Canon 50mm Lenses Compared
Image Quality top
The 50mm f/1.8 STM, 50mm f/1.8 II and original 50mm f/1.8 have the same optics, and test identically.
Distortion
The 50mm f/2.5 Macro has no distortion, while all the others curiously have the same moderate barrel distortion.
Flare and Ghosts
They are all have very little, except for the 50mm f/1.0 L, which can have quite a lot in some conditions.
Sharpness
They are all equally super-sharp at moderate apertures, and get equally softer from diffraction at the smallest apertures.
The only visible differences occur at the largest apertures and in the corners. In real-world shooting the corners never have anything in focus so it doesn’t matter, but under laboratory conditions where we devise tests that have things in focus out there I can see what I’m going to share here.
The f/1.4 lens is the least sharp overall, but not by much. The f/1.8 and f/2.5 Macro are as good as each other, and better than the f/1.4, but the f/1.4 is the most popular because it’s just about as sharp as everything else, and much more convenient and almost as light as the f/1.8.
If you can get the f/1.2 to focus reliably, when in focus, the f/1.2 is as good as the f/1.8 and f/2.5, and even sharper at the largest apertures, especially in the corners.
The f/1.0 lens is as sharp as the f/1.2 lens, and both are better than the others at the largest apertures. The f/1.0 focuses more reliably than the f/1.2, but is less sharp in the last few millimeters of the corners.
Here are more details at specific apertures:
At f/1.0
Only the 50mm f/1.0 gores here. It’s sharp and contrasty throughout most of the image, but only if it’s in perfect focus.
Otherwise there is a slight veil of color from spherochromatism.
At f/1.4
The f/1.0 lens is very sharp and contrasty, while the f/1.4 USM has lower contrast due to its spherical aberration, absent in the aspherical f/1.0 lens. At f/1.4, the f/1.0 is on its game while the f/1.4 is gasping to keep up.
The f/1.2 L is probably the same as the f/1.0 at f/1.4 in the center, while the f/1.2 is sharpest in the corners at f/1.4 of these three f/1.0, f/1.2 and f/1.4 lenses — but I get less consistent focus with the f/1.2, so I prefer the f/1.0 lens.
At f/2
The f/1.0 is very sharp and contrasty, while the f/1.8 and f/1.4 lenses have lower contrast due to spherical aberration.
In the last few millimeters of the corners, the f/1.8 and f/1.4 gets blurrier due to coma, while the f/1.
0 lens gets much softer — but the f/1.0 is much sharper throughout most of the image.
The f/1.4 is about the same as the f/1.8 lens at f/2. Both have a lot of coma in the last few millimeters of the corners, and lower overall contrast from spherical aberration not present in the f/1.0 and f/1.2 lenses.
The f/1.2 is the sharpest in the far corners, and as sharp as the f/1.0 in most of the image.
The f/1.0 and f/1.2 are the sharpest of these f/2.
At f/2.8
Now all these lenses are equally super sharp over almost all of the image.
If you get really picky, the f/1.8 is just a tad softer than the f/1.0 and the f/1.4 is a tad softer than the f/1.8, especially on the sides.
The only real differences are in the last few millimeters in the corners, and only if you actually have something in focus out there.
If you do, the f/1.8 is blurrier from coma and the f/1.0 is softer out there.
Not charted, but I did shoot a direct comparison, and the 24-70mm f/2.8 L II is as sharp as the f/1.0 at f/2.8. In the corners, the 24-70mm f/2.8 L II is the sharpest of all these lenses! By f/2.8, the best lens is the newest lens, the 24-70mm f/2.8 L II.
At f/4
All these lenses are equally super sharp.
The only difference is that the f/1.0 L is less sharp in the last half a millimeter of the full frame corners.
Adding the 28-105mm USM II to the comparison at 50mm at f/4, it’s wide-open and much softer than the rest, all of which are ultra sharp.
At f/5.6
All these lenses are equally super sharp, including the 24-70/2.8 II and 28-105 USM.
The only difference is that the f/1.
