Canon EF 50mm F/1.8 Mk I, MK II, and f/1.4
There are three standard (50mm, non L) lenses in the canon line-up: Canon Ef 50mm f/1.8 MK I – MK II and f/1.4 with USM. Obviously each one has something to offer to the photographer.
Basic comparison:
- Canon Ef 50mm f/1.8 MK II – around 90$, Cheap plastic, good image quality, okay AF performance.
- Canon Ef 50mm f/1.4 USM – around 400$, USM, has good AF. Good image quality.
- Canon Ef 50mm f/1.8 MK I – around 200$, Good build, mediocre AF performance in low light conditions. Very good image quality.
I went for the MK I, and I’ve several reasons for that, good pricing being one of them – This little thing costs less then 200$ on the used market, despite relative ‘cheapness’ its capable of producing some breathtaking images.
Both MK I and MK II versions of the standard lens are nearly the same in optical design, so image quality is relatively same. they are both excellent… tack sharp with beautiful bokeh. The only difference between two is the build quality, older MK I lens has metal mount, distance scale and is a bit more robust then the new MK II version. My Canon EF 50mm F/1.8 Mk I was produced in 1987, and despite age it functions flawlessly. So I recommend going with a bit more expensive choice, that will last you decades. In other words MK I is a good investment.
The only serious problem I’ve with my ‘Nifty fifty’ is the auto focus. In bright sunlight there is no problem at all. But things go wrong really fast in low light conditions – This makes AF on nifty practically useless at night or any other tricky lightning conditions. So what I do is switch to Manual, this increases keeper rate at least 2x times.
I also try not to go below f/2.0 – f/1.8 is unacceptably soft for me. And f/2.4 is a sweet spot for this lens.
-
You might also like...
There are 28 comments on this post.
Trackback URL | Comments RSS FeedI love all of these pictures. I am a beginner in photography and am barely starting out with my first digital camera.
Great simple side by side comparison…
Helped me out a bunch…
Thanks…
I’m happy you found it useful Shawn. I’ll try to post more comparisons in the future.
Thanks for the helpful information. I am in the market for the EF 50mm f/1.8 MK I, but i can’t seem to find it anywhere. I can only find the MK II, but I want the better build quality of the MK I. Do you have any suggestions on where to buy the MK I?
@Chris: Hi! First of all let me say that you are making a good decision, extra buck that MK I costs is totally worth it… I’ve been in your shoes few years back, and my canon 50 f/1.8 MK I still after 30 years of operation functions as on day 1. My friends who purchased flimsy MK II version, made of plastic, have regretted it – most of those new lenses died quickly some loosing front element and others loosing ability to Auto Focus.
Now regarding your question, since MK I is 30 years old and out of production, only place to find is it on ebay or local used camera shop. I got mine from ebay, search for: “Canon EF 50mm 50 f/1.8 Metal Mount Mark I” and I’m sure you will find number of sellers dealing this little gem.
Regards,
Sandro
My MKII started sticking and i just cant get over how horrible it feels to operate – so today I’ve found a MKI for £114 on eBay; Steel!
Will let you know how i get on – Great page, thanks for the clear info and guidance.
@ads
That’s a lucky deal! (not sure about currency exchange rate, but still).
I’m glad you found this article helpful… let me know how it goes.
Hi there!
I am a DSLR newbie and just subscribed to your emails when reading this review on the 50mm 1.8 lenses. I too am looking for a 50mm 1.8 but and didn’t know there even was a Mark I until I stumbled a completed item at eBay and was wondering why it sold for $180 vs. the $100 for the same 1.8 lens! I soon found out about the Mark I and I ended up here.
Anyway, I have a 17-85 IS and a 18-55 IS lens and probably won’t keep both. Both zoomed out, the 18-55 seems to be sharper than the 17-85, but above the 18mm range, the 17 seems better. Does this sound right? Ever shoot with these lenses? The reason I’m asking is because I can’t afford to keep both and want to sell one and get the 55-250 and the 50 1.8. I plan on doing some more shooting comparisons outdoors when the weather breaks but in the mean time I was wondering if you had any opinion.
ALSO—I read that if you have a crop body (like I do in the Canon 40d), you should get a 20 or 30mm lens instead of the 50mm because that’s what your eyes are used to seeing from the 35mm cameras. In the beginning coming from a point and shoot, did you find the transition to the 50mm awkward in any way? I guess I’ll find out soon enough as I just found a good deal on a 1.8 II lens and purchased it.
Thanks!
Ed
Hello Ed.
I did shoot with both of those lenses. In fact, my upgrade path was very similar to yours 18-55 IS -> 17-85 IS, and later on I got 17-40L f/4. But the last one (L) is a bit expensive, not within your budget. In addition, it is’t the most versatile option (limited range on the long end, notice 40) and no IS (though usefulness of IS on wide angle lenses is dubious). However, I needed a decent wide angle, and neither kit nor 17-85 was good enough in that aspect.
