First Impressions: Canon EF 50mm f/1.8 II Lens
September 4th, 2007 by Tim Solley
I’ve been hearing a lot about Canon’s 50mm prime f/1.8 lens for a while now. The “nifty fifty” is a bit of a hit with many serious amateur photographers thanks to it’s low price ($75 on Amazon) for what you get. It’s hard to find a lens with such a wide aperture for so little money. So I decided to get my hands on one of these lenses and try it out for myself. It came last week and I got a chance to use it on a trip out of town this weekend. Here are my first impressions of this lens.
What Is Success?
Let me start by stating that when I review a product like this to determine it’s worth in my shooting, I don’t line it up next to a bunch of other lenses. I don’t take identical shots with different lenses and let you compare the details. For me, trying out a new lens is all about putting it on the camera and going out and shooting. I take note of the things I like or that bother me along the way. In the end, if the images are good and the cons I discovered weren’t too significant, then the lens is a winner.
What I Liked
f/2.5 @ 1/5000 sec
The first thing I noticed about this lens when I took it out of the box was how small it was and how light it was. Having this lens on your camera feels like you’re shooting with the body only. This is nice when you’re out and about and don’t have a brick hanging around your neck.
Every photographer has a personal style, even if you don’t realize what it is yet. As a photographer of people, I like taking shots with the background out of focus, especially when outdoors. One of my favorite shots is when one person is in focus and the other is not. To pull this off, I need lenses with a really wide aperture, and this lens delivers in that respect. A 1.8 aperture gives you a really narrow depth-of-field, which is perfect for me. I found that I spent most of my time shooting in the f/1.8 to f/2.5 area (I really like bokeh).
The sharpness of this lens was great. When I shoot outdoor candid photojournalist style photos I’m not as worried about sharpness as I feel a little grit makes the photos feel more authentic. Maybe because we’re used to seeing those types of photos printed on newspaper where sharpness is impossible. In the studio a sharp picture is a must though. I haven’t had a chance to test this lens out in the studio. With regards to sharpness, if you’ve never shot a lens with an aperture this wide, you’ll have some learning to do, as focus is difficult when the depth-of-field is as wide as your pinky finger.
f/1.8 @ 1/1250 sec
This lens is great for indoor, low light shooting. I like to use flash creatively, but many times when just hanging around the house or traveling to the in laws’ homes, it’s just not terribly practical. Plus, I occasionally like shooting using natural light (gasp!). This lens is fantastic for this. I can shoot indoors, almost until the sun goes down before shutter speeds start getting into motion blur territory.
While I didn’t do it on my first tests, I would like to try some filters on this lens (takes a 52mm filter). The filter ring doesn’t rotate, so it’s perfect for polarizing filters.
50mm is the perfect focal length for portrait work. Using focal lengths that are too short have a tendency to elongate subjects’ features like noses. Too long and images look compressed. While this is sometimes desirable, 50mm is usually just right. So this is a perfect portrait lens.
The price is unbeatable. At only $75, this lens is a total steal. If you want something with the higher build quality and a f/1.4 aperture, you could step up to the Canon EF 50mm f1.4 USM for $311. Heck, if your last name is Moneybags, you could even splurge for the Canon EF 50mm f/1.2 L USM for (cough) $1,387. Of course that gets you L glass and a 1.2 aperture. I’m just saying, it’s hotness, but it’s not cheap.
Common Complaints And My Take
f/1.8 @ 1/8000 sec
In the first point in the last section I talked about how light it was. This is thanks to the cheap plastic build quality. But hey, the lens was only $75. I’ve heard claims that this lens will be “destroyed after a year of normal use”. While it’s not made of titanium, let’s get serious. How many of you regular abuse the crap out of your gear? I would venture to say not many. I think this lens will last just fine for many years.
The focus ring bugged me. It was too small up front and I would have preferred a little bigger ring. This isn’t a showstopper for me, but it was a little irritating.
The focus motor is a little noisy. This is a very common complaint about this lens. But for me it wasn’t a big deal. I don’t plan on taking this lens out on my next bird watching session so it’s no worry.
Two Thumbs Up?
Despite a handful of minor drawbacks, this lens is a big winner in my mind. The one thing I notice about the complaints on this lens is that none of them affect the final photo. They all relate to your shooting. I would probably buy this lens if it were twice the price.
UPDATE: A couple of readers have pointed out that there is a Mark 1 version of this lens out there that addresses some of the issues, namely the build quality. I understand the lens is now discontinued but you can find some used units out there. Check out eBay.
