Is the 50mm STM really that good?

Ok, I am still looking into a 50mm lens, can't make up my mind. One thing I checked was vignetting. Removing it is easy, but with the old 5DII, making corners lighter in post can be bad. So I looked for the 50mm lens with the least amount of vignetting and I found this:

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/Lens-Vignetting-Test-Results.aspx?Lens=989&Camera=453&FLI=0&API=1&LensComp=105&CameraComp=9&FLIComp=0&APIComp=1

I thought that the 50mm STM is almost the same lens as the 50mm II. The STM has a smaller filter size too, but at f/2, vignetting looks soo much better in this test. Hell, it is even better than the mighty OTUS:

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/Lens-Vignetting-Test-Results.aspx?Lens=989&Camera=453&FLI=0&API=1&LensComp=917&CameraComp=453&FLIComp=0&APIComp=1

So, can this be true? Is this tiny and cheap lens this good? Has anybody here made the same observation?

Kreitmann wrote:

Ok, I am still looking into a 50mm lens, can't make up my mind. One thing I checked was vignetting. Removing it is easy, but with the old 5DII, making corners lighter in post can be bad. So I looked for the 50mm lens with the least amount of vignetting

Weird.. I almost always deliberately add vignetting to my images in post.

Kreitmann wrote:

Ok, I am still looking into a 50mm lens, can't make up my mind. One thing I checked was vignetting. Removing it is easy, but with the old 5DII, making corners lighter in post can be bad. So I looked for the 50mm lens with the least amount of vignetting and I found this:

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/Lens-Vignetting-Test-Results.aspx?Lens=989&Camera=453&FLI=0&API=1&LensComp=105&CameraComp=9&FLIComp=0&APIComp=1

I thought that the 50mm STM is almost the same lens as the 50mm II. The STM has a smaller filter size too, but at f/2, vignetting looks soo much better in this test. Hell, it is even better than the mighty OTUS:

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/Lens-Vignetting-Test-Results.aspx?Lens=989&Camera=453&FLI=0&API=1&LensComp=917&CameraComp=453&FLIComp=0&APIComp=1

So, can this be true? Is this tiny and cheap lens this good? Has anybody here made the same observation?

I don't know for vignetting

The only thing that I could tell you, is that on my 6D, I have a better contrast for the whole scene and details with my 50 STM, rather than my 50 1,4.

Hi, Sean here. I work with Bryan at The-Digital-Picture.com. We've double checked our results and nothing seems to be out of line as far as our testing procedures and processing are concerned.

Yes, Canon says the 50mm f/1.8 STM optical formula is the same as its predecessor. But there are definitely some differences between the two lenses – including MM, MFD, lens coatings and the overall lens housing changes– that seem to indicate there may be design elements (other than the optical formula) that have contributed to the reduced vignetting.  That's our theory, at least.

I couldn't withdraw it, so please ignore.

The Plastic Fantastic, Nifty Fifty has been updated and it's even better than ever.  I don't own one, but plan to.  From what I can tell, it's worth every bit of the meager $125 price tag.

Kreitmann wrote:

Adding vignetting is a great way to improve a photo, but I would prefer to start with a good image anyway.

That's great, but i wouldn't get too hung up about it, to the extent that you start agonising over numbers and graphs. The 50L produces VERY strong vignetting wide open, and I confess it took me by surprise the first time I saw it, but I love it and shoot wide open a LOT.

Buy the lens you love, and work with it, get used to it, and use its features (including vignetting) to your advantage! