Lesely61
Member
I seem to recall that at one point a few years ago this lens could be picked up for next to nothing but these days they seem to be commanding some healthy resale values: any thoughts as to why? I ask as I'm thinking of getting one as a companion for my Canon P:
Thanks in advance.
Thanks in advance.
wlewisiii
Just another hotel clerk
Decent Tessar type lens. If you like that style (biting sharp in the center but easing to a butter knife soft to the edges when wide open, normal by 5.6.
I like that style. I really want one
Despite the heresy, I prefer a good Tessar to a good Sonnar O_O
I like that style. I really want one
Despite the heresy, I prefer a good Tessar to a good Sonnar O_O
das
Well-known
If looking for an OEM Canon lens, I would suggest getting a later 50mm f/1.8 or even f/1.4 over this one. It was an economy option at the time, unless of course you like Tessar-derived lenses. .
.Mackinaw
Think Different
I have the art-deco version. As mentioned, a Tessar-type lens. I find it to be quite good, both sharp and contrasty. Very small and light. Good build quality. I use it when I don't need speed.
Jim B.
Jim B.
I picked up one about two years ago for $60. It has clean glass- but subject to haze on the surface behind the aperture. Cleaned it when received, and had to do it a second time.
I have one that was given to me- the haze caused terrible etching of the glass, optics- destroyed. SO- finding one that has been cared for and is clean, getting more difficult. Thus- higher prices due to scarcity.
I have one that was given to me- the haze caused terrible etching of the glass, optics- destroyed. SO- finding one that has been cared for and is clean, getting more difficult. Thus- higher prices due to scarcity.
ddutchison2
Well-known
Uncorrectable haze seems to be the Achilles Heel of many, otherwise exceptional, period Canon lenses.
Lesely61
Member
I actually have good examples of both and they've been stout companions over the years(the 1.8 was actually on my Canon P when the seatpost clamp on my mountain bike gave way and I feel backwards onto my Canon P in my back pack. Both camera and lens came through the impact remarably unscathed), so I'm not really interested in acquiring more examples of them. The 2.8 intregues me because what little info out there on this lens almost always desparges the lens in favor of its more sophisticated siblings, and I find it a little hard to believe that it could be That bad given performance of other Canon products of That era, my Canon P being a good example. So I wouldn't mind picking a clean example up just to see how well it Does perform. Might even get a 2.2 if I can find one cheap enough:If looking for an OEM Canon lens, I would suggest getting a later 50mm f/1.8 or even f/1.4 over this one. It was an economy option at the time, unless of course you like Tessar-derived lenses.
Darinwc
Well-known
The Canon 50mm f2.8 is a good lens. I have one. It is sharp in the center and has good contrast/color whatever.
My closest lenses, the Canon f1.8 and Nikkor f2 are about the same at f2.8.
If the money is the same, and you are looking for performance, get the faster lens.
If you want a cool lens with good performance, sure the f2.8 is that.
One note is that the f2.8 lens barrel turns entirely. You may need to turn the camera around to see/set the aperture. Filters and hoods can be hard to find. 34mm thread or 36mm clamp-on.
My closest lenses, the Canon f1.8 and Nikkor f2 are about the same at f2.8.
If the money is the same, and you are looking for performance, get the faster lens.
If you want a cool lens with good performance, sure the f2.8 is that.
One note is that the f2.8 lens barrel turns entirely. You may need to turn the camera around to see/set the aperture. Filters and hoods can be hard to find. 34mm thread or 36mm clamp-on.