Digital SLR discussion thread...

[Tifosi]

I've got the 50f1.8 MKII for the price £80 ish it's great nice and sharp although it is very plasticy but for 1/3 of the price of the 1.4 I can't complain.

[rajagra]

I have the 50mm f/1.4. It's a nice sharp piece of kit with good contrast for an non-L bit of glass. The f/1.8 mk2 really shows it's cheapness in comparison..

But the 1.8 is also sharp and contrasty. The main difference I've noticed (with image quality) is that the 1.4 is more susceptible to flare. Buy a hood and use it.
Look at the starburst effect I got from the 1.4:
EOS D30. 50mm f/1.4. 1.0s, f/9, ISO100
I was quite surprised by this from such a quality lens, and obviously a hood wouldn't help here. Looks nice in this photo, but I'd still rather it wasn't there!

[BlueMagician]

...the 1.4 is more susceptible to flare...

Yup, for sure the f/1.4 is well known for it's flare prone antics - like you said - use a hood!

Point taken about the starburst, but it's gonna happen, heh? Admittedly a if pain if you don't want it though, lol.

...I've got the 50f1.8 MKII for the price £80 ish it's great nice and sharp although it is very plasticy but for 1/3 of the price of the 1.4 I can't complain...

Aye, that's another side to the argument for the f/1.4 - it makes the f/1.8II feel like a bit of a kids toy.


Whilst both should be stopped down an ickle for critical shots, let's not forget that the f/1.4 wide open is going to be soooo much sharper than the f/1.8 wide open - so I guess it's just personal choice and what it's going to be used for...

I'm just trying to put up a cause here, not because I own one, but because IMHO someone who's payed the money for that level of body, shouldn't darken it's mount with an £80 lens. Good as the f/1.8II is, it's a little beneath the 20D...



£0.02
S. <---- is still saving for a 135 f/2, but things like AMD rigs keep getting in the way!

[rajagra]

To be fair, I didn't try the shot with the 1.8, which might be the same.
The 1.4 is sharper, according to MTF tests: http://www.photodo.com/prod/lens/canon.shtml
But not as sharp as my 200mm f/1.8L

Another option is the old 50mm f/1.8 MkI, which has a metal mount, and focusing scale. Sadly they often sell for more second hand than the MkII sells new!

[Oakey]

I'm just trying to put up a cause here, not because I own one, but because IMHO someone who's payed the money for that level of body, shouldn't darken it's mount with an £80 lens. Good as the f/1.8II is, it's a little beneath the 20D...



£0.02
S. <---- is still saving for a 135 f/2, but things like AMD rigs keep getting in the way!

I have to say, that's the most snobbish piece of crap I've ever heard.

[shiato storm]

I agree.
I say again...Tamrons, very good lenses and oftne better for digital SLRs than some L series canon lenses, and they don't cost the earth like L glass does. you don't need all the fancy gear to take good shots, in fact I managed to get some good ones with a £200 camera, better than the snobs and their £thousands cameras...and although I've never been told this face to face [by any girl]; its not what you got but how you use it

[Oakey]

I was going to go out and take some pics, but my 20D bitched at me and refused because I only paid about £300 for my 17-40L instead of £600

[Tifosi]

I have to say, that's the most snobbish piece of crap I've ever heard.

well said, i wasn't going to say anything. You state that the f1.4 will be soooooo much sharper than the f1.8. In reality the difference is pretty much minimal, it will allow for a shallower depth of field and perform better in low light conditions specifically.

TBH the 50f1.8 is renown for being a great lens for the price and is no way below the 20D in performance terms, it's sharper than a lot of Canon's other glass specifically telephoto's maybe not other primes but the next prime up is a huge price gap away.

It may be below the 20D's build quality but don't knock the performance.

[Oakey]

You know, Tom managed to convert some really old lens into a great Macro lens that takes outstanding photos.... but I guess he should scrap them and the lens because it's 'beneath his camera'. To hell with innovation too!

[BlueMagician]

I have to say, that's the most snobbish piece of crap I've ever heard.

Well thanks for your valuable opinion. I just feel that anyone, like BSODmike who has made such an investment in a nice body, should be encouraged to look at the better lenses.

I'm not for one minute suggesting that you need to spend silly money on the latest/greatest/best - I was merely offering my opinion to the guy that he should look at lenses which match and befit the the quality of a fine body.


I admit I didn't quite mean my previous post to sound so 'high and mighty', but I'm not going to edit it, as it's said now. However, I certainly wasn't expecting such a hostile response on a Hexite forum, tbh.

S.

[shiato storm]

yeah...Tom if you're reading, go buy a 'proper' lens


s*d that!

[Oakey]

Well thanks for your valuable opinion. I just feel that anyone, like BSODmike who has made such an investment in a nice body, should be encouraged to look at the better lenses.

I'm not for one minute suggesting that you need to spend silly money on the latest/greatest/best - I was merely offering my opinion to the guy that he should look at lenses which match and befit the quality of a fine body.


I admit I didn't quite mean my previous post to sound so 'high and mighty', but I'm not going to edit it, as it's said now. However, I certainly wasn't expecting such a hostile response on a Hexite forum, tbh.

S.

The problem is your post came across as snobby, elitist, whatever you wish to call it. Tom has proven that you don't have to spend lots of money for great images, and plenty of people across various forums all rate the 50mm MKII very highly. I'm sure those people will tell you the MKII 'matches' and 'benefits' the 20D just fine.

[BlueMagician]

'Twas just my HO, sorry if you didn't like it.

S.

[rajagra]

should look at lenses which match and befit the quality of a fine body.

That's exactly what I do when I go to the opticians, lol.

I have to say I agree with you in principle. It's not clever to buy a cheap lens and an expensive body - far better to put a good lens on a cheaper body.

But the EF50mmf/1.8MkII is an odd beast. Optically it's on a par with any 50mm 1.8 Canon has ever made. (BTW, it's certainly a darn sight sharper than the uber expensive 50mm f/1.0L.) But why did they have to change from the MkI design? Why change a metal mount to plastic? Why make it so poorly that a slight knock can make it pop open and be broken beyond repair?

Could it be they needed to make the 1.8 so poorly to make the 1.4 more attractive to professionals? Probably not, but they did it anyway.

The 1.8 lens is an ugly abomination. But tbh it's the perfect workhorse if there's any risk of lens damage/theft where you're going. And if you're not using a tripod you're unlikely to see any difference in picture quality between the 1.8 & 1.4.

I think EVERY Canon owner should have the 50mm 1.8.

[Oakey]

'Twas just my HO, sorry if you didn't like it.

S.

There's opinion and there's plain rude

[BlueMagician]

...I have to say I agree with you in principle. It's not clever to buy a cheap lens and an expensive body - far better to put a good lens on a cheaper body... ...The 1.8 lens is an ugly abomination. But tbh it's the perfect workhorse if there's any risk of lens damage/theft where you're going. And if you're not using a tripod you're unlikely to see any difference in picture quality between the 1.8 & 1.4...

Valid points, and thank you. As I said in my earlier post, it's just personal choice and it depends entierly on what it's going to be used for.

£0.02
S.