Canon 35mm f/1.8 "The Plastic Fantastic"

[arthurpolaroid]

I have one Canon in the collection, a Rebel G. My parents gave me the 50mm f/1.8 for Christmas. While I see mixed reviews (mainly for build quality, or lack there of), for the price, it does seem to be a very nice little lens. Is anyone else out there using it on their Canon film SLR's? Thoughts, opinions?

Merry Christmas!

-Arthur

 

[altim]

It is a great lens, I have used it for years. The build quality is a bit concerning at first, but it has never given me any problems. I've recently "upgraded" to the 50 1.4, but I think the 1.8 is actually sharper.

 

[J Rollinger]

I used the plastic 1.8 for several years and loved it.. Razor sharp!

 

[j-dogg]

I've got the Mk.I metal mount version of that lens. Absolutely stupid sharp when stopped down to 2.8 or 2

 

[arthurpolaroid]

Love the feedback- thank you! Shot my 1st roll with it last night- can't wait to see the results. Shot most of it at about f/2-f/4 or so.

A

 

[dnjl]

I had one of those, used it with an EOS 33v. Terrific lens, if you can stand the plastic toy-like finish, the rattling and clunking and the rather unsophisticated sound of the autofocus. The manual focus was absolutely terrible, too.
But yes, it took tack-sharp pictures, even wide open.

On a side note, you may want to correct the topic title.

 

[tron_]

I can also say that I havent heard anything but good things about the lens. I have the Nikon counterpart (the 50mm 1.8D) but have read a lot about the Canon 50mm 1.8 too. From what I have heard its very sharp, has lot distortion, and is almost free of any chromatic aberration.

 

[Tony-S]

I had it early on, but didn't like the bokeh it produced. I then moved to the EF 50mm f/1.4, which is a very nice lens. However, I sold it about 2 years ago for the Sigma 50mm f/1.4. It's an outstanding lens.

 

[dnjl]

I always thought the bokeh was very acceptable. Here's an example:

 

[arthurpolaroid]

I have read that for the price, the lens is pretty hard to beat. Seems to be a very nice match with the Rebel G.

 

[Rol_Lei Nut]

I always thought the bokeh was very acceptable. Here's an example:

*Acceptable* is certainly in the eye of the beholder...

 

[Tony-S]

I always thought the bokeh was very acceptable. Here's an example:

Yeah, that's what I remember about it. It just isn't that appealing to me, particularly compared to my Sigma or Zeiss 50mm macro.

 

[sandermarijn]

Congrats with your nice Christmas present Arthur. I have the lens and the same camera too. It's a great lens: nicely understated colour & contrast (not as over-punchy as some modern lenses), very sharp stopped down just a bit, no problems with focus shift as you change the aperture (not so uncommon with 50's), and above all small, light and cheap.

One minor thing I don't like is how the focus can be slightly (but only slightly) erratic. Not terrible but definitely not as reliable as some other Canons with USM. Bokeh could also be better but again nothing terrible and you can't have it all for under 100 USD/Euros. Once printed or scanned few will be able to tell a difference with say the 50/1.4. Think of how much film, paper and chemistry you can get for the money saved!

 

[segedi]

I had this lens before moving to the 1.4 (now sold), and now a Sigma 1.4 is on it's way. I really did like the 1.8 though. It's super light and super sharp. But I did notice some vignetting wide open when using my Canon Elan 7 so it had to go.

 

[drumminor2nd]

I had one of these once. The hood was crap (a separate ring to attach a hood... really? Not even a screw-on hood?), the build was pretty poor (it's taped together inside, so don't drop it on the concrete), but it's hard to make a bad 50mm lens for 35mm film. Ignore the "scene kid" bokeh crowd and just enjoy a super-sharp, lightweight lens . Don't expect the moon, but you will be more satisfied than if you had the yucky mid-'90s kit lenses Canon insisted on bundling with every Rebel.

That was a very good lens. IQ was on par with my 200/2.8 L I used at the time for shooting college hockey. I dropped it once, but I caught it on my shoe like a hacky sack and lowered it safely to the carpet. I don't want to know what it would have done had it just fallen to the floor .

Have fun.
--Bob

 

[spacer]

I recently bought one, and used it at my daughter's Christmas pageant on my 60D. It was easy to get good shots with only a midrange ISO, and I was shooting circles around the hapless parents with their high dollar dSLRs, flashing the poor kids and muttering about how they were only getting washed out pics of peoples' heads.
My Rebel X made its way out of its storage box, and I mounted a battery grip to it, and I may slap the 1.8 on it to burn up some B&W film downtown. I think that'd be a pretty decent low-financial-risk street rig.

 

[pekelnik]

I have used one on 5dm2 and 1v. It's a pretty sharp lens, however you can forget about manual focusing and the bokeh is, frankly, horrendous. I also have one of the latest zuiko 50/1.4s which I use sometimes, but as I found out in another thread, its adapter drains the
1v battery.

 

[ntenny]

It's hard to think of a better bang-for-the-buck lens. I actually think the ancient-tech 50/2.5 "Compact-Macro" is sharper, at least my samples as I've used them, but that's still a comparison between two very good lenses, and the 50/2.5 is a fair chunk more expensive. The bokeh hasn't bothered me, although I've seen some shots (like the sample above) where I didn't like it---but bokeh is so variable with settings and lighting and all that that it's hard to generalize.

Are the optics the same as the FD 50/1.8? There's a lens that really seems to be able to do no wrong.

-NT

 

[Laurent]

the build was pretty poor (it's taped together inside, so don't drop it on the concrete), but it's hard to make a bad 50mm lens for 35mm film. Ignore the "scene kid" bokeh crowd and just enjoy a super-sharp, lightweight lens .
--Bob

I dropped mine on concrete (actually, my wife dropped it but the fault was mine since I did not zip the bag shut) and I first thought it was dead. Since she managed to save the 24/2.8 I was happy enough. After a few hours looking at the poor lens in the eyes, I finally was able to snap it back and use it again. I dropped it (saving my 300/4 lens this time :confused and snapped it back again... This did not even seem to affect the results, I'm not sure my other lenses would have survived two drops...