Canon f/1.8 50mm Lens - Example Photos

Discussion in 'Digital Photography' started by pogochamp113, Mar 1, 2009.

  1. pogochamp113 macrumors member

    Joined:
    Dec 19, 2008
    #1
    I'm thinking of buying this lens. There are two things I want to know first...

    1. Anybody have example photos?

    2. Does anybody have any "macro" photos with this lens. I know it's not a true macro, but what is the closest you can get?

    Thanks to all!
     
  2. mikekelley macrumors member

    Joined:
    Jan 7, 2009
    #2
    Here are some shots I recently took with mine.

    So sharp, so sharp! Great bokeh too.


    [​IMG]

    [​IMG]
     
  3. LittleCanonKid macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Oct 22, 2008
    #3
    It's a bargain, especially in the price-to-performance ratio. Sharpness isn't terrible in the center wide-open, but once you get to f/2.8 it's very, very sharp. Minimum focus distance is 1.5 feet, but some people use extension tubes, I think, to do some macro work. Oh, and most people consider the bokeh fairly harsh. It's got a five-bladed aperture and out-of-focus lights, for example, will look like a pentagon. This review shows samples of its bokeh compared to other wide-apertured Canon lenses.

    Autofocus can be fairly noisy and hesitant in low light, but f/1.8 allows lots more flexibility in low light and of course, allows that super-shallow DOF that everyone seems to like! The front element doesn't rotate during autofocus, so using a polarizer shouldn't cause any problems.

    Here's a shot wide-open:

    [​IMG]

    And here's one at f/2.8:

    [​IMG]

    Hope this helps!
     
  4. br.avery macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Dec 1, 2008
    #4
    I just bought these lenses from Amazon so I could take acting headshots! Its being shipped right now, I'm so excited!
     
  5. FX120 macrumors 65816

    FX120

    Joined:
    May 18, 2007
    #5
    wat?

    The 50 f/1.8 has quite possibly the worst bokeh out of Canons current line up.

    The 5-blade aperature does not do a good job at all.
     
  6. mikekelley macrumors member

    Joined:
    Jan 7, 2009
    #6
    lol for 80 dollars...i'd say its solid bokeh.
     
  7. Phrasikleia macrumors 601

    Phrasikleia

    Joined:
    Feb 24, 2008
    Location:
    Over there------->
    #7
    Yeah, it's a rough, pentagonal bokeh. Not at all buttery. Blech.

    For example:

    [​IMG]
     
  8. AlaskaMoose macrumors 65816

    Joined:
    Apr 26, 2008
    Location:
    Alaska
    #8
  9. pogochamp113 thread starter macrumors member

    Joined:
    Dec 19, 2008
    #9
    wow, those pics look awesome. I'm going to get this for sure...

    the only other question... does anybody have any photos of flowers from this lens? I do a lot of flowers shots... and I would like to see a few photos. Thanks to everyone for being so helpful
     
  10. wheelhot macrumors 68000

    Joined:
    Nov 23, 2007
    #10
    Phrasikleia, wow that bokeh was distracting and I thought bokeh was suppose to isolate the object. . .
     
  11. OreoCookie macrumors 68030

    Joined:
    Apr 14, 2001
    Location:
    Sendai, Japan
    #11
    Hideous, shudder!
     
  12. iBookG4user macrumors 604

    iBookG4user

    Joined:
    Jun 27, 2006
    Location:
    Seattle, WA
    #12
    Thought I'd offer you a bit of advice. You might want to make sure that you actually like the 50mm focal length on your camera. The lens in question seems to be a sharp lens overall, although I had two problems with mine. The first problem was that it was soft up until ƒ/4 and only got razor sharp at ƒ/5.6 and beyond (Sent it to Canon three times to fix this and it was never fixed). The second problem was that I always found the focal length either too long or too short.

    I replaced the lens with a 100mm ƒ/2 and I think that this lens is much better suited for what I do. I'm also going to be getting a 35mm ƒ/1.4 this year to replace the wider end of the gap in my prime lenses. Of the three focal lengths I'd say that 35mm is my favourite, 100mm is second, and 50mm is last. So you should make sure that the lens is one that you will like using.
     
  13. Edge100 macrumors 68000

    Joined:
    May 14, 2002
    Location:
    Where am I???
    #13
    I agree. Bad bokeh on this lens. Once you've seen the 85/1.2L, you know what good bokeh really is.

    For the money, the 50/1.8 is a nice lens. But it's not "great" at anything.
     
  14. anubis macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    Feb 7, 2003
    #14
    The 50mm f1.8 is a great lens for the money... it focuses really fast (for being a non-USM lens) and is really lightweight. Mine is a little soft wide open but tack-sharp at f2.5 (I don't think it helps that mine tends to not focus perfectly, and shooting wide open tends to amplify any focus error). The build quality is kind of bad... but again, if you want a fast lens on a budget, you can't beat it.

    Yeah the bokeh is a little "nervous", and you could get better bokeh from an 85mm f1.2L. However, the 50mm f1.8 is like $80 and the 85mm f1.2L is over a thousand, so what do you expect? I don't think comments like "the 85mm f1.2L is better so you should get that one instead" are very constructive. No one is arguing that the 50 is better than the 85... but since money doesn't grow on trees for most people, the 50 is a great value. It's like someone asking "Should I buy a Honda Civic" and replying with "No, because a Porsche 911 is better so you should get that one instead".
     
