Canon's cheap 50mm f/1.8 lens vs. an even cheaper knock-off. The winner is....

[Pixel Dust]

I'm not a Canon shooter nor am I in the market for a 50 mm. But this comparison seems very interesting. Not a scientific test, however.

$125 Canon 50 mm f/1.8 II vs. $40 Yongnuo 50 mm f/1.8
http://petapixel.com/2014/12/27/comparing-optics-40-yongnuo-50mm-f1-8-125-canon-50mm-f1-8-ii/

Spoiler: Canon doesn't win...

If you were on a tight budget, would you still save up for the name brand? Or the third party company that isn't well known for making lenses?

 

[havoc315]

The real lesson, is just how much these lenses are marked up. Beyond basic kit lenses, the manufacturers get away with huge profit margins on their lenses, as they do have somewhat captive audiences who are willing to spend the money. Tamron and Sigma, as well as a few others, chip away a little offering more affordable alternatives, but I suspect real costs are much lower yet.
The Canon 70-200/2.8 is $2200 or so. The Nikon 70-200/2.8 is about $2400. The newest Tamron is $1500.
and I wouldn't be surprised if a comparable lens couldd be made and sold for under $1,000.

 

[SkaGoat]

I'm not a Canon shooter nor am I in the market for a 50 mm. But this comparison seems very interesting. Not a scientific test, however.

$125 Canon 50 mm f/1.8 II vs. $40 Yongnuo 50 mm f/1.8
http://petapixel.com/2014/12/27/comparing-optics-40-yongnuo-50mm-f1-8-125-canon-50mm-f1-8-ii/

Spoiler: Canon doesn't win...

If you were on a tight budget, would you still save up for the name brand? Or the third party company that isn't well known for making lenses?

I actually thought the Canon looked better in all the tests when stopped down, wide open, the YN was a little sharper, but once it was stopped down the Canon clearly had much better contrast. Also the Canon's AF is better (even though the Canon's AF is not good to start with). When you consider the YN is around $60 on most sites, and you can probably find a used Canon for the same price, I'd probably stick with my Canon.

The real lesson, is just how much these lenses are marked up.

Some of that is true, the Canon EF 50mm f/1.8 II was released in 1991, so even at $100, they're almost entirely profit, as their R&D was paid off long ago.

You are buying the brand name, but you are also, in a lot of cases buying better AF, or better IS, or more expensive glass parts, like UD, or fluorite glass.

But at the end of the day, who makes better jeans? Levis or George (the Walmart brand). Some really care about the difference, others, as long as they get the job done, the brand name doesn't matter.

 

[mom2rtk]

I actually thought the Canon looked better in all the tests when stopped down, wide open, the YN was a little sharper,

That doesn't surprise me. I never used my Canon 50mm much just because I didn't like that length on a crop sensor. I was having trouble shooting volleyball this year though and dug it out to give it another look. I was very disappointed in it sharpness wide open. And honestly, if I'm not going to use it wide open, then I have other lenses that can accomplish the same thing.

 

[havoc315]

Some of that is true, the Canon EF 50mm f/1.8 II was released in 1991, so even at $100, they're almost entirely profit, as their R&D was paid off long ago.

You are buying the brand name, but you are also, in a lot of cases buying better AF, or better IS, or more expensive glass parts, like UD, or fluorite glass.

.

Not necessarily. If you went back a few years, the 1st party manufacturers really didn't have competition. Older Tamron/Sigma/etc lenses were cheaply made. But the current generation of lenses, often match or outperform the 1st party.
Examples include the Sigma ART lenses.
From Tamron, their premium lenses match the 1st party lenses in the charts often, while the Tamron versions have IS which is lacking in the 1st party versions. (Such as their new 15-30, their 24-70/2.8 -- stabilized while the 1st party aren't.)

The 1st party brands try to force loyalty, as things like in-camera corrections will only work with their lenses, etc. But that's minor stuff.

For many types of lenses, there is little real reason to buy first party. Though it depends on the type of lens. (For example, I have the Nikon 70-200/4 -- there simply is no good 3rd party version)

 

[photo_chick]

This isn't a surprise really. Look at the Samyang 85 when compared to the Canon 85 L. I have used both and own the Samyang. I wouldn't trade it for the Canon for anything, it's that good overall.

 

[SkaGoat]

This isn't a surprise really. Look at the Samyang 85 when compared to the Canon 85 L. I have used both and own the Samyang. I wouldn't trade it for the Canon for anything, it's that good overall.

It is a good value, but when there's no AF, literally no electronics at all inside of it, it's easy to make it cheaper. The Canon 85mm f/1.2L II USM is a ridiculous price, but it's also probably the best prime Canon has ever made, and at f/1.2 it's faster than the Samyang.

But in the end, it doesn't matter what brand name is on the equipment you use, as long as you can make good pictures with it. My everyday walk around lens is a Tamron 17-50mm f/2.8, and it's 2/3rds the price of the Canon version.

 

[photo_chick]

It is a good value, but when there's no AF, literally no electronics at all inside of it, it's easy to make it cheaper. The Canon 85mm f/1.2L II USM is a ridiculous price, but it's also probably the best prime Canon has ever made, and at f/1.2 it's faster than the Samyang.

But in the end, it doesn't matter what brand name is on the equipment you use, as long as you can make good pictures with it. My everyday walk around lens is a Tamron 17-50mm f/2.8, and it's 2/3rds the price of the Canon version.

