Did I fuck up /p/ I just bought the Canon EF 50mm F1.8 II for 70$ Its the older version, the only thing I've seen wrong with it is the five bladed aperture.
[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties: Equipment Make Canon Camera Model Canon EOS 1000D Camera Software Adobe Photoshop CS5 Windows Maximum Lens Aperture f/5.7 Image-Specific Properties: Image Orientation Top, Left-Hand Horizontal Resolution 240 dpi Vertical Resolution 240 dpi Image Created 2011:08:10 19:43:04 Exposure Time 1 sec F-Number f/8.0 Exposure Program Manual ISO Speed Rating 100 Lens Aperture f/8.0 Exposure Bias 0 EV Subject Distance 0.52 m Metering Mode Pattern Flash No Flash, Compulsory Focal Length 55.00 mm Color Space Information sRGB Image Width 3093 Image Height 2062 Rendering Normal Exposure Mode Manual White Balance Manual Scene Capture Type Standard
>>2860093
It doesn't matter if you flushed it down the toilet. You can't "fuck up" with $70. Just go take photos.
No
You'll be fine
>>2860096
Not him, but why are Canon 50mm lenses so expensive after being produced since the 1980's and being the most commonly bought lens along with being the kit lens of Canon bundles for years?
>>2860121
>Less than $100 for a sharp fast prime
>so expensive
Pick one and literally only one.
>>2860122
It's not like the 50mm is anything special like the 70-200mm f/2.8 or the 50mm f/1.
We've had them for decades at this point.
I'd like to get one for the AF, but there's no reason for me to pay $100+ for what used to be a kit lens over my $5 50mm f/1.8 Olympus.
It's a pretty good lens, especially for 70 bucks you did breddy gud. I had one and I had the Mark I with the metal mount.
If it ain't broke don't fix it.
>>2860093
the front element falls out of the lens. for that price the 50mm stm would be a better choice
>>2860093
Well, you have it now. Go take pictures, and sell it off off you don't like it.
>>2860134
It's pretty much paying for the AF.
Also probably has better coatings that $5 bargain lenses.
>>2860134
Camera lenses hold their value.
Your whining that you prefer your non af, manual stopdown lens over the native version over what will at the end of the day be a $10 loss, or gain, if you sell it when done.
Povvo faggot
>>2860121
>why are (incredibly cheap item) so expensive?
Stop being a dirty third world country peasant.
There's nothing with better price for performance than the nifty-fifty.
To get anything cheaper you have to lose performance, like buying a piece of shit moldy old lens that has no autofocus or a useless outdated one.
>>2860165
The Olympus is actually really nice.
>>2860186
>Camera lenses hold their value
I don't give a fuck.
I don't care if it drops to zero on day one.
I buy things because I have a need for them and intend on using them for a long time.
With the advent of Canon's new series of professional mirrorless in the coming years, the EF mount will loose it's value just as the A mount lenses did.
>>2860247
See here senpai.
I can buy a set of body armour for the same price as I can this plastic Chinese lens.
I'd have no problem if it were a 50mm 1.4 like what sold for $126 a week ago.
This is the cheapest lens Canon has made and has made it for almost three decades now and, somehow, the unit is still artificially inflated to $100+? I could have bought one at a pawn shop with a shitty Rebel attached to it for $99.
It's the same thing that's happening with the Canon 1Ds. I'd like to have a full frame camera, but there's no fucking way that a 15 year old camera is worth $350.
A lot of "photographers" are stupid for the most part.
>>2860122
>sharp