0 L and 28-105 USM are slightly less sharp in the last half a millimeter of the full frame corners.
The 24-70/2.8 L II is also a tiny bit less sharp in the farthest corner and the f1.4 isn’t quite as sharp on the sides, leaving the f/1.8 and f/2.5 lenses as slightly more excellent than the rest under the microscope at f/2.5.
At f/8 and smaller
They’re all the same; diffraction is out biggest detriment to quality.
Recommendations top
If I carry a 50mm lens with my Canon, it’s almost always this cheapest 50mm f/1.8 II, not any of the more expensive options.
Canon 50mm f/1.8 II.
For most use, I prefer my Canon 50mm f/1.8 II because it’s Canon’s sharpest and lightest 50mm lens. It’s all plastic, but it turns out that the plastic mount makes mounting and unmounting much smoother.
If I break it, so what. I’ll try to get it fixed under warranty, and even if I had to buy two or three more, I’m still out less money than if I bought just one 50mm f/1.4 — which isn’t as sharp anyway.
Canon 50mm f/1.8.
The original Canon 50mm f/1.8 uses the same great optics as today’s 50mm f/1.8 II, in a tougher package. It has a slightly slower and much noisier “Arc Form Drive” autofocus motor.
I also prefer either 50mm f/1.8 because they use 5-bladed diaphragms, so sunstars have 10 points.
Canon 50mm f/2.5 Macro.
The Canon 50mm f/2.5 Macro is as sharp as the f/1.8 lenses, and focuses closer. I prefer the f/1.8 lenses because I prefer the extra stop of speed over any need to get any closer than a foot and a half.
Canon 50mm f/1.
4 USM.
The Canon 50mm f/1.4 USM is Canon’s most popular 50mm lens, and adds the ability to grab the focus ring at any time for instant manual focus override. I don’t like it because, under laboratory conditions, it’s not as sharp as the 50mm f/1.8 II, and because it has an 8-bladed diaphragm that leads to silly 8-pointed sunstars.
Canon 50mm f/1.2 L.
The Canon 50mm f/1.2 L is very popular with weekend wedding shooters.
I don’t use the 50/1.2 because the sample I reviewed in 2007 didn’t focus accurately on my cameras, and it sometimes would be completely out of focus, even if the camera confirmed that it thought it had captured perfect focus. Today I have not tried it with the newest Canon cameras with which it probably works magnificently — but on my original 5D, the 50mm f/1.0 below gives much better and more consistent results.
Canon 50mm f/1.
0 L.
The Canon 50mm f/1.0 L is the world’s fastest lens ever made for any 35mm SLR, DSLR or any autofocus camera.
It weighs twice as much as the 50mm f/1.2 L, four times as much as the 50mm f/1.4 USM and over eight times as much as my favorite 50mm f/1.8 II.
As an odd piece of trivia, it is so far advanced that no one, not Nikon or anyone, has ever come out with any AF lens this fast or advanced, and this lens came out back in the 1980s. Another piece of trivia is that paradoxically it’s also the only 50mm Canon AF lens that has a genuinely useful depth-of-field scale. This lens usually has no depth-of-field at f/1.0, yet all the other lenses on which some of us might actually like to use a real depth-of-field scale either have none, or have scales so compressed that they aren’t very useful.
More trivia is that this lens was first announced back in 1987 with the very first EOS camera. Although discontinued in 2000 from lack of interest, today’s newest Canon 85mm f/1.
2 L II has almost identical appearance, size and weight and seems made of mostly the same exterior parts. This lens lives today as the 85/1.2L II!
If you want to throw backgrounds way out of focus or shoot in no light, there is no 50mm lens that comes close. Its autofocus is slower than the other lenses due to the extra precision needed at f/1.0, and I find that it’s fast enough to photograph action like my kids. You need a camera with an AF fine tune adjustment to get the best results. This len is astoundingly sharp and contrasty at f/1.0, but because depth-of-field is so vapor thin at f/1.0, so if you’re not getting sharp results, it’s because you didn’t get it in perfect focus. For head shots, depth-of-field at f/1.0 is much less than the length of an eyelash: you can’t get both ends of the eyelash in focus, much less the eyeball, too.
