Canon 50mm F/1.8

R

raythefab

Suspended / Banned
Messages
2,145
Edit My Images
Yes
Ive been looking at photos on pixelpeeper taken with this lens and most of them look soft ive heard a lot of people speak highly of this lens am i wrong:)
 
I owned this lens for about 6months and really did like it.

It was not the sharpest wide open but it was definitely not soft. For the money though it can't be beaten!
 
i did'nt rate it on a 50D so i sold it on via Ebay, the Nikon verson on D300 was a lot better.
 
I've seen a LOT of really sharp photos from a 50mm f/1.8....... I think a lot of it might be the very shallow DOF at f/1.8 making people think it's soft.

Chris
 
It's not bad. I've got the earlier metal mount version and it would be unfair to call it soft at f/1.8. The mark II is pretty much the same optically. Certainly it's better at the centre than the edges but it's usable wide open and sharpens up nicely once you stop it down a little. It's not the best lens in the world but excellent value for money.
 
These 2 i would not be satisfied with or is it me:thinking:
2120639184_878c27f527.jpg


1876281281_285f352f1f.jpg
 
I think the first one is just down to the shallow depth of field. You can see that the small part of moss on the wall is in focus.

The second one does look a bit soft, that could be down to the user though?
 
Having looked at the last pic again it was taken at 1/25 so it is probably just because the shutter speed was too slow:)
 
The first one is good, I think the shooter was trying for the rule of thirds with the focus here

On the second one his hand is OK and the cushion just behind it looks sharp, I think the shooter missed focus.
 
PerfectSpeed said:
The first one is good, I think the shooter was trying for the rule of thirds with the focus here

On the second one his hand is OK and the cushion just behind it looks sharp, I think the shooter missed focus.
Click to expand...
Well i havnt got a lot of experience but if i had ordered the first one i would refuse to pay for it:(
 
If you ordered this lens and used it for a week you could sell it for what you paid if you didn't like it.

It really is a sharp lens and the two shots you posted are not good examples of what this lens can do.

If I needed a sharp close up portrait or macro type shot I'd choose the Nifty over my 24-70 f2.8 and even my 70-200 f/4 which is crazy sharp.
 
PerfectSpeed said:
If you ordered this lens and used it for a week you could sell it for what you paid if you didn't like it.

It really is a sharp lens and the two shots you posted are not good examples of what this lens can do.

If I needed a sharp close up portrait or macro type shot I'd choose the Nifty over my 24-70 f2.8 and even my 70-200 f/4 which is crazy sharp.
Click to expand...
You misunderstood me, if a pro photographer took No1 for me i would not pay him:)
 
Who chooses the photos on pixelpeepr that are representing the lenses, because there are some poor photos on there
 
I thought it was great on my 400D, not so much on my FF, but I don't use it much now-a-days since I got my 85 1.8.
 
Ahhh, OK, me neither :)

I don't think many working togs would use the 50 for this type of shot.

But in the right conditions it would be hard to tell it from an L not impossible but hard.

If this is the intended type of use for it then I'd be looking at another lens.
 
TBH the only "problem" with it is dodgy bokeh curtesy of the 5-bladed aperture.
 
Ya, no.1 is like that simply because of the very shallow depth of field at f/1.8 that was used, as evident by the small portion of the wall that is in focus. Definitely not an issue with the lens, just an issue with the settings used. And as DLS indicated, no.2 is probably the result of camera shake.
 
I've used mine a couple of times in poor lighting and at or near wide open. If you're in close you can't recompose as the shallow DOF will put the plane of focus behind the subject. I got used to changing focus points and using those to get what I wanted in focus.

I think all the shots in these threads were at f1.8 here and here

Hope that helps, for the money, I think it's a surprisingly versatile, and very small and light lens.
 
It's a fantastic lens!
Razor-sharp even at f/1.8.
Obviously at the price, the build quality is pretty bad and feels like it's going to break when you attach it to the camera (that hasn't happened yet though!).

For the money, you just can't go wrong! :-)

Cheers,

Joe
 
tis sharp, maybe stop it down a bit for optimum sharpness but I have a photo taken of a friend and I can see myself in his eye :P
 
Seriously considering buying this lens, is the build quality really that much of an issue?

The kit lens on the 450D doesn't exactly feel the sturdiest either.
 
koi said:
Seriously considering buying this lens, is the build quality really that much of an issue?

The kit lens on the 450D doesn't exactly feel the sturdiest either.
Click to expand...

i wouldn't say so. i generally treat my stuff well, and haven't ever thought that i was going to damage it. can produce some stunning results too. in my opinion everyone should have one somewhere considering the price!
 
Yeah always treat my equipment with care anyway, also for £70 it's not going to break the bank if it does break.
 
Well I just learnt a new term 'bokeh'

Love this effect and this lens seems to get good results, perfect stop gap till I get the Canon 50mm f/1.2 lol
 
I really don't think you'll get better shots from another lens for the same money.

I'd reccomend it to anyone starting out with their DSLR.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top