Do you own this lens? What do you think? Drop a comment below and tell us all your experiences.
| Like this article? | |||
Bookmark it: |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
|
 Email It To A Friend |
||
|
Subscribe to feed: 
|
|||
If you like reading Sublime Light, check out the Sublime Light Forums!
| |||
September 4th, 2007 at 11:52 am
Hey, Tim.
I have this lens. I’m on both sides of the camp: Love it and Hate it.
Love it:
Price. Speed. Bokeh. Weight. Can’t beat that combination. Sometimes I keep my 50 in my jacket pocket. Also, you could shoot in a blackout witht his baby and get a 1/60th and a shap picture! LOL.
Hate it:
Noisy. If you use L glass and then pop the 50 on, it sounds like the gears are grinding away inside when you focus, destroying the inner trappings. Nothing’s happening, though. It just uses a different technology inside. Color. I can’t get over thinking that the color is a bit muted in this. Admittedly, I got this as my second lens. The first was the kit lens with the Rebel XT. I got this a few months later. I’ve gotten much better with color and custom white balance now, so I could probably do a little better, if I tried. Bokeh. This lens uses fewer blades, I believe, so the bokeh looks a little mechanical.
I’ve had mine for almost two years, and it doesn’t have as much as a finger print on it. I have been looking at the L version, but tat that price, that’s m y light kit from Calumet. So, I’ll probably go for the $300 baby.
Oh yeah, on my Rebel XT with the 1.6 crop factor, the 50 was closer to an 75mm or so, but I call it an 85 (rounding off).
Would I recommend the lens? Yes. Like you said, the photo is the end result. Even with the harder bokeh, when the image is produced as a smaller print I don’t think it will be obvious to the untrained eye!
I still keep it in my bag and rely on it when I have to. I stop down to f/2 and fire away!
-Scott
September 4th, 2007 at 12:56 pm
The Mark 1 version of this lens “fixes” some of the problems you saw with it. The focus ring is in the middle, and much larger; it has a distance meter on it; and it has a more durable construction with a metal mount instead of plastic. It still sounds like a blender when it’s auto focusing, but I guess that’s just the way they’re made.
Of course, the Mark 1’s have been discontinued, but you can usually find a few on eBay in good shape.
September 4th, 2007 at 1:36 pm
Thanks for your thoughts Scott. You’re right about the bokeh, this lens has five blades, which does indeed impact the quality of the background blur. But for the price I think it’s a worthwhile trade off.
As for the color, it looked good to me. I just realized that in the three images I chose for the article, I picked images that I intentionally desaturated and added a little bit of color tint to. That’s one of my favorite post-processing moves, but I should have included an image with the raw color from the camera. You can see an image I took that has unadulterated color here.
Thanks for the heads up Tyler. I had no idea a Mark 1 even existed.
September 4th, 2007 at 2:15 pm
Hey all.
I wish I could rremember where, but I read such an in-depth article online that compared the Mark I and this one. It was so exhaustive that you started thinking “who cares anymore?”.
You know, I usually check my shots out at full size and that’s where those five blades jump out and annoy me. At smaller sizes it isn’t really bad. I have one shot of my son in late summer/early fall when I just got the lens. The foliage on the trees allowed spots of sky to peek through. The five blades made the spots look surreal, almost like fish scales. If I pull it up I’ll post it. It looks so…crazy/cool/unreal.
Yes, for the price you ocan’t beat it. I agree. Makes me wonder about that L, though. $1500…is it overpriced? Yikes.
September 4th, 2007 at 5:14 pm
I own this lens…. and I’d consider it to be one of the best purchases I’ve made for my camera bag.
As a not-really-a-pro photographer, it really fits the budget. I’ve started a small photography “side-business” that mainly focuses on newborne baby photography. That’s photography of the baby while the family is still in the hospital. I started off shooting friend’s newborns as a baby gift — after enough compliments and suggestions to go deeper into the photography field, I created a website (I’m also a part-time web designer) and got some business cards printed and started to offer my services to every pregnant woman I know.
I’ve shot about 4 or 5 babies since I “officially” started the company and I primarily use the 50mm f1.8 lens. After the first one, I decided that a flash is a must… I bought a 430EX for about $200 on ebay (new). I almost alway bounce the flash and shoot in manual mode (ISO 100 or 200)… I’m still learning techniques and posing and how to work with the flash, but the 50mm lens helps a ton.
My biggest weakness is remembering to open the aperature to avoid too LITTLE depth of field. I try to shoot at least f2.5 to f2.8 when shooting close ups to avoid having part of the subject out of focus. But when shooting from at least 6-8 feet away, the f1.8 really seperates the subject from the background.