Beware comments from non-professional reviewers that lack the skill to get perfect focus and think this lens is less sharp than other 50mm lenses; this f/1.
0 is much sharper and contrastier at large apertures than the 50mm f/1.4 USM — but only if you have perfect focus.
Help me help you top
I support my growing family through this website, as crazy as it might seem.
The biggest help is when you use any of these links when you get anything, regardless of the country in which you live. It costs you nothing, and is this site’s, and thus my family’s, biggest source of support. These places have the best prices and service, which is why I’ve used them since before this website existed. I recommend them all personally.
If you find this
page as helpful as a book you might have had to buy or a workshop you may
have had to take, feel free to help me continue helping everyone.
If you’ve gotten your gear through one of my links or helped otherwise, you’re family. It’s great people like you who allow me to keep adding to this site full-time.
Thanks!
If you haven’t helped yet, please do, and consider helping me with a gift of $5.00.
As this page is copyrighted and formally registered, it is unlawful to make copies, especially in the form of printouts for personal use. If you wish to make a printout for personal use, you are granted one-time permission only if you PayPal me $5.00 per printout or part thereof. Thank you!
Thanks for reading!
Mr. & Mrs. Ken Rockwell, Ryan and Katie.
Home Donate New Search Gallery Reviews How-To Books Links Workshops About Contact
Surprising!?! Canon 50mm F1.2 vs F1.8 Lens Comparison
Take a look at the RF 50mm F/1.2 Canon versus the 50mm F/1.8 RF lens for Canon. Now I know there’s a great disparity between these two lenses at $2200 and $200. So what do you get here with the F/1.
2 that you don’t get with the F/1.8? Let’s just see how these two lenses compare.
Hi this is Jay P. Morgan. Today on The Slanted Lens I’m going to take a look at the RF 50mm F/1.2 Canon versus the 50mm F/1.8 RF lens for Canon. Now I know there’s a great disparity between these two lenses $2200, roughly a little more, and $200. So what do you get here with the F/1.2 that you don’t get with the F/1.8? What do you get with the F/1.8? It’s pretty amazing what you get with the F/1.2. And what you get for the price of the F/1.8 is pretty amazing. Let’s take a look at these two. Let’s look at picture quality. Let’s look at bokeh. Let’s look at focus and let’s look at infinity focus. Let’s look at that close focus. Let’s just see how these two lenses compare.
Now I know that you’re not going to get as great of a lens out of this little F/1.8 lens as you do with the F/1.2. But is it worth $2,000 more? Or maybe it’s not. Let’s just take a look and see exactly what we got.
So this is the most important test to me, and that’s the image quality test. Just how sharp is this lens. And what do each of these lenses look like. I looked at the F/1.8 and immediately as I pulled these two up I see that the F/1.8 is a little more crunchy, it’s a little more contrasty. The F/1.8 also has a little bit of a reddish tint to it. Whereas the F/1.2 is a little more yellowish. So if I punch in and just look at the sharpness, that F/1.2 is pretty dang sharp. The F/1.8 is sharp. I mean, it’s not amazing, but it’s sharp. It’s not terrible. But it’s not the F/1.2 that’s for sure.
On this next image, you just see it right off, the highlights are cleaner on that F/1.2. It gives you a nice contrast, it is not as contrasty as the F/1.
8. The F/1.8 is definitely a lot more contrasty. I feel like I see a little bit of vignetting around the edges of that F/1.8. Whereas I’m not seeing that on that F/1.2. The F/1.2 has a pretty clean exposure all the way across the image. That F/1.8 is it’s sharp and for a $200 lens it’s pretty amazing. But the F/1.2 is just “out of this park” sharp.