What you discovered about the performance of these lenses exactly matches my experience. 18-55 isn’t bad at all, in fact it’s awesome for the price. Performs reasonably well throughout the range, and IS helps. I hated the plastic body though, it felt like a toy. In that aspect 17-85 is far superior, plastic and focus ring are both nice and comfy. I found wide end on 17-85mm unusable with allot of distortion (just like you), but it performed very well all the way up to 85mm.
There is a considerable price difference, 17-85 costs approximately 400$ more than the kit. So if you hope to sell any of these to fund new purchase, you should consider resale price too… I don’t think you can buy anything with the resale of the kit, but 17-85 can in fact fund both of your new toys. There is another argument in favor of this route, buy keeping 18-55IS you will have less range overlap.
But, I believe you should base your choice more on actual needs. Are you sure you need telephoto? Especially one like 55-250? This long zoom doesn’t exactly shine, it’s ranked at the bottom of super zooms by price and quality likewise. I’ve been doing photography for ten years now, I did car photography professionally which qualifies as sport, and I never used anything longer than 85mm (you can always zoom in with your legs!). I would argue more in favor of retaining 17-85, cause the range is just awesome for street / walkabout style photography (of course if this is what you shoot mostly, you didn’t mention your interests). Image quality wise, I’m quite sure, 20mm and upwards 17-85 will outperform the kit. And than again, do you absolutely need the widest end? Take a look at your photo library, at what range do you shoot the most?
p.s. It’s very late over here, I hope I didn’t confuse you too much with my late time writing.
Let me know what you decide.
Sadro
Thanks Sadro.
I’m just an average Joe, shooting family pics etc. and the only reason I was going to get the 55-250 is for maybe shots at the zoo. But it is always nice to have a zoom, “just in case”, right? I know it’s not the best, but at my budget, it’s not that bad. I mean photozone.de gave it pretty good reviews and it didn’t do too bad at Amazon either.
As far as the 17-85, I think I am leaning towards keeping it. The distortion is horrible at the wide end, but it does look much better there on than the 18-55. I just bought the nifty fifty, but couldn’t I just use the 17-85 at 50mm to achieve the same shot?
Is the 50mm going to be good enough for all my family indoor shots? Or do you think I should sell it and get a 28 or 35mm (which are like $250)? What do you think based on your experience?
If you had $500 or so budget, what lens or combination of lenses would you get? That’s the amount I could probably get for my 50mm, 17-85 and 18-55 lenses if I sold them all. If I sell them all, I’m thinking the fixed 28 or 35mm for around $250 and the remaining $250 on a zoom. I keep my nifty fifty, then I’ll have around $350 to spend on a zoom. Any suggestions?
Sorry if I’m rambling too! Hopefully you’ll be able to address my 4 paragraphs of comments and questions! Getting late here as well!
Thanks for all your help and advice!!
You are very well informed, not sure if I can help at all…
One thing though, be wary of wants and needs, they are different most of the time (I’ve been sucked into perpetual upgrade cycle because I couldn’t tell if I wanted or needed something). So, if you think “just in case” will translate into once a week zoo shooting, than its well worth the investment. But don’t waste money on something you will use twice a year.
…
Notice, reviews usually take into consideration price, I’m sure 55-250 got a decent review partly because of its awesome price. But the truth is, if you are happy with 18-55, than 55-250 will be on par in terms of image quality.
…
You can, in fact, shoot 17-85 IS at 50mm, but you will never be able to achieve same image quality. Seriously, canon 50mm f/1.8 is insanely sharp! It will make all your other photos look bad, and you will want to reshoot everything with nifty fifty , it’s that good… And for the price, it makes no sense not to have one.
Nifty is an indoor lens, because of its wide aperture this lens can be quite useful in low light situations. But as you have correctly pointed out, it becomes a bit long on a cropper. But still, I think it will be very useful for close-up portraits of your kids and family both indoors and outside. Though using it as a general purpose lens, indoors, in a cramped space, is kind of pushing it.
…
Canon 28mm isn’t worth the money, while 35mm I’ve heard is fine (never tried these myself) . If I had to buy wide prime, I would go with Sigma 30mm f/1.4 – but it costs much more…
[blockquote]That’s the amount I could probably get for my 50mm, 17-85 and 18-55 lenses if I sold them all. [/blockquote]
Wait, you already have nifty? I thought you were planning to buy it
…
In general, I like your idea of having wide prime and telephoto zoom. But it worries me that you won’t have anything in the (real) wide end. 18-30 is an useful range, are you ready to give it up?
