is this price for real???

[Ms Monny]

http://cgi.ebay.com/Canon-EF-50mm-f-...item35b149933e

I think I had a heart failure when I saw how much.......is this for real or is he dreaming??

[jim]

B&H have one for $4499. A F1.0 lens is bound to be a bit pricey.

[Debra Faulkner]

Lol, yeah probably for real ... for enthusiasts of wide open lenses apparently it is possible to have to pay around this price. You can imagine with f1.0 how good it would be in low light!

[jim]

Apparently it's discontinued too. Do they have a 50 F1.0 in the current lineup?

[Xenedis]

http://cgi.ebay.com/Canon-EF-50mm-f-...item35b149933e

I think I had a heart failure when I saw how much.......is this for real or is he dreaming??

That price range is to be expected for that lens. Wide apertures drive prices high.

Even though it was discontinued many years ago, it still commands a very high price, despite being notoriously soft wide open.

Scout around for the price of the also-discontinued 200/1.8L; it's not a common lens, is in plenty of demand, and commands high prices. I only saw a new specimen on one occasion (in a defunct retailer in about 2005), and the price there and then was $10,100.

[Ms Monny]

okay! thanks. I was hunting out the 1.4 and saw this and though OMG! but i could guess that f1 would be unreal in low light!

[Xenedis]

Apparently it's discontinued too. Do they have a 50 F1.0 in the current lineup?

It is long-discontinued.

The widest aperture Canon currently offers is f/1.2, and there are two lenses which sport that aperture: 50/1.2L and 85/1.2L II.

[Xenedis]

okay! thanks. I was hunting out the 1.4 and saw this and though OMG! but i could guess that f1 would be unreal in low light!

Compared to the f/2.8 zooms a lot of people use, an f/1 lens offers a huge increase in light-gathering ability.

The f/1 lens gathers eight times as much light for a fixed shutter speed and ISO combination.

[Ms Monny]

I just couldn't afford it though!! So, a f1.4 would be okay too I presume? Love to have better seperation that comes with a larger aperature plus the low light factor would be good for a night time.

[Xenedis]

I just couldn't afford it though!! So, a f1.4 would be okay too I presume? Love to have better seperation that comes with a larger aperature plus the low light factor would be good for a night time.

An f/1.4 lens is a stop slower than an f/1 lens (of the same focal length).

From what I've heard, the 50/1.4 is good. However, I've never owned one and don't have the 50mm focal length in either prime or zoom (I don't like it).

This review might be helpful to you:

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/R...ns-Review.aspx

[Ms Monny]

Thanks for the link....I read it and it certainly was very helpful to me....I know I won't be getting the f1.8!! I think the 50mm will be useful when I travel overseas in a couple of months.

[ameerat42]

okay! thanks. I was hunting out the 1.4 and saw this and though OMG! but i could guess that f1 would be unreal in low light!

About 2-wice as much as a f/1.4.

[Xenedis]

Thanks for the link....I read it and it certainly was very helpful to me....I know I won't be getting the f1.8!! I think the 50mm will be useful when I travel overseas in a couple of months.

If you like the 50mm focal length and have the budget, the 50/1.4 would be a better choice.

Having said that, the 50/1.8 is a good choice if you want to get a feel for fast primes (and 50mm) cheaply.

Some info about the 50/1.8:

What's good?

1. It's light.
2. It's small.
3. It's fast (as in wide aperture).
4. It's sharp.
5. It's inexpensive.
6. On an APS-C camera, it provides classic portrait framing.

What's bad?

1. Its barrel and mount is plastic.
2. It has no distance gauge.
3. It has no ultrasonic focus motor.
4. It's slow to focus, and noisy, too.
5. The focus ring is awkwardly positioned and small.
6. It has a five-bladed diaphragm, producing unappealing pentagonal bokeh.

[JM Tran]

thats normal 2nd hand price for the F1 lens u know

[Bennymiata]

Canon used to have a viewfinder camera back in the 60's that had a F0.9 lens on it.

I remember back then, when I got my first new SLR, a Canon FT QL, I hassled my father to buy it for me with the 50mm F1.2 lens, but it was quite expensove and I ended up with the F1.8 instead.
Still, not a bad camera for a 13 year old back then!

[dredi1975]

If you like the 50mm focal length and have the budget, the 50/1.4 would be a better choice.

Having said that, the 50/1.8 is a good choice if you want to get a feel for fast primes (and 50mm) cheaply.

Some info about the 50/1.8:

What's good?

1. It's light.
2. It's small.
3. It's fast (as in wide aperture).
4. It's sharp.
5. It's inexpensive.
6. On an APS-C camera, it provides classic portrait framing.

What's bad?

1. Its barrel and mount is plastic.
2. It has no distance gauge.
3. It has no ultrasonic focus motor.
4. It's slow to focus, and noisy, too.
5. The focus ring is awkwardly positioned and small.
6. It has a five-bladed diaphragm, producing unappealing pentagonal bokeh.

I agree, got 50mm f/1.4 and must say:
very fast, very sharp, beautiful bookeh, light, small (fits in a pocket), ultrasonic motor.
Obviously f/1.2 would be great, but couldnt justify expense, so I am very happy with my 1.4.

[pmack]

From what I've heard, the 50/1.4 is good. However, I've never owned one and don't have the 50mm focal length in either prime or zoom (I don't like it).

If you've never owned a lens covering that focal length, how do you know you don't like it?

[JM Tran]

If you've never owned a lens covering that focal length, how do you know you don't like it?

if you do photography long enough you can tell what your preferences are and dislikes. I used to own a 50mm for a bit, but got rid of it as I dont like the focal length. One can also use lenses without needing to own one like I do, ie. through rental, borrow, or tests.

[Xenedis]

If you've never owned a lens covering that focal length, how do you know you don't like it?

I said I've never owned a 50/1.4, not that I've never owned a lens covering that focal length.

I have had the 50mm focal length in prime and zoom format.

And Jackie's response is spot-on, pretty much applying to my situation too.

[peterb666]

The price seems about right for the brand and aperture. A Leica of that speed will cost you more than double.

I don't think I will be buying it. I already have a faster prime.