So here are the images I shot of the window frame. I’m in pretty tight. I tried to frame them up about the same distance and I just want to see the difference in focus here. And again, there’s so much clarity, it’s just very clean and clear with the F/1.2. It’s a very sharp lens. The F/1.2 gives you the right amount of contrast. The F/1.8 is trying to give you too much contrast possibly to compensate, which kind of makes it look a little sharper. But here’s where these two lenses do take a right hand turn from each other. The F/1.8 has a major advantage because if you go to a tighter shot the F/1.8 is able to focus well at 11.8 Whereas the F/1.
2 is more like a foot and a third. So that’s somewhere around 15 or 16 inches. That doesn’t seem like a lot, but it’s pretty significant. You can see it here on how tight we can get with that F/1.8 and how far back we are with the F/1.2. As you move back, obviously, that’s not going to be as critical. But when it comes to getting in tight on things, that 50mm F/1.8 is probably the one of the closest focusing 50 millimeters that’s ever been made. That’s not a macro lens. And so it really does give you the ability to get in really close on things. It is a fascinating thing about sharpness because sometimes a lens can be too sharp. Hasselblad use to put a filter on their lenses to soften their lenses up a little bit so that they looked a little nicer with skin tone. So sometimes super, super sharp isn’t always the goal. But in this case, obviously that F/1.2 is definitely sharper than the F/1.8.
I love bokeh. And this little store that we’re at gave us a great place to be able to shoot some bokeh.
There are several things going on here that are very interesting. The F/1.2 is a little bit yellowish and the F/1.8 is a little bit reddish. In this scenario with that F/1.8 the red looks a little nicer on her face. These could both be corrected without any problem. But there’s a really good look at the difference between two thirds of stop with the F/1.2 versus the F/1.8. Look at how much larger the bokeh is on the left.The bokeh blooms, it’s a larger size. And it falls way more out of focus and gives you a much prettier kind of bokeh. Whereas the one on the right, the F/1.8 is okay. But it doesn’t give you that really big beautiful bokeh like you’re getting with the F/1.2. So that’s a matter of apertures. So that is something to consider.
What’s interesting though, is both these lenses suffer a little bit from that kind of football bokeh out towards the edge. The bokeh is a little more rounded in the middle, then you get that kind of cat eye or football shape out towards the edge.
They both have that problem. I don’t think the F/1.2 has it worse than the F/1.8 but they both certainly have it.That depends on whether you like the bokeh like that or not, or care about it or not. I think sometimes it’s just a way overblown issue. I don’t think it’s a big deal. You know, as long as the bokeh is beautiful and has a nice transition and I think each of these do. But I do love that 2/3s of a stop that you gain. So there’s a difference on how round and how beautiful that bokeh is going to look.
Let’s take a look at one other image that is a little tighter. What is beautiful about this is I get her eye in focus with that F/1.2. But her second eye is way out of focus. On the F/1.8, I get the front eye in focus and that back eye is falling out of focus, but not as much as the F/1.8. So that 2/3s of a stop also gives you more depth of field. That is something to consider as well. But when it comes to Bokeh, I think that F/1.2 is pretty amazing.
Let’s take a look at these two images when you focus on infinity.
I’m really getting edge to edge sharpness. When you look at this from side to side they are very clean and very sharp. Both of these are giving us nice and clean focus from side to side. This is so important when you’re doing any kind of stars or Astro photography, or anything where you want to focus out at infinity. Immediately you can see on the screen here is that you have a tremendous vignetting going on with that F/1.8. Whereas you don’t have that vignetting, maybe a tiny bit, with the F/1.2. But not nearly as much as with the F/1.8. The F/1.2 is giving you consistent shadows and detail in the sky and in the mountain. Whereas the F/1.8 is giving a little bit of vignetting in the corners. And that detail falls off on the sides as far as the shadow detail starts to clog up on the sides. But there’s a look at those two when it comes to focus on infinity.
So let me wrap this up. This little 50mm F/1.8 for $200 is a screaming deal. It gives you a close focus distance of 11.