Have you considered buying a flash instead? So keep 17-85, get your zoom, and use 17-85 with flash indoors. Manual flashes are cheap (40-70$) and easy to use.
Or maybe, keep 18-55, sell 17-85, buy long zoom and 35f/2. This way you have wide angle 18mm, and also wide aperture prime for low light / indoors, and telephoto for Zoo.
…
And I have to ask, are you aware that wide aperture lens such as canon 50mm f/1.8 will give you possibility to shoot at hair thin depth of field, with greater background blur than any of the other lenses we’ve talked about? Do you know what is aperture, DOF, background blur, bokeh?
Yes, I know what all that is and that’s the reason I bought the 50 but some people are saying it’s not wide enough for indoor shots so that’s why I was contemplating the 35mm. I used my 17-85 at 50mm yesterday and yes, it is kind of “in your face” if you don’t back up a few steps.
I guess I can always use my 17mm above the 17 and hopefully that’ll start to get rid of the distortion and if it doesn’t and I’m finding that I need a wider angle I’ll just sell it and get one that works for me.
But in the mean time I think I’ll just keep the 50, the 17-85 and the 55-250. That seems like the combo to go with for now.
Thanks!
Ed
Hey Ed.
Now that you have the kit… happy shooting!
You made me curious of 55-250, let me know how it performs in real life.
p.s. It’s funny how comments are longer than an actual article
I sure will!
I finally received my nifty fifty and the few pics I took turned out great like you said. But, like I knew what would happen, I found myself “stepping back” to take some shots. I think a wider angle would suit me better. You said the 28mm isn’t worth it? What about the 24mm? Or should I get the Sigma 30mm 1.4 you recommended? I want something as sharp as my nifty 50 but with a wider angle.
Thanks
Hey ED! Nice to see you around again…
Canon EF 28mm f/1.8 – Lens is soft wide open, center gets better from 2.8 and up, but edges are soft. Another problem is the very obvious chromatic aberration.
Canon EF 24mm f/2.8 Lens is actually a good performer! Great find, I almost forgot its existence.
Some points to keep in mind about 24mm.
1. Flare is a problem at wide apertures.
2. Bokeh is nothing special.
3. A bit of CA is present.
Sigma 30mm 1.4 is a superior lens, it also has widest aperture. But I’m afraid to recommend it, since Sigma was (quite recently) plagued with quality control issues. And since you are ordering lens and not buying locally, I don’t want you to go through the hell of multiple exchanges.
Based on everything I’ve absorbed, I think that I’ll probably end up getting the 35mm f2. I’ll be in touch….
Thanks!
After further consideration, I’ve purchased the 24mm 2.8. I’ll let you know how I like it! I ended up selling all my other lenses (at eBay as we speak) so all I’ll have left is the 24 and the 55-250.
Happy shooting
Great info on the Mk I. I’m researching lenses to buy with the 60D and just learned about the “rare metal mount”. The only thing I don’t get is why AF performance would degrade in low light – Doesn’t it depend more on the camera than the lens itself? I mean the AF motor doesn’t operate at lower power in low light, right?
Gontran » Hey
Af performance depends on both camera and lens. Inside camera you have focus points, and their sensitivity will translate into discrepancies. Canon systems have AF motor inside the lens, which dictates how fast lens can focus and how accurately. In case of 50mm 1.8 bottleneck of the problem is the AF motor which is slow and outdated.
Hope this helps! see you around…
Hey Sandro. Just wanted to give you an update. I ended up selling my 24 as I wasn’t thrilled about it.
I did find a great deal on a 50mm 1.8 Mk 1 and am keeping it for investment alone. I am still looking for wider prime though and will probably get the 35mm f2 as I stated earlier. I’m just waiting for a good deal to come along.
I also got a 28-135 and am trying it out. Pretty good I would have to say. Now if I could just make up my mind on whether to keep my 55-250 or 28-135 as my one and only zoom for now
Hello ED. Thanks for writing back… I thought you reached lens heaven, but apparently you are still searching
I just hope you don’t loose money in reselling equipment so may times.
Me? Make a decision? Har Har Hardy Har Har!! LOL! Maybe some day!
50mm Mk 1:Got it today. Looks/feels better than the newer one. Paid a silly 100 euro to a nice guy. Gone send him a Dutch photo lesson set in Dutch for him. Even got the sunshade with it. Will use it for low light/indoor school portraits and low light shots and video. Hope to post spme on my flickr page soon.
Gupukan » you will enjoy it
I’ve this lens for more than 5 years now and it earned a permanent sit in my bag…
Lens performed well indoors at my daughters swimming lesson! Here is a test shot I took playing with F/1.8 through to F/2.8
http://www.flickr.com/photos/gipukan/6683374347/in/photostream
gipukan » Nice! Try shooting more towards f/2 – f/2.2, images improve drastically in sharpness.