Lens Malfunctions/Breaking (Canon 50mm f/1.8)

It does feel pretty cheap/light. My copy has developed some sort of electrical problem that locks up my camera temporarily from time to time. The thing is that it's cheap enough that replacement cost is lower than repair cost would be (though I've moved to micro 4/3 anyway). If I were braver, I'd open it up and look for obvious problems, so in the meantime I just live with the error. The error code Canon displays is way too vague, but it only happens with this one lens so I know it's my 50 and not my Rebel.
("ERR 99: SYSTEM ERROR. There is an internal malfunction detected during the camera’s self-checking procedure which is executed before every attempted exposure.")

The f/1.4 is nicer, yet I've heard reports that suggest it is not built all that much better on the inside. Since you could buy 3 of the f/1.8 for the price of the f/1.4 version, which to get is up to you. FWIW, the f/1.8 does perform beautifully optically.

Most users probably don't have any problems with their f/1.8 since you'd see more complaints. I am only one data point, so don't put too much weight on this response.

Edit: Maybe look at the new 40mm f/2.8 pancake lens? Brand new lens design, with good optical quality and build. Tiny and costs only ~$150.

 

Well I've got the 50mm f/1.4 on a T3i. I'd been after that lens for multiple years (since I had an XSI no less!), and it has since become my absolute favorite lens but then I do tend to take a lot of night time shots and being able to crank my aperture (rather than relying on upping my ISO or taking a longer exposure) was a huge deal to me. However it does have its own handful of possible issues. The ultrasonic motor in it is slow and not horribly accurate at fuller apertures (much better to switch to manual and magnified live view IMO), and at full aperture it can be a challenge to get pin sharp focus due to the tiny footprint you're essentially working with. Though from about f/2.5 and up the USM is a champ and super fast at getting some autofocus action.

Having held both lenses I will say the f/1.4 feels slightly more solid in your hand, and at least in my version of the lens has a metal mounting ring versus the plastic I saw in the f/1.8. This however may have changed as my lens is already, gosh over 2 years old at least. Frankly to me it comes down to if photography is just a doll thing for you, or an interest you'd like to actively pursue. If it's the former I'd suggest the f/1.8, if it's the latter like I said that f/1.4 is my favorite. As for durability I'm hardly one to ask there, I handle my f/1.4 like it's the holy grail. lol Kid gloves on that little critter, all the time. My camera may have cost more than that lens, but I went through some serious crap to get my paws on it. I got mine I believe before it got redone by Canon and there were none to be found. It took me months to track down one that was new.

However gaiaswill makes a good point about that pancake lens. I had no idea that had been added to the line. That thing looks like a very good deal for the price. I might have a new lens in my future...I'm a sucker for a good deal on a sexy lens and that one has piqued me.

 

I'm a Canon user and I had two 50mm f1.8. Both experienced the same fate: the focusing rim broke.

You can still use it though if you use manual focusing. Auto-focus will only strain them. I used my first broken 50mm f1.8 for quite a while until the whole thing totally came off from the lens' body. My second one was even more short lived than the first one. I would say it's a very flimsy lens but it's good while it lasted :S

 

I'd like to throw in an alternative to the 1.8. I had mine for 6+ years and had it repaired once by Canon for free. I suggest the 50mm 2.5 macro! It's great for getting up close to your doll's face and although not a true macro, it's between the 1.8 and 1.4 in terms of price (about $270).

 

I had a Canon EF 50/1.8 many years ago (1997-1998) on my film camera, and it had a metal mount and depth indicator and a usuable (if a bit sloppy) focus ring. That lens was OK. I've tried the MkII version also (the current one) and frankly, it feels like a toy. It has the cheapest feeling manual focus ring I've ever experienced. Optically, it's still a very sharp lens, and it's distortion-free as you'd expect for a simple design prime, but that's about all you can say about it that's good. Its 5-blade bokeh is usually pretty nasty, it's very slow and noisy to focus, and the focus is sloppy because of the lack of precision in the plastic gear chain. One reason, besides shallow DoF, that you typically buy a fast (wide aperture) lens for is the ability to focus in low light. Neither 50/1.8 is actually very good at this, the inaccuracy in the autofocus mechanism means that it misses a lot when you shoot it wide open in low light.

All of Canon's other 50's are decent but the 50mm f/2.5 compact macro is indeed the best choice for shooting dolls. Most of my dolls photos pre-2010 were done with this lens. Its construction is not super awesome, and it's slow to focus compared with newer ring-USM designs, which can try your patience in low light if it starts to hunt and racks back and forth. Its construction is comparable to the original 50/1.8 Mk1 though with a metal mount and a bit of play in the focus ring. I bought the 50/2.5 when I had only a film body, and used in on 2 digital bodies after that. It was a real workhorse. It was still great when I finally retired it 2 years ago in favor of the EF-S 60mm f/2.8, which is a little better in every respect--has USM, internal focus, true 1:1, sharper, MUCH better silky-smooth manual focus ring--but is also a little more costly and not usable on a full-frame body. Now I've parted ways with that lens as well, because I found that I used it approximately never after buying the 100mm f/2.8L macro, which is truly in a class of its own and has become my most-used doll portrait lens.

The 50/1.4 is a decent lens, but the cheaper 50/2.5 is the better choice for dolls because of the close-focus capability and better performance at close subject distances. The 50/1.4 has a surprisingly long minimum focus distance, and its performance is sub-par at that distance. I wouldn't shoot dolls with it, it would be frustrating. Ditto for the 50mm f/1.2L and 50mm f/1.0L--amazing lenses for human portraits, not ideal doll lenses.

Like the 50/1.8 and 1.4, the new 40mm pancake lens does not have very high maximum magnification (0.18x vs 0.15x for the 50s). It benchmarks well, but you would not be able to do real close-ups with it, and you don't want to get into using extension tubes for doll shots, because taking them on and off gets old fast--they are for dedicated macro setups. This 40mm might be good for wider shots, but if you end up getting 50mm or 60mm macro, you will probably want a 35mm or wider to get a different perspective.

 

While the 50mm 1.8 II is cheap and light, it's also at a high risk of breaking due the plastic mount.
You need to be careful with it, both in handling and carrying around (for example in a bag when travelling), or else it might get damaged.
I have the 50mm 1.8 I, the old version of this lens adam has described too, and while it is better it's harder to get nowadays and still has it's disadvantages:
The bokeh is rather ugly and the autofocus is super loud and sometimes rather slow.
My most used lens nowadays is the 100mm f/2.8L macro too, but that's nothing for someone who doesn't want to walk around with a huge lens, and it's also rather expensive.

For a long time I used a 35mm 2.0 on my crop body, and it was a charming little thing.
It was a lot better for most doll sizes, still small, not too loud and the price was okay-ish. It also has a metal mount and is overall better built.
I'd recommend that lens for dolls instead of the 50mm 1.8 II one any time, as long as you use a crop-body and not a full-frame.
It's also good for getting rather close and you can use it for practically every doll size without having any problems, while with the 50mm anything smaller than SD is already a pain in the ass and you have to get a lot of distance between you and the doll, which can sometimes be rather risky.