Ben's Bargains Serving Fresh Deals 24/7

Great for any dslr kit. Use a 1.4 or 2x converter for a great portrait lens.

$100 now

All pictures here http://www.flickr.com/photos/21737372@N04/ were taken with that lens and a cheap set of extension tubes (The tubes give you the ability to focus closer)

f/1.8 is not that great for a 50mm lens. Try to go to f/1.4 if money allows it. I have a Nikon 50mm f/1.8 and never use it. I prefer to use my manual 50mm f/1.2 for portraits.

If you have a canon SLR and don't have this lens, you need your head checked.

Does anyone know how this lens (the "II" version) differs from the one I bought 7 years ago with my 10D which was not designated "II"?

#5, I agree - for the price this is a must-have. And yes, #4, the f/1.2 or f/1.4 would be wonderful... but can be 10x the price!

it's cause he's a "millianaire"

#6 the "non-II" version has a metal mount and some would say a nicer focusing ring.. optically and functionally they're identical

#5 - maybe if you are cheap and have no idea what an SLR can do.

For a 50mm prime it isn't fast. And the lens is far from sharp.

If you need a fast, medium prime at least go for the EF 50mm
f/1.4 USM, it costs about $300-350.

If you are serious about your glass go with L grade, EF 50mm f/1.2L USM, it will cost you about $1500.

FYI - the MSRP for the listed lens is only $100, so this isn't really that great a deal.

You used to be able to get these from B&H for $79. Now they are $89 for the imported version and $99 for US.

I picked this up for about $70 a few years back and yes, it is an awesome lens for the money. And yes, it's the same debate every time Ben posts a deal on this lens. There are always a bunch of schmucks who argue that you should spend 3X-10X more for a better lens. Well, not everyone can spend that kind of money on a 50mm lens. It has nothing to do with being "cheap", some people just don't have that kind of money or just aren't willing to spend that kind of money on a lens they most likely be using that often. Odds are, most folks won't use this lens that often. It will, however, suit the needs of most amateur photographers. If you are a professional photographer or if you have an extra $500 burining a hole in your pocket, then by all means look elsewhere.

A couple of good reviews from reputable sites:

http://www.dpreview.com/lensreviews/canon_50_1p8_ii_c16/

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/Canon-EF-50mm-f-1.8-II-Lens-Review.aspx

#11, I guess I would rather just use my kit lens than waste $100 on something I won't use that often (as I found out). If you really want a 50mm lens then you should save $300 dollars and buy the on #9 suggests.

Maximillian, if you already have a three drive flash raid array, and the moon thingy, and the most amazing camera lens...

why are you cruising bensbargains?

#13 - Because it's a great lens to use in a pinch in low light situations, such as kids blowing out candles, school plays, kids catching fireflies, etc.

Or kids playing in the school yard, It's great for low light situations like kids walking home alone in the early evening. especially now when it gets dark so early and since it's a fast lens you can easily just point and shoot out of your van window without drawing attention to yourself by setting up a tripod.

all amateur photographer's should have it.

You cheapskates are amusing...

Glass for your d/SLR is like your contact/lenses for your eyes. Crappy glasses like this will ruin it for you.

Those whom recommended the 50mm 1.4 are dumb asses pro wannabe. If you are gonna spend 300-400, get the Sigma version for Canon. The Canon 1.4 blows

these are normally $80

I own the 70-200mm IS L f2.8 and 24-70mm f2.8 L but I do not consider my self a pro - I have used the $300 Canon f1.4 50mm - returned it and bought a 17-50mm Tamron f2.8 for $100 more. Not because the f1.4 was bad but because I needed the range that the Tamron provided and I felt the Tamron glass as as good.

I can tell you that having a fast lens like this is very useful for low light situations. Most if not all f2.8 or faster lenses cost north of $1k so this lens at $100 is a good deal and it is a great tool for controlling depth of field in addition to shooting in low light with no flash.

Its the BEST bang for the buck lens that Canon makes - its that simple.

I like the Tamron 17-50/2.8 too , it's excellent lens and very sharp too . Excellent bokeh . I used to have the 50/1.8 , but it's not nearly sharp at 1.8 - 2.8 , it's getting sharp after 5.6 or so ...