The Canon 85 doesn't feel as sharp and has a little more CA than the Samyang. And personally I like the way the Samyang renders the OOF areas... a reason I might look to the Youngnuo 50mm over the Canon. I don't like the pentagonal highlights from Canon's nifty fifty which is why I finally ditched it.

But you hit the nail on the head, it's what you do with what you've got. Cheap, expensive or anywhere in-between, it's just a tool.

 

[bob100]

I actually thought the Canon looked better in all the tests when stopped down, wide open, the YN was a little sharper, but once it was stopped down the Canon clearly had much better contrast. Also the Canon's AF is better (even though the Canon's AF is not good to start with). When you consider the YN is around $60 on most sites, and you can probably find a used Canon for the same price, I'd probably stick with my Canon.

.

I'll also stick with my current Canon 50mm mkII but the Yongnuo looks interesting

 

[havoc315]

The Canon 85 doesn't feel as sharp and has a little more CA than the Samyang. And personally I like the way the Samyang renders the OOF areas... a reason I might look to the Youngnuo 50mm over the Canon. I don't like the pentagonal highlights from Canon's nifty fifty which is why I finally ditched it.

But you hit the nail on the head, it's what you do with what you've got. Cheap, expensive or anywhere in-between, it's just a tool.

This appeared in Luminous Landscape's recent year-end wrap-up, and I think it says it nicely:

---
"It's not the camera, it's the photographer." Right. We get it. You've now impressed us with how insightful you are. But in the world of music, there are few serious musicians, let alone performing pros, who wouldn't prefer working with a Strad or a Steinway. Good artists are made better though the use of the best tools. Enough said.
---

The reality is, compare the premium 17-55/2.8 lenses versus the basic 18-55 kit lenses... It's hard to honestly say the premium lens is "worth" 5 to 10 times the cost. The kit lenses are capable of very good results, especially if shooting in good light, or with flash. Especially with most people just sharing their photos in social media, not printing wall-sized prints, your typical viewer will never notice the slight differences in IQ.

But the enthusiasts among us, including myself, to take some perverse pleasure in getting their images just a little bit sharper.. or getting the bokeh just right.

Our non-photographer friends and family, when viewing our photos, won't realize whether the bokeh is a little busy or not. They are unlikely to notice that the corners are slightly soft. But as our own eyes have become more finely trained, we notice it more.

I recall going on a cruise a while ago. Despite complaining I take too many pictures, my wife is addicted to getting the cruise ship photos as well. So she was trying to choose which family portrait to order.... And she kept going back to one that was, technically, one of the worst. It was clearly out of focus. It was front focused by a few inches, the faces were soft. This was in an 8X10, it was obvious to my eye. No need to pixel peep. But she didn't even notice if was out of focus, and simply liked the way our daughter was smiling in the shot. (After much persuasion from the cruise photography person as well, she finally chose a shot that actually was in focus).

My point...... Ultimately, the better gear can indeed produce better results. But the differences are often very minor, and won't even be noticed by the vast majority of people viewing our photos. On the other hand, we will notice -- so we are ultimately marketing towards ourselves.

 

[photo_chick]

This appeared in Luminous Landscape's recent year-end wrap-up, and I think it says it nicely:

---
"It's not the camera, it's the photographer." Right. We get it. You've now impressed us with how insightful you are. But in the world of music, there are few serious musicians, let alone performing pros, who wouldn't prefer working with a Strad or a Steinway. Good artists are made better though the use of the best tools. Enough said.
---

The reality is, compare the premium 17-55/2.8 lenses versus the basic 18-55 kit lenses... It's hard to honestly say the premium lens is "worth" 5 to 10 times the cost. The kit lenses are capable of very good results, especially if shooting in good light, or with flash. Especially with most people just sharing their photos in social media, not printing wall-sized prints, your typical viewer will never notice the slight differences in IQ.

But the enthusiasts among us, including myself, to take some perverse pleasure in getting their images just a little bit sharper.. or getting the bokeh just right.

Our non-photographer friends and family, when viewing our photos, won't realize whether the bokeh is a little busy or not. They are unlikely to notice that the corners are slightly soft. But as our own eyes have become more finely trained, we notice it more.

I recall going on a cruise a while ago. Despite complaining I take too many pictures, my wife is addicted to getting the cruise ship photos as well. So she was trying to choose which family portrait to order.... And she kept going back to one that was, technically, one of the worst. It was clearly out of focus. It was front focused by a few inches, the faces were soft. This was in an 8X10, it was obvious to my eye. No need to pixel peep. But she didn't even notice if was out of focus, and simply liked the way our daughter was smiling in the shot. (After much persuasion from the cruise photography person as well, she finally chose a shot that actually was in focus).

My point...... Ultimately, the better gear can indeed produce better results. But the differences are often very minor, and won't even be noticed by the vast majority of people viewing our photos. On the other hand, we will notice -- so we are ultimately marketing towards ourselves.

I'm tying to figure out if you're trying to make the same point I am or argue it?

Of course good quality gear can make a difference when you know how to use it. But all the professional gear in the world is not going to magically make anyone get great shots. And that's really the point when some of us say it's the photographer and not the camera.

 

[havoc315]

I'm tying to figure out if you're trying to make the same point I am or argue it?

Of course good quality gear can make a difference when you know how to use it. But all the professional gear in the world is not going to magically make anyone get great shots. And that's really the point when some of us say it's the photographer and not the camera.

Don't think I was really disagreeing with you. Just sharing my own thoughts.