Canon ef 50mm f/1.8 ii vs Canon ef 50mm f/1.4 L USM

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by RustBeltRaw

. . .It's worth noting that I use the 50mm f1.4 USM heavily for indoor action with rapidly-varying ranges, so I am stressing the crap out of the AF system. The USM versions tracks more finely, and I assure you that the adjustments are quicker. In a static test, one may not notice a few tenths of a second's difference in focusing time, but it becomes vastly more apparent when your subject is juking, diving, and twisting like mad. Sometimes I think roller derby was designed from the ground up to frustrate photographers.

---

When I commented on your remarks, I had forgotten that you shoot roller derby, so I read your comments as "in theory" and that made complete sense to me: thanks for reminding me that is also your personal experience.

Concerning the static tests: I was quite rigorous as one can be and I am quite experienced using a stop watch, professionally and have quite good coordination and reactions, but yes, I agree, in any one static test (in good light) is only one movement for the motor: from either far to near; or near to far and I would not have necessarily noticed any small difference and in any case when measuring 1/100ths second, the two fingers of each hand may not necessarily be in sync.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by RustBeltRaw

Roger Cicala and Aaron Closz of LensRentals.com just put together an excellent essay on this. Note that they define "mount" as whatever the bayonet ring attaches to, whereas most of us tend to mean "bayonet ring" when we say "mount."

---

Thanks. I had not read that. I have filed it.
Very good.

Cheers,

WW

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Adrian

Very interesting lensrental article. I and never even considered the plastic v metal debate and now I know I don't have to waste any time on it in the future either! Worth snapping up the f1.4's though whilst they are still around?

---

My guess is that the EF35 F/2 will be deleted before the EF50 F/1.4.

WW

Here's the "Rest of the Story" about the 50mm f/1.8 Mark II lens. Canon had a very decent 50mm f/1.8 Mark I in production for many years. Then about 1987 (don't hold me to the exact year), because Canon was in competition with Nikon to offer the lowest cost 35mm film camera, (35mm Rebel film camera) they changed the 50mm f/1.8 Mark I to the Mark II which cost significantly less to produce and which could be sold as a low cost kit with the 35mm Rebel film camera. A 50mm lens was the standard lens provided, at that time, with a 35mm film camera.

While the optical characteristics of the 50mm Mk I and 50mm Mk II were quite similar, Canon produced the majority of the Mark II lens from plastic, including the lens mount. resulting in a relatively fragile lens. Canon also dispensed with the distance scale on the lens, obviously thinking (incorrectly) that with an auto focus camera system the photographer would not need a distance scale.

I have been a photographer for over 50-years and have used hundreds of cameras and lenses, sometimes such as during combat in Vietnam in very harsh situations. I have NEVER broken a lens until I obtained the 50mm f/1.8 Mark II. I dinged it on a door frame while entering the room and the front element fell to the floor.

The 50mm f/1.8 Mark II gained cult status as a fast prime lens to use along with the 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6 kit lens. Obviously the f/1.8 aperture was a lot faster than the kit lens and allowed some photographers to shoot available light under relatively dim conditions. The image quality from this lens was significantly better than the original non-IS 18-55mm kit lens. The price was kept low, mostly under a hundred dollars, making this the darling of the newbie DSLR folks.

I replaced my two-piece 50mm f/1.8 Mark II lens with a used Mark I. I did a bit of shooting with this lens when my primary lens was the 28-135mm f/3.5-5.6 IS. However, since I purchased the 17-55mm f/2.8 IS lens, I have seldom used the Mark I. IMO the 17-55mm f/2.8 IS lens is a better low light glass then either the Mark I or Mark II 50mm f/1.8 lenses...

As an after thought... Neither the EF 50mm f/1.8 Mark I or Mark II had the optical quality of the previous 50mm f/1.8 manual focus lens....

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by rpcrowe

I have NEVER broken a lens until I obtained the 50mm f/1.8 Mark II. I dinged it on a door frame while entering the room and the front element fell to the floor.

---

That is EXACTLY what happened to me. And it wasn't even that rough of a 'ding'.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Andrew76

That is EXACTLY what happened to me. And it wasn't even that rough of a 'ding'.

---

Neither was mine. I was carrying the camera over my shoulder on a strap and just didn't allow enough space between the door frame and the lens. I didn't really notice the lens was broken until I heard the front element hitting the ground.

At that time, the 50mm f/1.8 Mark ii cost about $80 or $90 U.S. Dollars, new. I bought a used Mark i and it cost me about $125 U.S. Dollars. That should give anyone an indication of the relative values put on these lenses...

I have just looked on Amazon and the Mark i is selling for $198 ( http://www.amazon.com/Canon-50mm-MK1.../dp/B001JDD1OE )

while the Mark ii is selling for $125 at Adorama ( http://www.adorama.com/searchsite/de..._source=adl-um )

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by rpcrowe

Neither was mine. I was carrying the camera over my shoulder on a strap and just didn't allow enough space between the door frame and the lens.

---

I did the same thing with a rented Sigma 10mm f2.8 fisheye. Bent the built-in hood a little, but it bent back into shape nicely. That said, the aluminum felt like it was basically an annealed heat treat, which seems like a poor choice on Sigma's part.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by rcprowe

As an after thought... Neither the EF 50mm f/1.8 Mark I or Mark II had the optical quality of the previous 50mm f/1.8 manual focus lens....

---

Convenience over quality?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by RustBeltRaw

I did the same thing with a rented Sigma 10mm f2.8 fisheye. Bent the built-in hood a little, but it bent back into shape nicely. That said, the aluminum felt like it was basically an annealed heat treat, which seems like a poor choice on Sigma's part.


Convenience over quality?

---

If it happened to be a hardened aluminium :D you could always anneal it by smearing hand soap on it and then heating it with a blow torch to just past the point where the soap goes black.

Bearing this in mind a ductile grade might be a good choice really.

John
-

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ajohnw

Bearing this in mind a ductile grade might be a good choice really.

---

It's cheap and unlikely to crack, but I think a T4 temper would be a better trade-off. Knowing aluminum's tendency to work-harden very quickly, I was rather nervous about bending it back into shape. Of course, this foible is not stopping me from thinking about buying the lens. Still a good performer.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by rcprowe

Here's the "Rest of the Story" about the 50mm f/1.8 Mark II lens.

---

The-Digital-Picture recently posted an article about the ten oldest Canon lenses still in production. All three of my Canon lenses are on that list. EF 20mm f2.8 USM, 50mm f1.4 USM, and 100mm f2.0 USM. I don't know what that means, but I think it's interesting.