8 inches. It’s lightweight so it goes on a mirrorless camera which makes it very simple to carry with you when you go backpacking or to carry it with you in any kind of situation where you are concerned about weight. Which of these lenses would I buy? That’s an easy decision for me. I go for quality and sharpness overall, so I would definitely buy the F/1.2 over the F/1.8 for those two reasons, sharpness, and that bokeh fall off with the F/1.2. That’s important to me. If I’m going to get a fixed focal length lens then I want it to have a very shallow depth of field. The F/1.2 is a fabulous lens. I hope you learned a few things in this comparison between these two 50 millimeter lenses. You know price is a big factor but quality is too so in some ways it may come down to a very tough decision.
So keep those cameras rollin’ and keep on clickin’.
See all the gear I can fit in my SKB 1813 case.
Canon EF 50mm f/1.8 II lens review and comparison with Canon EF 50 mm f/1.
8 I
Finally, I got to another review article for the photo section. Today I want to introduce you to two lenses, namely Canon EF 50 mm f/1.8 mk I and mk II. It so happened that I have both at home, and it would be a sin not to compare them, especially since there is something to compare there.
Who will fight for the place of the best today?
Canon EF 50mm f/1.8. Was released on March 1987 years old and is an entry-level autofocus prime lens. It has a carbon body and a metal mount for the bayonet.
In December 1990, the EF 50mm f/1.8 was replaced by the 50mm f/1.8 II . The 50mm f/1.8 II is basically identical to the 1987 variant, but has a plastic bayonet mount and lacks a range scale.
Both lenses deliver sharp, high image quality while being the cheapest prime lenses in Canon’s lineup. Recently, the second revision is very popular, especially among beginner photographers, due to the fact that the price / quality ratio is unbeatable.
The first revision did not gain much popularity in Russia due to the fact that the mass fascination with digital SLR cameras has begun quite recently, and the lens has not been produced for more than 20 years.
The EF 50mm f/1.8 is incredibly hard to come by, but I was lucky. My copy was found in the United States and brought to Russia. Once again I express my gratitude to Gevorg for helping with such a find. By the way, this lens cost me $400, while the 50mm f / 1.8 II in stores was priced at 3500r, which is about $100. A crazy difference, you might think, well, yes, I will say and proceed to the review.
Of course, the should start with a look and feel lenses. Let’s do this, you can click on the pictures, I didn’t make them much smaller on purpose so that you can see everything.
Seemingly the same, but at the same time completely different lenses. Let’s start with the generalities:
Canon EF 50mm f/1. 8 I |
Canon EF 50mm f/1.8 II | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Aperture | f/1.8 – f/22 | f /1.8 – f/22 | ||
| Design | 5 groups / 6 elements | 5 groups / 6 elements focusing distance | 0.45 m | 0.45 m |
| Horizontal angle of view | 40° | 40° | ||
| Diagonal viewing angle | 46° | 46° | ||
| Vertical angle vision | 27° | 27° | ||
| Max. diameter | 67.4 mm | 68.2 mm | ||
| Length | 42.5 mm | 41 mm | ||
| Weight | 190 g | 130 g | ||
| Filter thread diameter | 52 mm | 52 mm | ||
| NOT available for sale NOT available |
||||
specifications are identical to .
Nothing has changed in three and a half years. Here’s a diagram of the internals:
Only the appearance of the lenses has been changed. Slight differences in physical size and weight. Looking at the numbers, you can’t understand anything, you need to compare their appearance, holding them in your hands. You will have to compare according to the photos shown above. The differences are really big. What is it worth carbon body EF 50mm f/1.8, it has a pleasant feel and inspires strength and reliability. In the EF 50mm f/1.8 II, on the other hand, the usual plastic body, like whale lenses, is unpleasant to hold in your hands, fortunately, you don’t think about it at all during shooting. Another huge difference: the EF 50mm f/1.8 has a metal bayonet mount, which gives a certain strength to the entire structure and the reliability of attaching the lens to the body. Nothing hangs and does not play. The EF 50mm f/1.8 II has a plastic mount and is part of the overall plastic lens construction:
Another important thing is focus ring .
