Need quick decision making on the canon 1.8 50mm Mkii lens - Got any sample photos?

Discussion in 'Digital Photography' started by TheSVD, Jun 1, 2009.

  1. TheSVD macrumors 6502a

    TheSVD

    Joined:
    Sep 3, 2008
    Location:
    The Jolly Ol' Midlands, England
    #1
    Hey!
    Im getting a Canon 1000d tommorow (first dslr :D) and was looking at a low aperture lens for some real good depth of field. I was wondering if that canon 1.8 would be any good for this kinda stuff, especially quite macro-like shots with the really shallow dof :) If i get it its going to be when im in town later, so a swift reply would be good :D
    Dont suppose anyone has that lens and could show me some good snaps?
    thanks :)
     
  2. jampat macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    Mar 17, 2008
    #2
    50 1.8 is not a good macro lens (or a great lens at anything). It is cheap and it produces OK pictures. Play with your kit lens for a while and try renting a macro lens to see what works for you.
     
  3. akadmon macrumors 68010

    Joined:
    Aug 30, 2006
    Location:
    New England
    #3
  4. Mousse macrumors 68000

    Mousse

    Joined:
    Apr 7, 2008
    Location:
    Flea Bottom, King's Landing
    #4
    The 50 1.8 can give you that razor thin DoF you desire, BUT the Bokeh is hideous. I've rarely use it wide open. Most of the time I stop it down to 2.2 or 2.8. It's certainly better than the kit lense and dirt cheap to boot. I've always prefered primes to zooms, so I'm biased.:p
    If you've got the cash, the 1.4 is much better lense, in terms of build quality and bokeh.
     
  5. gkarris macrumors 604

    gkarris

    Joined:
    Dec 31, 2004
    Location:
    "No escape from Reality..."
    #5
    Took a few shots with it. Wanted to own it again as I had it with my EOS 650 back in the day.

    It's 80mm on a crop-body, so kinda harder to work with.

    If I had to do it over, I'd get the 24mm Nikon and just manual focus with it and also use it on my Olympus bodies (use an adapter).
     
  6. ProwlingTiger macrumors 65816

    ProwlingTiger

    Joined:
    Jan 15, 2008
    #6
  7. gkarris macrumors 604

    gkarris

    Joined:
    Dec 31, 2004
    Location:
    "No escape from Reality..."
    #7
  8. romanaz macrumors regular

    romanaz

    Joined:
    Aug 24, 2008
    Location:
    NJ
    #8
    I agree with this. For 90 bucks, the 50 1.8 is a sick lens. Its already paid for itself twice for me. Sometimes it does hunt a bit in lower light and can be noisy to focus at times, but its a nice lens. Better color and sharpness then the kit lens's. If you can swing it, the 1.4 is much smoother bokeh and doesn't hunt as much (or as long) in lower light situations, from what I have experienced.

    TBH the bokeh on the 1.4 is still hideous, but not nearly as much as the 1.8. The 1.2 is fantastic, had the chance to use one once, amazing lens.
     
  9. bking1000 macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    Dec 29, 2007
    #9
    The 1.4 still has a 5 bladed ap, so if you have strong light points in the bokeh, you get pentagons :eek:
     
  10. TheSVD thread starter macrumors 6502a

    TheSVD

    Joined:
    Sep 3, 2008
    Location:
    The Jolly Ol' Midlands, England
    #10
    cool, thanks for all the replies :)
    well, i didnt get it in the end, after looking at everything on the net about it!
    ANd yeah i hate those pentagonal light shapes :mad:
    Just jumped up and bought a nice 70-300mm instead :)
     
  11. toxic macrumors 68000

    Joined:
    Nov 9, 2008
    #11
    no it doesn't. it has 8. it's bokeh is mediocre at best due to lens design.

    OP: i would suggest the Canon 35mm f/2 over the 50 for your camera, if you ever decide to buy a cheap prime.
     
  12. bking1000 macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    Dec 29, 2007
    #12
    +1 on the 35/2.

    My mistake on the ap blades. Not sure what lens I was thinking about. Brain cramp.
     
  13. Edge100 macrumors 68000

    Joined:
    May 14, 2002
    Location:
    Where am I???
    #13
    I actually use it, and it's a decent lens, but the still-inexpensive 50/1.4 is miles better.

    The 50/1.8 has a terrific price/performance ratio, but it's not because of the denominator.
     
  14. UltraNEO* macrumors 601

    UltraNEO*

    Joined:
    Jun 16, 2007
    Location:
    近畿日本
    #14

    Adding to the thread, here's a user group on Flickr where all the photos have been taken with such a lens.

    [​IMG] Canon EF 50mm f/1.8 II
    http://www.flickr.com/groups/99827226@N00/

    Have lotsof fun with your new toy!!
     
  15. apearlman macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Aug 8, 2007
    Location:
    Red Hook, NY
    #15
    Shallow DOF can be a drag.

    Here are 25,681 sample images I just found:
    http://www.pbase.com/cameras/canon/ef_50_18ii

    Also, macro shooters don't generally *try* to get shallow depth of field, it's just a byproduct of focusing on things that are very close to the camera. If anything, you'll want to shoot smaller apertures to try to avoid having a DOF that's too shallow. It can be hard to get a whole flower or insect in focus.
     
  16. compuwar macrumors 601

    compuwar

    Joined:
    Oct 5, 2006
    Location:
    Northern/Central VA
    #16
    My Canon shooting friends much prefer the Sigma 50mm over the Canon 1.8 for build and image quality, but as others have said, it's not a good macro lens.
     
  17. TheSVD thread starter macrumors 6502a

    TheSVD

    Joined:
    Sep 3, 2008
    Location:
    The Jolly Ol' Midlands, England
    #17
    nahh, as i said i now have my 70-300 from sigma, very impressed with its macro abilities :O check it out: (attached)
     

    Attached Files:

  18. romanaz macrumors regular

    romanaz

    Joined:
    Aug 24, 2008
    Location:
    NJ
    #18
    I've heard good things about that sigma 50 and some bad things, like that its bigger then the other 50's and focus is slower then the 1.4. Then again, @ such low f-stop, it can't be easy to focus anyhow!
     
  19. toxic macrumors 68000

    Joined:
    Nov 9, 2008
    #19
    yeah, the Sigma 50 is the biggest 50 available for Canon (even larger than the 50/1.2) and the best one under $1000. its AF isn't any slower than the Canon 1.4, though - it'd likely be faster if there weren't so much glass to move.
     
  20. mep42 macrumors member

    Joined:
    Aug 4, 2008

Share This Page