About the noise and the build of the lens: Yes, it does feel a bit cheap — note: it was cheap ($70 new) and it still takes good pictures. And yes, you can hear the focus motor a bit… but it’s not as loud as a Tamron or Sigma (I’ve tried a few 3rd-party lens to save money and returned every one of them because the focusing motor was much slower and louder than the Canon models).
Check out some of my work at http://www.deeterphotography.com. Most everything on there was shot using that 50mm f1.8. Also note that most of the images were shot in a hospital room with only one window.
I’m hardly a professional - but I try. Here’s my kit:
Canon Rebel XT
Canon 28-105mm f4/5.6 (my first portrait lens)
Canon 17-85mm IS 4/5.6 - I use this for parties and candids - wide angle helps in small areas
Canon 70-300mm f4/5.6 - gotta have something to zoom with
Canon 50mm f1.8 - also filter set: 52mm (for the Canon 50mm) 1x, 2x, 4x, 10x macro filters - these rock when shooting bugs and extreme close-ups.
Canon 430EX flash
My next lens that I’d love to get is the 200mm 2.8L - but the wife won’t let me spend $1000 for a little white.
Most of the time, my camera is sitting in the bag with the 50mm and the 430ex flash stocked with batteries - ready to go.
Overall, I’d say that if you’ve got more money that you know what to do with… or if you absolutely must have the strongest lens and the crispest (is that a word?) photos in the world, then go buy the 50mm f1.4 lens. Otherwise, the f1.8 should work just fine.
Man, that was a long post. Hopefully, it helps somebody out there… otherwise I just wasted about 3 minutes of your life
September 4th, 2007 at 5:26 pm
Hi Mike.
Yep, that was a long post, but a welcome one!
Firt things first: be careful when typing your website as the last thing in a sentence. The period after the “.com” gets added to the address and your link won’t work. I usually put a space after the “m” and then a period, like this “….com .”
Anyway, nice little babes you’ve shot there. I’ve heard that it’s not good to use flash around small children, especially newbies with such sensitive eyes. You might wanna look into that.
How’s that 28-105 treat you? I was looking at a 17-40 (the 16-35 won’t fly right now).
By the way, I think I’m in the same camp as you. Not a professional, but a serious, serious hobbyist who does this avocationally.
Cheers!
-Scott
September 4th, 2007 at 5:34 pm
OK, Tim. I found the crazy light pockets that I was talking about.
http://www.nobleatelier.com/sublimelight/IMG_0158.jpg
and
http://www.nobleatelier.com/sublimelight/IMG_0160.jpg
These are about two years old.
The effect is…unique!
-Scott
September 4th, 2007 at 6:06 pm
Yeah, I noticed that web address glitch after the post was submitted. I’ll remember that for future posts.
I’ll check into that issue about using a flash with babies - though I’m not sure how much it would apply since I never shoot straight-on. I alway bounce the flash. Ceiling, wall, door… whatever I can - I hate those harsh shadows. And if it’s an issue, I’ll have to find an alternative - but it shouldn’t be hard with the f1.8. 30% of those photos on the website were taken just using window light - with no flash.
I like the 28-105; however, since I purchased the 17-85, I’ve used it sparingly. I’ve even tried to sell it since it’s in like-new condition. With the 28-105, I often found myself wishing I could get a wider shot… especially indoors. The quality of the lens is great; it takes great crisp photos; it’s fast-focusing; and it looks cool with the pretty little lens hood. Now, I use it mostly as a back-up lens, but if I didn’t have the 17-85, it would be my second-favorite lens.
The only issue I’d question with the 17-40 is that I use the 40-85mm part of my lens quite a lot. Although for an L lens (which Amazon has for about $650 - which is close to the $590 I spent on my 17-85), it may be worth the quality bump. Just plan on taking a few steps closer to your subject more often than not.
Note: I really enjoy your blog/site and am always looking for more hints and techniques on what not to do. Your site is one of the 4 main ones I visit regularly looking for something new to put in my brain (or camera bag).
September 4th, 2007 at 6:49 pm
I’m a big fan of my 50mm, but it does have it’s problems.
The focusing motor being loud isn’t that bad. Well, compared to some lenses I’ve used *cough*Sigma 24-70mm EX DG Macro*cough*.
The narrowness of it on a 1.6x sensor is *brutal* for indoor portraits though. You have to be on opposite ends of the room and even then it’s tricky.
