# Canon 50mm 1.8 not happy



## madjace (Mar 25, 2012)

I bought the nifty fifty yesterday and apart from the low light capabilities it doesn't seem to have much going for it. I thought it would take very sharp images. Am I judging too quickly ? I am thinking of trying to return it


----------



## Diffuser (Mar 25, 2012)

A picture says more than thousand words ;-) Where are yours?


----------



## LaFoto (Mar 25, 2012)

The f1.8 is not among the auto-focus champions, that's what I found out. Takes time focussing and has a hard time focussing in low light situations. But once it catches on and DOES focus, the outcome is quite pleasant to look at, I think. And in light situations where the auto-focus can no longer "see" enough, manual focus and voilà! ;-)

Let's see what you have!


----------



## Diffuser (Mar 25, 2012)

madjace said:


> I bought the nifty fifty yesterday and apart from the low light capabilities it doesn't seem to have much going for it. I thought it would take very sharp images. Am I judging too quickly ? I am thinking of trying to return it



Also, when you check out pictures on this site, there are more than 11K sharp pictures with this lens ... how did they do it? ;-)

Full-size sample photos from Canon 50mm F/1.8


----------



## Compaq (Mar 25, 2012)

It takes sharp images. I consider this one sharp enough, for example (although some sharpening has been done post taking it, sharp images are easily obtainable if you nail the focus)




Ulvanåso r by Anders Myhre Brakestad, on Flickr




Mjelkhaug i lyset r by Anders Myhre Brakestad, on Flickr

50mm can be a nice focal length for landscapes.


----------



## Mot (Mar 25, 2012)

Have you fallen into the trap of shooting everything at 1.8? That's generally what a lot of people do when they get their first fast piece of glass.


----------



## Snakeguy101 (Mar 25, 2012)

Mot said:


> Have you fallen into the trap of shooting everything at 1.8? That's generally what a lot of people do when they get their first fast piece of glass.



I did that for a month or two as well and was pretty disappointed until I started stopping up to around f/5.6-f/11. That is the sharp range for this lens and it has not steered me wrong since. It is still my main lens.


----------



## Alex_B (Mar 25, 2012)

As mentioned, at f/1.8 you do get a very shallow depth of field. Everything outside will appear blurred. So check your settings if this is the problem.


----------



## Compaq (Mar 25, 2012)

Make sure your shutter speed is fast enough as well - both you and your subjects might move.


----------



## Crollo (Mar 25, 2012)

Mot said:


> Have you fallen into the trap of shooting everything at 1.8? That's generally what a lot of people do when they get their first fast piece of glass.



The very first camera and lens I had I stopped all my shots down to 2.8. I'm just weird I guess.


----------



## KmH (Mar 25, 2012)

madjace said:


> I bought the nifty fifty yesterday and apart from the low light capabilities it doesn't seem to have much going for it. I thought it would take very sharp images. Am I judging too quickly ? I am thinking of trying to return it


You're not the first to express that kind of doubt.

However, as mentioned few fast lenses used at their widest aperture produce good sharp focus. Stop the lens down so it is in it's focus 'sweet spot' range of apertures f/3.5 to f/11, to more sccurately assess the sharpness the lens produces.


----------



## manaheim (Mar 25, 2012)

It also takes time to get used to a lens, especially if you're newer to the hobby/field.  They all have their quirks and sweet spots.

I have several very nice very expensive lenses, and still without question I've found my "best" pictures come from that 50mm 1.8.  It's a RIDICULOUSLY good lens.  Again, you should post some examples so we can see.  

Most people rush out and try to take pictures in the dark at F1.8 and that's basically like trying to force it to do the hardest thing you can possibly imagine right out of the gate without really understanding how the thing works.  It rarely goes well.


----------



## vtf (Mar 25, 2012)

The common mistake for new owners of the 50mm who don't fully understand aperture settings is believing that the trouble is with the lens. At 5' away fron subject at 1.8 your focus plane is so narrow that the left eye can be in focus and the bridge of the nose not be. Forget shooting moving targets. Use this tool Online Depth of Field Calculator to see what we mean. I love the lens but it's best between f4 and 5.6.


----------



## fokker (Mar 25, 2012)

It's a sad irony that you buy a fast prime so you can get 1.8 capabilities, but then find it performs hopelessly at 1.8.


----------



## vtf (Mar 25, 2012)

That lens performs well in the hands of someone who knows how to use it at 1.8.


----------



## manaheim (Mar 25, 2012)

fokker said:
			
		

> It's a sad irony that you buy a fast prime so you can get 1.8 capabilities, but then find it performs hopelessly at 1.8.



That's not true at all.  It's powerful, and like all powerful things you have to understand it and use it carefully.  

Do you buy a Dodge Viper and jump in it and slam the throttle to the floor?  No.  (unless you want to wind up in a ditch or dead).  

Lol I just likened a nifty fifty to a viper.  So wrong.


----------



## manaheim (Mar 25, 2012)

Not 1.8, but this was taken at 2.8 and very close to the subject.  This shows both sharpness and what you can do with the shallow DOF if you're careful and know what kind of fire you're playing with...








