Canon EF50/1.8, is this the expected performance at F/1.8?

[dRebelXT]

Mine is similar to these photos. At F/1.8, it's extremely soft when shooting subjects
far away. However, sharpness becomes much better at F/4 and above. I thought my
unit was faulty.






http://www.etischer.com/300d/lenstests/28mm/test.html

[+evenstar]

post up some samples? my old 50 1.8 performed quite well

[RossChang]

F/1.8 looks really odd

[dEthANGeL]

Indeed it does... especially the first shot ... not of a F1.8... used the lens for my projects ... never got this kind of quality especially photo #1 ...

[Kongo]

Errmmm... there are exposure inconsistencies right?

Pic #3 seems to be a more accurate exposure, assuming the correct exposure is:
f4 @ 1/2000s @ ISO100

You need to stop down to
f2.8 @ 1/4000s @ ISO100
to get the same exposure mah?

The speed limit is breached there in the first shot by 1+ stops so image is overexposed & seems washed out.

But anyway, my 50f1.8 does lack contrast wide open @ f1.8, start to get better around f2.2 +-

50f1.4 contrast also noticeably weak at f1.4 & f1.6, but quite acceptable from f1.8 onwards..

Maybe I can take some pics & do a comparison if I have the time.

[Stoned]

I used to get this kind of quality. Probably poor QC because of the price. I hated the lens big time and promptly sold it off.

[solarii]

Hmmm its very strange... my 50mm 1.8 works fine at large apertures.

I have a series of sample shots taken at f/2.0 ISO 800 if you're interested. They're in my gallery here: solarii85.multiply.com under the Bangkok album. The images are resized, but they're pretty much the same full size.

All the night shots were taken with the 50mm at f2. Apart from the noise the images were reasonably sharp even when zoomed to 100%. At least nowhere as bad as the image you posted up. Very strange indeed. I'll post up some 100% crops if I get the chance.

[imaginary_number]

Doesn't look normal to me... Might be a lemon.

[iamcarlos]

nope.. though it's not tack sharp, mine has never never been like no.1...

I'm loving the lens though....

[holeinone]

My 50/1.8 is 15 years old and it does not give me blurry pics like the one shown in Photo 1. Looks totally off.

[Russ]

Originally Posted by holeinone My 50/1.8 is 15 years old and it does not give me blurry pics like the one shown in Photo 1. Looks totally off.

You prob have a Mark 1 like me - which may be better than the Mark II in terms of quality. Mark 1 was Canon's mid range 50mm until the 1.4 came up and then they came up with the Mark 2 - perhaps the element quality is not quite the same to keep costs low??? But then again, the Mark 1 was also not expensive then .... not sure..

The 1.8 pic in the post looks overexposed by about 1 stop compared to the F4 one. If the F4 was taken at 1/2000, the F2 should be 1/8000 and the 1 stop overexposure would lead to sky burnout in the blue channel (that is why it looks less blue) and bleeding of the blue into the branches, adding to the softness.

http://www.photozone.de/8Reviews/len...0_18/index.htm
has a 1.8 test with a pic taken at 1.8 and 4.0.

[holeinone]

Originally Posted by Russ You prob have a Mark 1 like me - which may be better than the Mark II in terms of quality. Mark 1 was Canon's mid range 50mm until the 1.4 came up and then they came up with the Mark 2 - perhaps the element quality is not quite the same to keep costs low??? But then again, the Mark 1 was also not expensive then .... not sure.. The 1.8 pic in the post looks overexposed by about 1 stop compared to the F4 one. If the F4 was taken at 1/2000, the F2 should be 1/8000 and the 1 stop overexposure would lead to sky burnout in the blue channel (that is why it looks less blue) and bleeding of the blue into the branches, adding to the softness. http://www.photozone.de/8Reviews/len...0_18/index.htm has a 1.8 test with a pic taken at 1.8 and 4.0.

Nope. Mine is a Mk 2.

[dRebelXT]

My pictures are like this. f
I am using center focus point, focussing on the large leaf on the left. I cropped out the center
portion.

I start to call it an icecream lens now.

At F/1.8, shutter speed is 1/1600;
F/2.8, 1/640;
F/4, 1/200.

[freelancer]

Try taking more than one shot at F1.8 with the 50mm. The focus may shift slightly and this is a known issue with this lens since the micromotor moves in discreet steps (and therefore not accurate for shallow DOF). It gets better at F2.8 onwards. I had also recently tested a new 50/1.8 and it looked not as good as an older 50/1.8 which I had sold some time back. Not sure if its Canon QC or what but just my experiences.

[Russ]

DRebelXT

Pardon my saying so, but your 3 shots don't seem to have the exact view point. But exposurewise much better than the shots in the first post. Assuming the focussing was correct, your point is well made though.

I will try some shots on my 13 year old 1.8 Mk 1

[Russ]

Here is my test of my 50 1.8 Mk I bought in 1993
100% centre crop
Focus was on the '17'

http://www.flickr.com/photos/14546796@N00/141244803/

[freelancer]

Originally Posted by Russ Here is my test of my 50 1.8 Mk I bought in 1993 100% centre crop Focus was on the '17'

That's a very good copy of the 50/1.8 wide open. The one I bought in end 2003 came close and the recent one I tested (Dec 2005) was nowhere close

[Kongo]

As mentioned earlier, took some shots for comparison sake.

I am no pro, so don't expect high accuracy or hold me responsible hor..

Took 3 shots each & choose the best to my eyes.. tripod, cable release & gray card to check exposure & WB.. what else did I forget? Nevermind ..

The test image:


Comparison of 50f1.4 & 50f1.8 II at f1.8


Comparison of of 50f1.4 & 50f1.8 II at f2.0


Comparison of of 50f1.4 & 50f1.8 II at f2.2


The gallery is down, so the above files are link from geocities, not sure abt visibility and bandwidth..

[Kongo]

Maybe I shd add a wide open shot for 50f1.4 for comparison sake:



Quite soft & some CA problems, but I think still better than 50f1.8 II @ f1.8 which really is quite bad.