File :-(, x, )
wat Anonymous
i think i'm going to get a 50mm f/1.8. should i save a buck and get the newer mkII one? apparently it's all plastic. the metal mount ones are floating around ebay for ~130, should i invest in one of those instead?
>> Teus !QbSstcPD6U
metal lens over a plasticky one anytime.
>> Anonymous
for that price? Definitely the metal one
>> Anonymous
I've never used the metal one, but I never had a problem with the plastic one.

I'm fairly obsessive about protecting my camera stuff, regardless of supposed resistance, so it never got dinged or anything.
>> Anonymous
>>144298

The problem with the plastic one is that the arc focus drive is from 1993, which is pretty slow and almost offensively loud for a modern lens.

The build construction isn't great, but IMHO that isn't the real issue. The f/1.8 simply can't perform in certain low light situations in my experience because it doesn't focus fast enough.

The f/1.4 beats out either f/1.8 by virtue of having the quasi-USM drive. It's not a real magnetic USM, but it's much faster and quieter and I'd recommend it if you need a fast focuser. Otherwise, just get the plastic fantastic and save the money.
>> Anonymous
>>144411
Why are you bringing 1.4 into this? There are two versions of the same lens 50mm 1.8, Mark I and Mark II. The only real difference is the material of the screw mount, metal or plastic respectively.

Anyway, I haven't really had any problem with the plastic version. It isn't really saving a buck though. I usually find the metal one to be two times as much as the plastic in some cases. If mine breaks or runs into some other problem, I don't care too much to shell out for another one.
>> Anonymous
I picked up a plastic one a few weeks ago. It feels really cheap, and I'm almost afraid of breaking it every time I have to use manual focus. I'm planning on buying a metal one pretty soon to replace it. On the bright side, it DOES work well, and is a decent lens for the price.