You get used to it, or rather, you get used to the fact that for all lenses it is located on the body of the body, for f / 1.8 II this ring may not be found at first glance. It is located at the very end, for me personally, it is inconvenient to manage such a ring. Another conversation with f / 1.8 I, everything is somehow familiar here, and the ring is in place and there is a focusing scale. And by the way, f / 1.8 II does not have a focusing scale. Saved literally on everything, it’s a pity.
Here we have examined and analyzed in detail everything related to the appearance of both models. Now we can proceed directly to field tests for picture quality .
I conditionally divided the quality test into 4 parts. There will be 4 tests in different conditions. For all tests except the 4th one, I used a 500 watt building spotlight as a light source. Thanks to OBI for selling such spotlights so inexpensively (500r). The camera is my favorite Canon EOS 5D Mark II.
The camera was on a tripod all the time, so when changing lenses, movement was almost completely excluded, I did this with great care.
Test – White Sheet . In this part, I wanted to introduce you to vignetting, photographing a blank white sheet of paper illuminated by a spotlight. However, I photographed a white sheet with both lenses at maximum aperture and moved on to the next test, completely forgetting about the rest of the “holes”. Since the test bench had already been damaged and I could not go back, the test did not quite work out. Also in this test, I took pictures with and without peripheral illumination correction. There is such a new function in 5D2 (it is also in the new 50D, I think that it should also be in 1D mkIV and 7D, because these are very fresh cameras), which eliminates vignetting on the frame due to preloaded image processing programs into the camera. However, an incident happened here, I saw it only when I uploaded the finished pictures to LightRoom (I shot everything in RAW).
Both pairs of photos were the same, that is, as if the correction did not work on RAWs, and the camera clearly displayed these differences on the screen to me. But anyway, despite the failures, I will post both pairs of photos:
| Canon EF 50mm f/1.8 I | Canon EF 50mm f/1.8 II | |
| Uncorrected | ||
| Corrected |
there are no differences at all. Unless in the first couple of frames it turned out that f / 1.8 II is a little lighter, there is less vignetting. I’m inclined to believe that this is a coincidence. On the second pair, the pictures are exactly the same. So the score is 1 – 1.
Checkered Sheet Test . In this test, I wanted to show the possibility of chromatic aberration at the corners of the frame. To do this, I pasted a sheet of checkered paper on a white sheet and photographed exactly perpendicularly with both lenses.
Again an oversight – the sheet turned out to be small, and it was not possible to photograph it for the whole frame. But I found a way out, drew marks with crosses. The left cross is the center of the frame, the right one is the focus point. So in the pictures, I presented you with the top right piece of the frame. 9As 0003
| Canon EF 50mm f/1.8 I | Canon EF 50mm f/1.8 II | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| we see the lines are straight, there are no distortions, in any case, visible to the eye. The pictures here, as well as in the previous test, are the same. Score 2 – 2.
Test – Vignetting . Well, everything is clear from the name of the test. Since I flew in the first test, forgetting about the various aperture values, we will correct. 3 pairs of shots were taken with different values: f/1.8; f/3.5; f/5.6; for each lens respectively. Further, the frames were adjusted in LightRoom to one brightness where it was required, no settings were changed anymore.
As we can see again, the results on both lenses are the same. At f/1.8 we see very strong vignetting. Where without this, any lens at the maximum “hole” gives vignetting. This is especially noticeable in technical shots, as in my test, but in reality, when you shoot nature, people or something else, you will not notice it. Well, except perhaps in the sky, for example, or in any other monotonous places in the frame. At f / 3.5 the situation is much better, there are only small dark places in the corners of the frame. I must say that the picture is not worse at f / 2.8, and the aperture is higher. At f/5.6, vignetting is no longer visible. We can consider the “hole” 5.6 optimal for this lens. Test – “Bokeh or Bokeh” . In this test, I would like to show you how lenses can “blur” the background in a photo. To do this, I set up a tripod with a camera opposite the Christmas tree with garlands. It’s already mid-February, and we have a Christmas tree at home 😉 It’s cool. In this test, I switched the lenses to manual focus and turned the focus to the shortest distance to the subject so that the tree was out of focus, due to which we get the maximum blur. Four pairs of shots were taken at different apertures. f/1.8, f/2.8, f/3.5, f/5.6 respectively.
This is more of a creative lens test than a technical one. Therefore, it is worth evaluating the way you like it. What is worth saying is that in non-L lenses from Canon, bokeh is obtained in the form of pentagons, but in L it is round on any hole. So the tests of are over. The account is equal. The lenses are essentially identical, so it’s still not clear to me why the second revision of the Canon EF 50mm f / 1.8 was released. Against all odds, the second version came out no better than the first. But it’s much cheaper, probably, Canon decided to take the mass character, and not the cost. Although this is not clear to me, in the 90s, DSLRs were, well, very expensive entertainment. I don’t know how it is abroad, but in Russia for sure. Now let’s draw conclusions from all of the above . So which of these two lenses should you choose? Canon EF 50mm f/1.8 I or Canon EF 50mm f/1.8 II? This question cannot be answered unambiguously, there are many reasons that interfere with the choice, for example, the fact that the Canon EF 50mm f / 1.8 I can no longer be bought, it is a rarity in the full sense of the word. So you probably won’t even have that choice. But, nevertheless, my arguments for the first version: it is more convenient, it is stronger, it is more pleasant. There is only one argument for the second version: cheap and cheerful. Was it worth it for me to overpay as much as 4 times for the first version? I think so, otherwise I wouldn’t have it in my hands now. For me, the most important thing is reliability and ease of use. On the other hand, I could buy a Canon EF 50mm f/1.4 for the same money, but I couldn’t resist the temptation to have a rarity, a piece of history. That’s it friends. Great and helpful review. I look forward to your comments and feedback. Write what you liked or disliked in the article, I will definitely take all this into account in the next writing. So see you soon at the same place. UPD, useful comments: Canon EF 50 mm f/1.8 STMDescription Canon EF 50 mm f/1.8 STM Excellent lens for portraits Using the full-frame EOS Canon EF 50 mm f/1.8 STM works like a regular lens, allowing you to get a perspective that is close to that of a human eye. Instant and incredibly quiet focusing The STM focusing system provides fast and near-silent operation during photography, allowing you to instantly capture the frame at the right moment. During movie recording, focusing is smoother and slower, ensuring a professional cinematic effect. Impressive results even in low light The Canon EF 50mm f/1.8 STM boasts excellent aperture, allowing you to shoot even in low light conditions. Capture an unforgettable moment with natural light – the result will never disappoint you! Sharp, high-quality shots With a fixed focal length, this model delivers amazing photo quality whether you’re shooting photos or recording video clips. For still images, lens clarity and contrast are enhanced and distortion is minimized. The lenses used in the Canon EF 50mm f/1.8 STM feature Canon’s unique Super Spectra coating to reduce flare and ghosting when shooting against backlight. Full description Focal length: 50mm Minimum aperture: 22 Angle of view: 40d, 27d, 46d 900 02 Minimum focusing distance: 0.35m Maximum magnification (x) : 0.21 Distance information: Yes Auto focus motor: STM Lens construction: 6/5 elements/groups 90 002 Lens filter diameter: 49mm Number of aperture blades: 7 Dimensions: 69.2 x 39.3 mm Weight: 160 g All specificationsTop of the page ⇑ Reviews 900 02 Victoria November 24, 2021 There was a choice between the Chinese counterpart and the original. Since I was not limited by finances, the familiar photographers convinced me to take the Canon 50mm, which I do not regret at all. Autofocus is fast and … Leonid October 28, 2021 This fix is just what you need for portraits. |
Testing at f/11 and f/22 gave the same results as f/5.6, so it’s only a good idea to decrease your aperture size if you’re shooting very bright subjects. In practice, I do not use an aperture value higher than f / 8, and then when shooting in bright sunlight in nature. So, the score is 3 – 3. 
8 II 
Let it remain on their conscience. 
I really love old lenses, for this reason I also bought a Canon EF 28-70 f / 2.8L, you can read its review and comparison here. 
It is great for daily shooting in high quality. 
