0
\$\begingroup\$

Given that virtually all people say it's a great value with respect to the market price, then what is the actual value of Canon EF 50mm f1.8 STM?

People say the brand new price is cheap, a bargain. If it is really good then what is the real worth of the lens? If not below $150.

Should it be 2x the price set by Canon, or 3x, or else?

\$\endgroup\$
4
  • \$\begingroup\$ IMHO such high price can have products, created in limited series and not available on the market anymore. Currently I can buy on normal market for 140 euro. So will buy second hand for no more than 100 euro. \$\endgroup\$ Jan 3 at 14:07
  • 1
    \$\begingroup\$ I am voting to close this as any answer will invalidate with time. The current used price for the lens is subject to change and also differs regarding location. \$\endgroup\$ Jan 3 at 14:48
  • 1
    \$\begingroup\$ It's worth about what they sell it for. Compare it to the pro lenses store.canon.co.uk/canon-50mm-lenses \$\endgroup\$
    – Tetsujin
    Jan 3 at 15:46
  • 1
    \$\begingroup\$ I think you've misunderstood the consensus on the lens. These "nifty fifties" are simple lenses - cheap to construct - that's why they can be sold affordably. Don't doubt - Canon et al have priced these lenses as shrewdly as possible. It's not that they are "worth" more, it's just that people value them for their strengths - fast with not huge amounts of distortion. But they are simple lenses and are not without their flaws, and can be considered somewhat inflexible. Other lenses are more complex to construct - so cost more. \$\endgroup\$
    – osullic
    Jan 4 at 10:09

1 Answer 1

2
\$\begingroup\$

The actual value is the value Canon sells it for. "Great value" here means that for a very affordable price you get a lens that gives great results.

Of course it for that price it also cuts some corners: not a zoom, plastic barrel, no IS, and only f/1.8 when the "Pro" 50mm lenses are f/1.4.

All in all a very good "second lens" (I have one, very nice for portrait on an APS-C camera).

\$\endgroup\$
5
  • \$\begingroup\$ I understand that. My question is so as if Canon should set it $300 from the get go? Or $500? What is the actual worth, given the capabilities. \$\endgroup\$
    – Redsbefall
    Jan 3 at 15:15
  • \$\begingroup\$ The "Pro" Canon 50mm f/1.4 USM is around $300-350, so if you wanted to spend $300 on a 50mm lens, you would get that. The 140$ is the actual worth, they just cut the right corners to get this low price. \$\endgroup\$
    – xenoid
    Jan 3 at 16:03
  • \$\begingroup\$ @redsbefall How many would Canon sell at $500 if someone can just buy a Yongnuo (for example) alternative for less than $100? These lenses are simple in terms of construction - there's competition in the market. \$\endgroup\$
    – osullic
    Jan 4 at 10:15
  • \$\begingroup\$ @osullic You're lucky if you get a Yongnuo that works properly for more than a handful of shoots. The YN 35/2 I bought doesn't stop down, no matter what aperture is set on any of my EOS cameras. It had only been used 4-5 times when this malfunction started. I'm convinced the meaning of the word "yongnuo" in some Chinese dialect is "disposable". \$\endgroup\$
    – Michael C
    Jan 21 at 4:13
  • \$\begingroup\$ @xenoid Other than the larger f/1.4 aperture, the EF 50mm f/1.4 is no better at f/1.8 and narrower than the EF 50mm f/1.8 STM. The STM version fixed almost all of the disadvantages of the EF 50mm f/1.8 II compared to the 50/1.4. If my 50/1.4, which I rarely if ever use wider than f/2, broke tomorrow I would have no hesitation replacing it with the 50/1.8 STM and feeling like I had lost nothing other than the $150 to buy it. \$\endgroup\$
    – Michael C
    Jan 21 at 4:17

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.