I’m considering replacing it with either the 24mm f/2.8 or the 35mm f/2.0 until I upgrade my body to a full frame sensor. The cost goes up, but it would give me more freedom working indoors.
September 4th, 2007 at 8:40 pm
Wow, I step away from the computer for two hours and look at what you guys do…you comment up a storm.
Scott, those shots with the light peeking through are very cool. Not everyone likes that five sided look, but I think it looks cool. As for the flash being bad for babies’ eyes, I’ve seen this argument for many years. Seems the jury is out on this. God help me if it really is bad…my son will be totally blind thanks to the number of portraits we’ve taken of him. So far so good though, the other day he pointed out an airplane WAY off in the distance. I had a hard time finding it myself.
Michael, I fixed the address to your site. Since you’re a web designer, I’ll let you know that you can use anchor tags in the comments to create hyperlinks. Great shots on your site. Like you said, I think this lens is going to spend a lot of time on my camera. And thanks for the compliments to the site. Don’t ever hesitate to make any suggestions for improvement.
Mr. Goldengod, the “practical” focal length (1.6 crop factor) was noticeable for me around the house. I haven’t used the lens on any studio portraits yet, but I get the feeling it will mainly be a 2/3 or 3/4 face portrait lens (or for them teenie babies). Great site by the way, one of my regular reads. If you all haven’t checked out Andrew’s Goldengod.net, take a few minutes to be introduced.
Thanks to all for the comments.
September 5th, 2007 at 2:00 pm
OK.
Did a little sleuthing. I’m not 100 percent sure, but some of the lights and babies stuff may be more “old wives’ tales” than truth. What I’ve found so far is that the bright lights can reset the babies’ internal clocks, thereby recharging the little fellas and keeping them up. I looked into teens, also, and the suggestion is that they wind down, and avoid cofee and/or bright lights befofre bed. Why? It’ll keep them up, if not recharge them.
Bouncing the light, like Michael Deeter does, probably won’t harm them. Heck, if you’re doing -2 EV and bouncing, you’re really putting a weak light on the tiny babes, huh?
-Scott
September 5th, 2007 at 2:30 pm
I notice more of a reaction from the baby (squinting) when the parent stands with them near a sunny window than they do when I flash off 3 or 4 consecutive pictures .
According to Doctor NDTV, there’s not a problem with it: http://www.doctorndtv.com/FAQ/detailfaq.asp?id=6852
September 5th, 2007 at 2:32 pm
Thanks for doing the researching Scott! That makes a lot of sense.
I’ve been an insomniac my entire life. Sleep has always been very difficult for me. A couple of years ago my doctor put me on an extreme insomnia plan to get me on track. Wanna know what part of the plan was? For the last hour before bed, I wasn’t allowed to watch TV, use the computer, or do anything where bright light would be shining into my eyes. The reason is that when it’s dark our brains give the signal that it’s time to sleep. Bright lights interrupt that signal and keep us from sleeping.
It worked, I’m no longer an insomniac. Very interesting.
September 5th, 2007 at 4:10 pm
“Mr. Goldengod” eh? I kinda like the sound of that
I’ve done the 2/3 trick a few times as well, but it’s hard to pull off in photography. For some reason, depicting only part of a person works better in painting than photography and I’ve never quite been able to figure out why
Thanks for the compliments! I’m glad you like it. I just (finally) got around to adding yours to my RSS feed when I realized that I’d read and enjoyed most of everything you post to PhotographyVoter. Time to cut out the middleman
September 13th, 2007 at 6:49 pm
So, what is it with these SIgmas? The magazines rave aboutthem, but the users have a different view. I’ve only used Canon glass, myself…
September 14th, 2007 at 1:19 pm
I have a Sigma 28-80mm lens and a Sigma 70-300mm lens. Couldn’t tell you model numbers off the top of my head, they weren’t particularly expensive. I’ve been very happy with them both and have no complaints whatsoever.
September 17th, 2007 at 12:12 pm
I have the above mentioned Mark I of the canon 50mm (metal mount). I think it definitly gives a better build than the plastic mount.
September 17th, 2007 at 1:32 pm
Thanks Sandra! I think I’ll add an update to the original article mentioning to the Mark I version.
January 17th, 2008 at 12:11 am
I own the mark I version of this lens. My mom had it on her old EOS 630. When I bought my XTi, I got all her old stuff - as the 630 has a busted shutter. I use this lens at least 25-35% of the time. It’s super sharp, great in low light, and very light weight. Best part is, since it’s a mark I version, the build quality is much better.
Regardless, even if it had a plastic body, it’s well worth the cost. If mine ever tanks, I’ll immediately replace it.