. Then again, I have the original f/1.8 (with the metal lens mount), not the all-plastic one they sell now. That could make a difference, I suppose, even if the optics are the same.

However, I spend so much time shooting manual-focus film cameras these days that when people complain about AF I have a strong temptation to suggest that they just learn to focus manually and forget about all this annoying modern technology that is nice when it works, but doesn't work consistently, and only encourages you not to think about what you're doing.

ziggy53

I have both the EF 50mm, f1.8 and the EF 50mm, f1.4 USM and the f1.4 is much more consistent to focus. If you want to use the lens at large apertures I can highly recommend the f1.4 USM. The f1.4 has a "micro USM" motor, so it's not as fast as the better "ring-USM", but accuracy is tremendously improved over the older "micro motor" technology of the f1.8 version. (The older metal mount f1.8 version is supposed to be slightly better in AF accuracy due to tighter tolerances and slightly better braking.)

If you need both speed and accuracy I'm afraid you would need to purchase either the EF 50mm, f1.2 "L" USM (still not super-fast to focus) or go longer to the EF 85mm, f1.8 USM.

JimKarczewski

I'm with Ziggy. Drop the 1.8 and save your pennies for the 1.4, which is the SHARPEST lens in my bag and I have mostly L glass with the exception of the 50/1.4 and 85/1.8.

jeffreaux2

+1 for what Ziggy says...

...and divamum is spot on about auto focus working poorly unassisted in low light. I use an STE2 in those situations for an assist.

I had taken some REALLY stunning portraits with the f1.8, but when it came time to use it for pay I found it to be too finnicky. The 50mm F1.4 is much more consistant, and I regularly use it at F2. Any mor open than that is a crap shoot for getting two eyes in focus etc...sooo...

...and why are you using auto focus AND letting it decide the focus point. Choose which focus point you want. Set it to single point focus and choose which of the spots you want to use....that is over the area you want sharp?

They both can produce amazingly sharp images. The 50mm F1.4 is more consistant.


Canon XTi plus Canon 50mmF1.8 LENS @ F3.2


Canon 50D plus Canon 50mm F1.4 lens @ F2.0

pathfinder

jeffreaux2 wrote: »

+1 for what Ziggy says...

...and divamum is spot on about auto focus working poorly unassisted in low light. I use an STE2 in those situations for an assist.


...and why are you using auto focus AND letting it decide the focus point. Choose which focus point you want. Set it to single point focus and choose which of the spots you want to use....that is over the area you want sharp?<img src="https://us.v-cdn.net/6029383/emoji/ne_nau.gif&quot; border="0" alt="" >

They both can produce amazingly sharp images. The 50mm F1.4 is more consistant.

I agree, Jeff, complaining about autofocus at apertures wider than f5.6, and letting the camera choose the AF point doesn't compute.

At wide apertures ( small f numbers, say < f 3.5), one MUST choose a single AF point, and use it precisely where they want focus to fall. One simply must do this or their images will not be focused correctly way too often.

The camera WILL choose nearer, higher contrast, sharper lines if you allow it to choose the AF points. The 1series cameras are better at not doing this than the Crop bodies, but you really need to use single AF points for critically sharp images, especially if shot in low light, or closer than 8-10 feet.

And the f1.8 is famous for not being as consistent as the f1.4.

SimplyShane

Guys, guys...

I have already been choosing the AF point myself. I still have these problems even with choosing the point of focus myself.

The f/1.4 seems to be in my future. Thank you Ziggy.

pathfinder wrote: »

I agree, Jeff, complaining about autofocus at apertures wider than f5.6, and letting the camera choose the AF point doesn't compute.

At wide apertures ( small f numbers, say < f 3.5), one MUST choose a single AF point, and use it precisely where they want focus to fall. One simply must do this or their images will not be focused correctly way too often.

The camera WILL choose nearer, higher contrast, sharper lines if you allow it to choose the AF points. The 1series cameras are better at not doing this than the Crop bodies, but you really need to use single AF points for critically sharp images, especially if shot in low light, or closer than 8-10 feet.

And the f1.8 is famous for not being as consistent as the f1.4.

SimplyShane

Great shots sir...

Glad to know I'm not the only one who thinks it is finnicky. Point blank it just isn't reliable...

And like I said before --- I am choosing the point of focus. I still have these problems despite that... (It could actually front focus. In fact, I'm pretty sure it does. Some of my photos are displaying that quality.)

jeffreaux2 wrote: »

+1 for what Ziggy says...

...and divamum is spot on about auto focus working poorly unassisted in low light. I use an STE2 in those situations for an assist.

I had taken some REALLY stunning portraits with the f1.8, but when it came time to use it for pay I found it to be too finnicky. The 50mm F1.4 is much more consistant, and I regularly use it at F2. Any mor open than that is a crap shoot for getting two eyes in focus etc...sooo...

...and why are you using auto focus AND letting it decide the focus point. Choose which focus point you want. Set it to single point focus and choose which of the spots you want to use....that is over the area you want sharp?

They both can produce amazingly sharp images. The 50mm F1.4 is more consistant.


Canon XTi plus Canon 50mmF1.8 LENS @ F3.2


Canon 50D plus Canon 50mm F1.4 lens @ F2.0

SimplyShane

Thanks so much for helping!

Could you tell me how you set that option in your camera? How you get the flash to fire before focusing?? I use a Canon Rebel XS...

I can search through my manual as well... :-P

divamum wrote: »

I've since moved on to a 50 1.4, but in some ways I actually preferred 1.8, if I'm honest.

It can be a piglet to focus, and the shallow dof - 2.5-3.2 is still pretty shallow - can mean you have to be VERY accurate with it to be sure it focuses where you intended, but it's sharp and reliable once you can get it to play nice. It is known to be unreliable in low light situations - if you use the focus assist on your flash (even if you don't flash), it can help A LOT.

The fact that you say it's pretty good at f4 and above makes me think that it's not the lens itself, but the low-contrast situations where one is more likely to use a wider aperture; you likely need to figure out a way of helping it focus accurately in those situations. I've heard that some people will use a penlight or small flashlight to illuminate their point of focus if they don't have a focus-assist flash to help out.

SimpsonBrothers

Can't say that I have had the focusing problem, a bit fuzzy in low light though.

SimplyShane

In good light, the lens is fine.

However, even in halfway dim locations, the lens starts to have significant trouble. I'll be more precise:: You can't use this at a wedding reception without flash. Not even close to the dance floor. Nope. Just can't.

And THAT is disappointing.

ziggy53

SimplyShane wrote: »

In good light, the lens is fine.

However, even in halfway dim locations, the lens starts to have significant trouble. I'll be more precise:: You can't use this at a wedding reception without flash. Not even close to the dance floor. Nope. Just can't.

And THAT is disappointing.

The f1.4 will also have problems in some reception venues, even on a 1D/1Ds body. You need some sort of AF assist light to have a chance when the light gets "really" poor.

For a wedding reception I simply will not shoot without flash, and it's a flash that has AF assist. When the DJ has the house lights shut off so they can use their "party" lighting, you have to use flash by and large, or you risk a lot of OOF "and" blurry images. A passive AF system relies on an imager very much like that of the imager used to take the photo, and there are definite limits to the AF sensitivity. (No, you should not try to compare the manufacturer's published AF sensitivity between different manufacturers because there is no standard and the different measurements are not directly comparable or comparably meaningful.)