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

[TheSVD]

Hey!
Im getting a Canon 1000d tommorow (first dslr ) 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
Dont suppose anyone has that lens and could show me some good snaps?
thanks

 

[jampat]

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.

 

[akadmon]

This is the most popular Canon lens by far (a classic). It consistently gets good reviews from people who actually use it (see amazon.com). Really, you have very little to lose by getting it. I got mine on Amazon for $91 (the package just arrived at my office -- I'll try it out for the first time tonight).

Here is a link to sample photos taken with this lens:

http://www.amazon.com/gp/customer-media/product-gallery/B00007E7JU/ref=cm_ciu_pdp_images_all

 

[Mousse]

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.
If you've got the cash, the 1.4 is much better lense, in terms of build quality and bokeh.

 

[gkarris]

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).

 

[ProwlingTiger]

LOTS of sample pics
http://photography-on-the.net/forum/showthread.php?t=186207&adorama+hood+50mm

The lens is an awesome lens at the price. Only flaw is the bokeh. But it takes nice pics.

 

[gkarris]

LOTS of sample pics
http://photography-on-the.net/forum/showthread.php?t=186207&adorama+hood+50mm

The lens is an awesome lens at the price. Only flaw is the bokeh. But it takes nice pics.

http://photography-on-the.net/forum/showpost.php?p=1671589&postcount=24

O I C (haven't taken shots with it yet to notice...)

 

[romanaz]

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.
If you've got the cash, the 1.4 is much better lense, in terms of build quality and bokeh.

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.

 

[147798]

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.

The 1.4 still has a 5 bladed ap, so if you have strong light points in the bokeh, you get pentagons

 

[TheSVD]

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
Just jumped up and bought a nice 70-300mm instead

 

[toxic]

The 1.4 still has a 5 bladed ap, so if you have strong light points in the bokeh, you get pentagons

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.

 

[147798]

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.

+1 on the 35/2.

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

 

[Edge100]

This is the most popular Canon lens by far (a classic). It consistently gets good reviews from people who actually use it (see amazon.com).

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.

 

[UltraNEO*]

Hey!
Im getting a Canon 1000d tommorow (first dslr ) 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
Dont suppose anyone has that lens and could show me some good snaps?
thanks

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

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

Have lotsof fun with your new toy!!

 

[apearlman]

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.

 

[compuwar]

Hey!
Im getting a Canon 1000d tommorow (first dslr ) 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
Dont suppose anyone has that lens and could show me some good snaps?
thanks

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.

 

[TheSVD]

nahh, as i said i now have my 70-300 from sigma, very impressed with its macro abilities :O check it out: (attached)

 

[romanaz]

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.

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!

 

[toxic]

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!

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.

 

[mep42]

I love mine