Fast Lenses

[Henry Wilt]

Thanks for the reply gturner.
I realise that $99 (they're more like $120 here in Thailand) is not a lot of money and I probably shouldn't be thinking of it as an investment, but I do hate false economy i.e. buy cheap now and have to replace sooner rather than later.
I've had a quick scout around the Thai shops web-sites at the prices of the 35mm and I can't stretch to that at the moment (I kinda stretched the credit card with the 70-200mm f/2.8 too recently ).
One of the great things about forums is the different opinions but I'm back to being undecided again now.

[jamesev]

I gues its similar with the f2.8 lenses

80-200 f2.8 ~£1700
70-300 4.5-5.6 ~£400

There's kinda a big difference

[gturner]

there is very little wrong with the 50mm 1.8, so I don't see it as false economy at all.

[inkista]

Originally Posted by Henry Wilt

The problem is, I've been researching over the last couple of weeks and have read that the quality of this lens falls down on sharpness (wide open), colour saturation (throughout the range) and harsh/unattractive bokeh, not to mention the build quality. Yet I still see it being recommended by so many people. ...

Yes, wide open it's softer, the color isn't great, but the bokeh isn't always harsh if you pay attention t what you're doing. And those statements are all in comparison to L primes that cost more than 10 times the 50/1.8's pricetag. The 85/1.8's colors are comparable. The 50/1.4's bokeh can be as harsh. And neither of those two lenses are at their sharpest wide open, either. It's a rare lens that is.

The 50/1.8 II's weaknesses are otherwise. The plastic mount, the lack of a focus scale, the joke of a manual focus ring, it's wonky AF performance in low light--these are the real weaknesses of the 50/1.8. And none of them have to do with image quality.

The 50/1.8 is so widely recommended because for the price, it's outstanding. It's got better optical quality than your 18-55 kit. And bang-for-the-buck, it's the best bargain in the Canon lineup. It's only a lousy lens if you're looking at it from a "cost is no object" perspective. It's a cheap and easy way to see if a fast prime is going to suit your style. And it's better than the kit lens.

A 50mm prime, by definition, is probably going to be a good lens, overall, because it was the kit lens for decades on rangefinders and dSLRs alike. It's easy to design a good one. They don't require a lot of extra tweaking/corrective elements like other lenses. And everybody knows how to make a good cheap one, since they've been doing it for so long.

Learn to read MTF charts. If you look at the 50/1.8's MTF chart, you'll notice it's got better sharpness wide open than the 35/2, or the 28/1.8, and it's damn close (or even a hair better) than the 50/1.4 on a crop body.

[Henry Wilt]

Thanks for the detailed reply Inkista.
I guess when I was reading the reviews I think I forgot to think about what the reviewer was comparing the lens to, so of course it would be an improvement on my kit lens.

2 things you mentioned there though have made me wonder, if the colour isn't great, would that mean using the settings in the camera to boost that or is it something that would be done in pp if necessary? Also, I had no idea that there was any way to control the bokeh effect, I thought that depended entirely on the depth of field and lighting. (While typing that I think I have just answered my own question, although I'm not sure how that could soften it. Time for trial and error I guess.)

Of the items you list as the real weaknesses of the lens, I only see that the manual focus ring would be a problem for me at the moment when/if it doesn't AF properly. I'm not too worried about no focus scale as I one on my 18-55mm last night for the 1st time (setting the focal distance to 50mm to see what it would be like with no zoom) and I tend to be overly cautious/gentle with all my gear so I don't see it getting broken.

It's funny that you should mention learning about MTF charts and post that particular link, I only red that page on Tuesday this week and printed it off as a reference to use. At least it gives me confidence that it is accurate if you are recommending it.

OK, I'm not sure if you've talked me into it or I've talked myself into it, I'm off to the shops tomorrow to see if I can get one.

Thanks to everyone else as well for your replies.

[inkista]

Originally Posted by Henry Wilt

... if the colour isn't great, would that mean using the settings in the camera to boost that or is it something that would be done in pp if necessary?

Yes. Good post-processing can make up for a lot of glass shortcomings, like chromatic aberration, distortion, color saturation, and sharpness. A good lens, obviously, gives you a better starting point for processing, but both in-camera settings and post-processing can make up for a lot.

Also, I had no idea that there was any way to control the bokeh effect, I thought that depended entirely on the depth of field and lighting.

Bokeh is out of focus blur, or the quality of out of focus blur. It's not really an "effect", per se. Usually we're talking about "smooth" or "busy" bokeh.

The smoothness of the bokeh can be affected by the aperture setting you use, and the subject/background focus distances, as well as the lens construction. I've seen a lot of shots where the EF 50mm f/1.4 USM has creamy smooth, dreamy bokeh. And then I've also seen this.

... I only see that the manual focus ring would be a problem for me at the moment when/if it doesn't AF properly.

Oh, the MF ring works. It's just that it's very narrow and at the end of the lens, and is geared more for autofocus than manual. I use old manual focus lenses a lot, and notice the difference. Again, this is a matter of degree and what you're used to.

The thing is, manually focusing with a narrow DoF and a stock focus screen on a dSLR is likely to yield you worse results than autofocus most of the time.

[Henry Wilt]

Well, I did it. I bought the 50mm f/1.8 on Saturday afternoon. I ended up taking about 200 shots during the rest of the day and evening and although I had a lot of misses I already know that I have some great shots (I didn't get a chance to go through them all properly yesterday). I can't blame the lens for any of the misses, they were all down to me but at least I have learnt from them. Overall, I think this lens and me are going to be best buddies. I can't believe how sharp some of the shots are, especially some of the ones I took at during the evening at the local pub where the lighting is absolutely horrible (orange, green and yellow shades on the lights!! (no wonder my white balance was off!! ) )

Thanks again to everyone who posted their views on my questions. I will try and post at least a couple of shots that have come from my new friend.