This was taken at F7.1... but the point is not so much that you can go to 1.8, the point is the quality of the optics, which this image demonstrates.  The rich variance of tones, the sharpness, the handling of the light.  All beautiful.


----------



## chuasam (Mar 25, 2012)

Diffuser said:


> madjace said:
> 
> 
> > I bought the nifty fifty yesterday and apart from the low light capabilities it doesn't seem to have much going for it. I thought it would take very sharp images. Am I judging too quickly ? I am thinking of trying to return it
> ...


They probably actually knew what they were doing


----------



## Derrel (Mar 25, 2012)

manaheim said:
			
		

> SNIPO>>> that 50mm 1.8.  It's a RIDICULOUSLY good lens.



Sorry, but NO, it is clearly NOT a "RIDICULOUSLY good lens". It is a cheaply-made 50mm f/1.8 lens, with one less element than a decent 50mm design would  have, and an antiquated, cheap-o 5-bladed diaphragm, poor low-light focusing ability, NOISY AF, and crap build quality. The background bokeh it produces is some of the absolute WORST one will find in a prime lens. It is a poor performer, as 50mm lenses go, by many different metrics. it also flares quite badly when shot toward the sun, with almost full-field, massive green lens flare when shot toward the sun. It's got decent resolving power, sure, but crappy focusing (in less-than-ideal conditions, the 50/1.8 loves to hunt for focus,racking back and forth, with a loud *diiiitz-ditttz-dittz-dittz* sound, meaning noisy focusing,a clunky AF/M switch, meaning no manual focusing override when in AF mode, it has poor flare resistance, and ugly, hashy, jarring bokeh. Those are hardly the traits of a "RIDICULOUSLY good lens". Ridiculously good would be the Canon 135 f/2-L--not a $109 econ-design made as absolutely as cheaply as possible, compromising on the optical elements and the diaphragm, as well as holding the lens together with pop rivets instead of threaded fasteners. Oh yeah...the 50/1.8 has a habit of literally snapping into two pieces when banged or dropped or smacked.

I used to own the 50 1.8 EF-II, but I gave it away to my wife's nephew when he went away to college, with the advice that it's a POS lens when shot towards the light. Canon's 50/1.4 is a significantly better lens in all ways, but it too has some focusing "issues" that make it less-than-perfect--according not just to me, but to many Canon owners who have shot the 50/1.4 under a wide range of conditions.


----------



## manaheim (Mar 25, 2012)

Lol


Ummmmmm....


Derrell I don't know what you're talking about.  I'm intrigued ... But honestly I've found mine to be amazing.  YES the build quality is sub-par; it is a cheap little lens... But aside from that?


----------



## madjace (Mar 25, 2012)

thanks for the helps guys ( most of you ) i did try it above 1.8 but dudnt try it in the 5 region , will post some low light photos , the other ones i took were of my wife and like i said before , will not post those ..


----------



## KmH (Mar 25, 2012)

manaheim said:


> Lol
> 
> 
> Ummmmmm....
> ...


How about gag-me-with-a-spoon CoC quality?


----------



## madjace (Mar 25, 2012)

these 2 need some more editing but you get the picture , it was a pretty bright day and i was having my first go at turning water into silk .. i did end up achieving it although i had to merge a couple of exposures for some of them


----------



## scorpion_tyr (Mar 25, 2012)

Turning water into silk takes a tripod, and a long shutter speed. If you're shooting at f/1.8 in the daylight, you're gonna turn up with an extremely over exposed image. Take it to f/16 or so, ISO 100, and shutter speed at 1". If it's too bright or too dark, adjust shutter speed and aperture. If it's really bright and the water's moving slow you may need to use a ND filter. The 50mm f/1.8 is not a GREAT lens, nor is it an AMAZING lens, but it is a GOOD lens. It's good because it's A: The cheapest lens Canon makes and B: It'll get the job done if you know what you're doing with it.


----------



## madjace (Mar 25, 2012)

will post some of the ones that worked when i get home , changed the lens to the 18-55 , i just posted these as lanscape shots from the 50 mm , i had the f stop to about 22 iso was 100 and and all i could manage was about 1/4 shutter speed .. a filter mau have helped . but i am reasonable happy with how they turned out .. will post tonight


----------



## madjace (Mar 26, 2012)




----------



## SabrinaO (Mar 28, 2012)

madjace said:


> I bought the nifty fifty yesterday and apart from the low light capabilities it doesn't seem to have much going for it. I thought it would take very sharp images. Am I judging too quickly ? I am thinking of trying to return it




Shooting at 1.8 is a very thin depth of field, and it takes practice to hit your focus spot on. 2.8 will give you a good sharpness and bokeh at the same time


----------



## LuckySe7en (Mar 28, 2012)

don't judge too soon.  I have the fifty and wasn't impressed at first.  Learn the lens first, then judge.  I wouldn't give mine up for the world.


----------



## TimGilbertson (Mar 28, 2012)

Toy lens.


----------

