Canon 50mm 1.8 II front element

ThatCanonGuyThatCanonGuy Registered Users Posts: 1,778 Major grins
edited October 30, 2011 in Cameras
Well, I just picked up a Canon 50 1.8 II. I was thinking, it's pretty cheap, I'd like to try it out, probably won't like it, probably end up selling it anyway. It's good optically, especially considering the price. The AF is surprisingly fast in good light. Not L-like, but good. It does make noise, but it's not bad. The build quality... well, let's just say it reflects the price :D. No, but is it worth $100? If you're looking for a fast prime, and 50mm, then yes, I'd say it's worth $100. There are better options for sure, but this is great especially if you don't use 50mm that much (like me :).

For those of you who own this lens, or who have used it, I have a question. Does my copy have the front element? The first piece of glass on mine is down the barrel a little, smaller than the barrel. Some plastic curves in, and there's the glass. Seems to me like I'm missing the real front element, since the lens could probably be smaller and not as long.

Here's a photo of it:

i-zZdjLf7-L.jpg

Comments

  • JimKarczewskiJimKarczewski Registered Users Posts: 969 Major grins
    edited October 26, 2011
    Yep, that's the front.. There isn't much to these lenses... and just to verify (I have the 1.4) found a pic of it online..

    D3S_1546-460.jpg
    Jim Karczewski - http://www.jimkarczewski.com
  • Brett1000Brett1000 Registered Users Posts: 819 Major grins
    edited October 27, 2011
    ThatCanonGuy wrote: »
    Well, I just picked up a Canon 50 1.8 II. I was thinking, it's pretty cheap, I'd like to try it out, probably won't like it, probably end up selling it anyway. It's good optically, especially considering the price. The AF is surprisingly fast in good light. Not L-like, but good. It does make noise, but it's not bad. The build quality... well, let's just say it reflects the price :D. No, but is it worth $100? If you're looking for a fast prime, and 50mm, then yes, I'd say it's worth $100. There are better options for sure, but this is great especially if you don't use 50mm that much (like me :).

    For those of you who own this lens, or who have used it, I have a question. Does my copy have the front element? The first piece of glass on mine is down the barrel a little, smaller than the barrel. Some plastic curves in, and there's the glass. Seems to me like I'm missing the real front element, since the lens could probably be smaller and not as long.

    Here's a photo of it:

    looks right, the 50mm 1.8 "nifty fifty" is a decent prime for the price, I wish Canon sold a $100 30mm 1.8
  • Manfr3dManfr3d Registered Users Posts: 2,008 Major grins
    edited October 27, 2011
    On the plus side, it doesn't need a lens hood :) Keep the 50, it's wonderful. Once you hauled a big rucksack full of glass around you'll cherish the ease shooting with the nifty 50 allows without compromising image quality.
    “To consult the rules of composition before making a picture is a little like consulting the law of gravitation before going for a walk.”
    ― Edward Weston
  • ThatCanonGuyThatCanonGuy Registered Users Posts: 1,778 Major grins
    edited October 27, 2011
    Brett1000 wrote: »
    looks right, the 50mm 1.8 "nifty fifty" is a decent prime for the price, I wish Canon sold a $100 30mm 1.8

    Yes, with USM! clap.gifdealwings.gif

    I think I'm going to sell it and get the 85mm f/1.8. I used the 85 on my 1DII and it's so much better. It's near L quality. Plus, I prefer the 35/85 focal lengths over 50.
  • JimKarczewskiJimKarczewski Registered Users Posts: 969 Major grins
    edited October 29, 2011
    The 50/1.8II is a lot of plastic.. reason I don't like it. The 50/1.4 though is nice, however it's 3x the price. The 85/1.8 isn't a bad lens either, but you'll hate it if you ever put the 85/1.2 on your camera. Laughing.gif
    Jim Karczewski - http://www.jimkarczewski.com
  • Matthew SavilleMatthew Saville Registered Users, Retired Mod Posts: 3,352 Major grins
    edited October 29, 2011
    Nikon just updated their 50mm f/1.8 so I would expect Canon to do the same within a year or so. Honestly, Nikon's 50 1.8 is good enough that I didn't even consider the Nikon 50 1.4, the build is the same and it's even got a gasket on the mount. It's $200 compared to $100, but totally worth it compared to a $400 f/1.4 in my opinion.

