David J. Littleboy wrote:

"pioe[rmv]" wrote:

The Canon EF 50mm F/1.8 is inferior in build quality as well as in
performance to the 1.4 USM as well as the former version which had a
distance scale and metal mount.
I have tested both extensively, and have found that the 50mm 1.8 is
not a top-class lens,

Of course it's a "top-class" lens: it performs better than any Canon lens
with a shorter focal length*. Other than the 50/1.4, it's the best
normal-to-wide lens Canon makes.
*: http://www.ocf.berkeley.edu/~ashon/photo/comparo6.htm

Well, irrespective of what theoretical MTF models say, I just maintain
that it is inferior to both the 1.4 and the previous model. If MTF
numbers are to be of any value, they have to be measured, not
theoretical models from the manufacturer.

This comparison shows the true pictu

http://www.seittipaja.fi/data/Pontif...sus_fifty.html

Here is my own test, which is in Norwegian, but the aperture values
and pictures should explain themselves. The quality difference in
favor of the 1.4 is plain to see:

http://akam.no/art.php?artikkelid=913

My impression is that the Canon EF 50mm 1.8 II fails to qualify as a
top-class lens. The former 50mm 1.8 I was superior, and had/has a much
better construction.

even if it is cheap. The plastic lens mount
excludes as a long-term investment.

Of course it's not a long-term investment: it's a $79.95 throwaway lens you
buy if you don't know if you would really use the 50/1.4 all that much.

Agreed, but there are good reasons to buy something that lasts.

Per Inge Oestmoen, Norway