  15. apearlman macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Aug 8, 2007
    Location:
    Red Hook, NY
    #15
  16. spinnerlys Guest

    spinnerlys

    Joined:
    Sep 7, 2008
    Location:
    forlod bygningen
    #16
    Hello.

    I bought this lens too for my 450D (or Rebel thingie whatever) and was quite satisfied.
    Especially the ability to shoot in low light situations was incredible for me.

    But the thing is, it is build like crap. Yesterday, after two months of use I accidentally hit the lens against a fridge, and guess what? The bigger lens and its focus ring casing just fell off.

    What the hell, at least it got me to buy a better Sigma Macro lens, with less aperture of course, but Macro.
     
  17. Kronie macrumors 6502a

    Kronie

    Joined:
    Dec 4, 2008
    #17
    Everybody always says says that no kits complete without the nifty fifty, so I bought one. Turns out its not a very nice focal length for me and quickly sold it.

    The only reason I wish I kept is was because you can reverse mount it on your camera and get 1:1 magnification.
     
  18. Edge100 macrumors 68000

    Joined:
    May 14, 2002
    Location:
    Where am I???
    #18
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man

    Nobody said the OP should ditch the 50/1.8 and get the 85/1.2L. What I DID say was that one should not refer to the bokeh produced by the 50/1.8 as "great", unless one refers to the bokeh produced by the 85/1.2L as "absolutely the most extraordinary thing to happen in the universe in the history of time".

    The 50/1.8 is not a great lens; it is a terrific value for $80. It produces good quality images that are better than virtually every kit lens, especially when stopped down, as others have noted. Its fast maximum aperture allows you to get shots in low light, though autofocusing can quickly become a problem.

    But it's not a great lens (and I would refer to its bokeh as "bad").
     
  19. Edge100 macrumors 68000

    Joined:
    May 14, 2002
    Location:
    Where am I???
    #19
    A typical problem. 50mm is a very awkward focal length on a 1.6x crop sensor body; too long to be a good walk-around lens, too short for any decent close-ups. It's 80mm effective, which is nice for portraits.

    When I moved from a 10D to a 1DmkII, my 50/1.4 suddenly started getting a whole lot more use.
     
  20. Phrasikleia macrumors 601

    Phrasikleia

    Joined:
    Feb 24, 2008
    Location:
    Over there------->
    #20
    LOL. I almost came back with a similar reply, minus the witty descriptor. At any rate, the Nifty Fifty produces nervous, distracting bokeh. Good bokeh dissolves away the background, making it a homogeneous abstract that helps the subject pop. Bad bokeh takes on a life of its own and competes with the subject at worst, or at least gives a jittery, unsettled feeling to the image (which might be desirable in some instances, but usually isn't). Bokeh that declares itself ("I am five aperture blades!") intrudes upon the picture by making the camera equipment a visual part of it.

    That said, I don't regret having purchased my Nifty Fifty. I learned to love fast prime lenses because of it. When I bought it I had just blown a lot of money on other equipment, including a new laptop, and couldn't stomach the idea of sinking serious cash into a better lens, especially since I was just starting out and exploring my photographic needs. So if you're not sure which focal length will be ideal for you, it can't hurt to pick up this adorable, affordable little lens and have some fun with it.
     
  21. AlaskaMoose macrumors 65816

    Joined:
    Apr 26, 2008
    Location:
    Alaska
    #21
    What do you expect from an $80.00 lens?
     
  22. spinnerlys Guest

    spinnerlys

    Joined:
    Sep 7, 2008
    Location:
    forlod bygningen
    #22
    Nothing as it seems.

    But all my previous lenses and cameras, all analog and made of metal, and much cheaper, were used to more beating than simply hitting against something.

    As I'm sort of clumsy sometimes (earlier more often), I thought the lens would suffice. But now I know better, and there was even a thread about this Canon lens and the 1.4 lens. Most people tended to the 1.4 variant, as it was made of metal too.

    But what the hell, now I got my Sigma lens with extraordinary macro (like with the Canon G9 P&S) and good image and build quality.

    My tip to the OP: invest more now in a better lens, than later in another lens. You save yourself some money in the long run.
     
  23. AlaskaMoose macrumors 65816

    Joined:
    Apr 26, 2008
    Location:
    Alaska
    #23
    Yes, the f/1.8 is a cheap lens (all plastic), but quite popular because it does not cost much, and is very sharp. Your Sigma probably is a much better lens, but a little more expensive.

    I do prefer the Canon 50mm f/1.4 to the f/1.8, but I don't have much use at the moment for 50mm lenses. I really like the EF 100mm f/2.8 Macro, and then the 200mm f/2.8L USM. While the macro costs around $400.00, the 200mm L prime costs around $700.00, and at least my copy is just as sharp. I used the 200mm prime with a 12mm Kenko tube for close-up os small things, flowers, etc. until i bought the 100mm macro.
     
  24. valdore macrumors 65816

    valdore

    Joined:
    Jan 9, 2007
    Location:
    Kansas City, Missouri. USA
    #24
  25. stujmac26 macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Mar 4, 2009
    #25

Share This Page