    All in all, I'd say that the Canon 50 f/1.8 is a good "backup" lens, but not a good primary (pun intended?) lens for long-term use. It's just not built well enough to rely on in professional or other clutch situations.

    =Matt=
    “My first thought is always of light.” – Galen Rowell
    My SmugMug Portfolio • My Astro-Landscape Photo Blog • Dgrin Weddings Forum
  • ThatCanonGuyThatCanonGuy Registered Users Posts: 1,778 Major grins
    edited October 29, 2011
    Matthew Saville wrote: »
    Nikon just updated their 50mm f/1.8 so I would expect Canon to do the same within a year or so. Honestly, Nikon's 50 1.8 is good enough that I didn't even consider the Nikon 50 1.4, the build is the same and it's even got a gasket on the mount. It's $200 compared to $100, but totally worth it compared to a $400 f/1.4 in my opinion.

    All in all, I'd say that the Canon 50 f/1.8 is a good "backup" lens, but not a good primary (pun intended?) lens for long-term use. It's just not built well enough to rely on in professional or other clutch situations.

    =Matt=

    Totally agree. The 50 1.8's AF won't really cut it for many professional uses. In good light, it's fine (although I greatly prefer USM). In low light, it has trouble locking. Which is ironic, because one of the main uses of f/1.8 lenses is low light :)

    This lens is a big moneymaker for Canon... many Rebel users buy it to go with their kit lens.

    I really like what Nikon did with the 50 1.8 G. Priced right, with good build and AF. Canon's is old, has neither good build nor good AF, but costs half as much. Even Canon's f/1.4 has the micro "fake" USM. Many people will, but I don't like paying $300 for a lens without USM (unless it's a really nice old L or something). And Canon's 50 1.2 isn't noted for its fast AF either :).

    Here's hoping for an updated 50, either make the 1.4 like the 85 1.8 (wrt build/AF), or a nice 1.8 thumb.gif
  • Matthew SavilleMatthew Saville Registered Users, Retired Mod Posts: 3,352 Major grins
    edited October 30, 2011
    ThatCanonGuy wrote: »
    Totally agree. The 50 1.8's AF won't really cut it for many professional uses. In good light, it's fine (although I greatly prefer USM). In low light, it has trouble locking. Which is ironic, because one of the main uses of f/1.8 lenses is low light :)

    This lens is a big moneymaker for Canon... many Rebel users buy it to go with their kit lens.

    I really like what Nikon did with the 50 1.8 G. Priced right, with good build and AF. Canon's is old, has neither good build nor good AF, but costs half as much. Even Canon's f/1.4 has the micro "fake" USM. Many people will, but I don't like paying $300 for a lens without USM (unless it's a really nice old L or something). And Canon's 50 1.2 isn't noted for its fast AF either :).

    Here's hoping for an updated 50, either make the 1.4 like the 85 1.8 (wrt build/AF), or a nice 1.8 thumb.gif
    Yeah, I think with how hard-hitting Nikon has been with updating all their primes recently, Canon will be doing some updates for their mid-range primes soon too. I think either one or both Canon 50's will be updated within the next year or two.

    =Matt=
    “My first thought is always of light.” – Galen Rowell
    My SmugMug Portfolio • My Astro-Landscape Photo Blog • Dgrin Weddings Forum
  • JimKarczewskiJimKarczewski Registered Users Posts: 969 Major grins
    edited October 30, 2011
    FYI, as mentioned, I don't have the 50/1.8 anymore, just the 1.4. But I did throw my 85/1.8 on last night in a dark bar for some pics.. HORRIBLY SLOW focus.. HORRID. Opposed to the 50/1.4 which was pretty damn zippy, as were my 24-70 and 70-200.. So if you are going to contemplate the 85/1.8, if you use it in low light.. seriously think about that decision if you need fast focusing.
    Jim Karczewski - http://www.jimkarczewski.com
  • JeffroJeffro Registered Users Posts: 1,941 Major grins
    edited October 30, 2011
    I had a nifty fifty once. It performed pretty good, but it shattered into more pieces than I could put back together again after I dropped it.rolleyes1.gif

    For the price, it was a nice lens to have, but the 50 1.4 is soooooooooooooooo much better.
    Always lurking, sometimes participating. :D
  • ThatCanonGuyThatCanonGuy Registered Users Posts: 1,778 Major grins
    edited October 30, 2011
    JimKarczewski wrote: »
    FYI, as mentioned, I don't have the 50/1.8 anymore, just the 1.4. But I did throw my 85/1.8 on last night in a dark bar for some pics.. HORRIBLY SLOW focus.. HORRID. Opposed to the 50/1.4 which was pretty damn zippy, as were my 24-70 and 70-200.. So if you are going to contemplate the 85/1.8, if you use it in low light.. seriously think about that decision if you need fast focusing.

