Hi, I’m new to this world of photography and wanted to know if those little marks on the lens are normal, those lines that look like a triangle on the glass of the lens, I’ve purchased a new 50mm and noticed that.
Hi! I received a similar question on my in-depth review video of this lens. Surely, many others have been concerned about them. Those lines you see near the front lens element of a 50mm f/1.8 STM are normal-this is how it was designed. No need to worry! Enjoy photography!
I've met people who have had one gor years without issues. Some don't like that apparently the focusing motor is prone to failing, according to online forums. The STM is said to be better in some optical aspects and the 1.4 is said to have a bit more charisma of its own. Neither is a bad choice. I had the 50mm f1.8 and loved it. Sharp af at 2.8 too.
1.4 is famous for its failing focus mechanisim, which unfortunately happended to me years back. Never 1.4 again, was great while it worked though. Plus this 1.8 is STM 😍
Or my minolta A-mount 18 to 85 +macro lense that I got for 40 bucks of a random old man at an antique shop along with an included dynaxx 5000i 35mm film camera
For sure, when it comes to build quality, the 50mm f/1.4 USM is superior; but in terms of image quality, they aren't too far apart. I conducted a test on this channel in a video titled "Canon 50mm f/1.8 vs Canon 50mm f/1.4 - Sharpness Test no.8," where I compare the sharpness of the two lenses (there isn't a big difference). I haven't conducted other image quality test comparisons such as bokeh (where the f/1.4, of course, should be better), distortion & vignetting, and bright light performance, but from my observations, they aren't too far apart. They should be, given the 3 times price difference of an f/1.4; Nonetheless, the video is about the best prime lens with autofocus for under 150 USD and I appreciate you pointing out that extra money should be spent for the f/1.4. However, after delving into lenses for the past three years, I wouldn't say the more expensive lens is "much better" , maybe just slightly better.
Subscribe for more videos about lenses
Hi, I’m new to this world of photography and wanted to know if those little marks on the lens are normal, those lines that look like a triangle on the glass of the lens, I’ve purchased a new 50mm and noticed that.
Hi! I received a similar question on my in-depth review video of this lens. Surely, many others have been concerned about them. Those lines you see near the front lens element of a 50mm f/1.8 STM are normal-this is how it was designed. No need to worry! Enjoy photography!
I can either buy this brand new or the f1.4 used in excellent condition for a similar price. Which would you recommend?
Both are good. I believe the f/1.4 focuses faster, not to mention that it lets in more light, so I would get the f/1.4 version.
I've met people who have had one gor years without issues. Some don't like that apparently the focusing motor is prone to failing, according to online forums. The STM is said to be better in some optical aspects and the 1.4 is said to have a bit more charisma of its own. Neither is a bad choice. I had the 50mm f1.8 and loved it. Sharp af at 2.8 too.
1.4 is famous for its failing focus mechanisim, which unfortunately happended to me years back. Never 1.4 again, was great while it worked though.
Plus this 1.8 is STM 😍
And my old minolta 50mm f1.7 for 30 bucks 🤭
Or my minolta A-mount 18 to 85 +macro lense that I got for 40 bucks of a random old man at an antique shop along with an included dynaxx 5000i 35mm film camera
nifty fifty rules
Yes 👍
I just bought a pair of Leica Summilux’s. I’ll be broke for 2 months.
😅 Enjoy them!
just got my baby last night ❤
Nice! Enjoy it!
Here in rip-off-Britain we have to pay £199 pounds for this lens. Everything is SO much more expensive here.
I'm sorry to hear that. I've noticed that lens prices in Britain tend to be higher - I’m not sure why.
If you want to spend the extra money the Canon 50mm f1.4 USM is a much better lens.
For sure, when it comes to build quality, the 50mm f/1.4 USM is superior; but in terms of image quality, they aren't too far apart. I conducted a test on this channel in a video titled "Canon 50mm f/1.8 vs Canon 50mm f/1.4 - Sharpness Test no.8," where I compare the sharpness of the two lenses (there isn't a big difference). I haven't conducted other image quality test comparisons such as bokeh (where the f/1.4, of course, should be better), distortion & vignetting, and bright light performance, but from my observations, they aren't too far apart. They should be, given the 3 times price difference of an f/1.4; Nonetheless, the video is about the best prime lens with autofocus for under 150 USD and I appreciate you pointing out that extra money should be spent for the f/1.4. However, after delving into lenses for the past three years, I wouldn't say the more expensive lens is "much better" , maybe just slightly better.
1.4 has a failing autofocus mechanism history. I would go with 1.8 plus the STM. Had 1.4 before and built is not that impressive too, feel flimsy.
You are mistaken. The minolta (a mount) 50mm f1.7 is the best in terms of price to performance.