OK, so I mentioned last week about laying my hands on a Canon EF 50mm f/1.8 II Lens, well I'd heard a lot of stuff about "quality glass" and "better than the kit lens" before I used it, so I decided to have a play and see....

Let's be honest. If you're looking for a 50mm lens and you have the full studio Monty you're going to want to buy the F/1.2 or F/1.4 variant.

So I guess the questions I wanted to ask were....

1. Is the lens any good.

2. Is it better than the kit lens under similar circumstances

My first impression of it was probably the same as a lot of people. It feels light and plasticy. Now I'm hardly a lens guru, but I expected some sort of weight from it - it is glass after all....

That said, it doesn't feel fragile or fiddly. The focus mechanism is pretty solid and all the bits for mounting to the camera all seem pretty robust.

Shooting at F/1.8 is a blasphemy to God. I can only imagine what its big brothers are like. I found with decent house lighting you could almost get away without flash (certainly if you were willing to chuck up the ISO a bit). The test pictures I've taken have all been the right side of clear (unless I've been messing...).

Here's a decent example of this from the great globe re-shoot of 2007!

(1/60, f/1.8, aperture priority, focal length - 50mm, ISO - 200, 17/10/07 19:44)

So, when all is said and done, it's a smart little lens for 70 notes.

Is it any better than the kit lens?

Right, lets get realistic. It's naive to assume that the kit lens is a top of the line lens. But, Canon probably won't ship a camera with a piece of crap - it'll hardly do their business model any good. Therefore, I think it's safe to assume the kit lens is OK. Certainly, my experience of it suggests it does what it says on the tin.

Indubitably, the fact it ranges from 18mm to 55mm is a nice advantage over the fixed 50mm lens as well. It's probably safe to assume most people buying the 400D are new to dSLR or trying to manage pennies and get the most bang for their buck.

So, is the 50mm fixed any better than the kit lens?

I set up one of babas teddies for a quick test (and it was quick, she wanted it to go for bed...). I also used house lighting and a standard hot shoe mounted flash (trust me, just buy one) since anyone in the market for this lens is unlikely to use studio lighting that much!

The first image is a composite of the 50mm and the 18-55. I'll be honest, I got the setting slightly out on the 18-55 so the focal distance is 45mm not 50mm. In both cases they were taken at F/11 from a tripod. There should be little or no difference in lighting or camera position between the shots. (The only image change is a little cropping to find Eyeore)

Oh, and I used the jpegs for this...

(Edit: The 50mm fixed lens is left, the kit lens is right - Thanks Geoff!)

 My initial impressions for this was that the kit lens produced better results, but looking again I've started to change my mind. The 50mm seems to be a darker colour, but there is less burn out around the nose as a result.

Zooming in on the old fellas ear....

(Edit: The 50mm fixed lens is left, the kit lens is right - Thanks Geoff!)

In this case I used the raw's because the loss in detail was a little obvious in the jpegs.

To my mind there isn't a lot of difference here. Certainly nothing I can pick up on.

Summary

So, I guess the question is if I had it all to do again, would I buy the 50mm instead of the kit lens?

I think the answer has to be a reserved no.

Why?

Because quite simply the kit lens has a better range of zoom and is more versatile as a result. Whilst it probably loses a little in terms of quality, as a starter lens it does its job just fine. 

So why not a definitive no?

Quite simply, two photos of Eyeore do not a professional test make. I'm new to the hobby, I can only see what I see. If someone I respected told me I was wrong, I would probably listen to them. Sure, I'd want to see their evidence now, but...

Would you kit bag it?

Oh dear sweet lord yes. for portrait shots and for low light and for family stuff and candid's and all the things I said I'd rarely post here it's just blooming lovely. It teaches you to move instead of just changing the zoom on the camera, it gives good photo, it does exactly what it says on the tin (erm cardboard box). And for £60 - £70 it's a bargain.

(Point to note. The images I've uploaded are tiny compared to the originals - web space and load times you know. If you want the original images to take a look yourself, drop me an email and I'll sort you out.)