    Very interesting. I used it (albeit in good light) and it was fast. I do want to get one (I don't do that much low light shooting anyway), but I'll test it in low light.
  • Matthew SavilleMatthew Saville Registered Users, Retired Mod Posts: 3,352 Major grins
    edited October 30, 2011
    ThatCanonGuy wrote: »
    Very interesting. I used it (albeit in good light) and it was fast. I do want to get one (I don't do that much low light shooting anyway), but I'll test it in low light.

    That has been my experience too. Especially compared to the 85 f/1.2 on any non-flagship bodies, I've found the 85 1.8 USM to be very snappy and accurate. And then furthermore, once you step up to a 1-series you get a whole new world of snappiness and accuracy... :-)

    Does anyone know if the 85 1.8 has the same "fake USM" as the 50 1.4, or is it the "real" USM? If they're still using the older type of USM, that does allow for some considerable improvement should they consider to upgrade the USM in their 50's and the 85...


    =Matt=
    “My first thought is always of light.” – Galen Rowell
    My SmugMug Portfolio • My Astro-Landscape Photo Blog • Dgrin Weddings Forum
  • ziggy53ziggy53 Super Moderators Posts: 24,077 moderator
    edited October 30, 2011
    Canon has 2 basically different types of USM autofocus motor technologies:
    Micromotor USM
    Ring USM

    The micromotor USM is a "true" USM in that it uses ultrasonic wave technology to induce the motor rotation. This "is" an improvement over the older micromotor drives used in base technology lenses, like the Canon EF 50mm, f1.8. The micromotor USM, like that in the EF 50mm, f1.4 USM is more accurate and has an intrinsic braking action. Some micromotor USM based lenses even include a full-time manual focus feature like all of the ring USM AF driven lenses.

    The ring USM motor has generally better torque specifications than the micro-USM technology, and the ring USM motors are also quieter, since there is no gearing involved.

    I believe that the Canon EF 85mm, f1.8 USM uses a ring USM drive. Most agree that the Canon EF 85mm, f1.8 USM is fast enough for sports/action photography.
    ziggy53
    Moderator of the Cameras and Accessories forums
  • ThatCanonGuyThatCanonGuy Registered Users Posts: 1,778 Major grins
    edited October 30, 2011
    ziggy53 wrote: »
    Canon has 2 basically different types of USM autofocus motor technologies:
    Micromotor USM
    Ring USM
    The micromotor USM is a "true" USM in that it uses ultrasonic wave technology to induce the motor rotation. This "is" an improvement over the older micromotor drives used in base technology lenses, like the Canon EF 50mm, f1.8. The micromotor USM, like that in the EF 50mm, f1.4 USM is more accurate and has an intrinsic braking action. Some micromotor USM based lenses even include a full-time manual focus feature like all of the ring USM AF driven lenses.

    The ring USM motor has generally better torque specifications than the micro-USM technology, and the ring USM motors are also quieter, since there is no gearing involved.

    I believe that the Canon EF 85mm, f1.8 USM uses a ring USM drive. Most agree that the Canon EF 85mm, f1.8 USM is fast enough for sports/action photography.

    Yeah, I've used all three (as I'm sure you have), and obviously there's a huge difference. I didn't notice much difference between micromotor USM and the plain micromotor. Both are decent in good light, and not good in bad light. Ring USM is way better than either of the other two. Some ring USM lenses focus better in low light than others, of course. But generally, they're snappy and accurate. Some of the lower-end ones take a bit longer in low light, but usually they're able to lock. For example, I own three ring USM non-L lenses. For AF in low light, my 70-200 L is better.

    I have used the 85 f1.8, and it's gotta be ring USM. It's fast like my other ring USM / L lenses. It's way better than the micromotor USM lenses I've used.
Sign In or Register to comment.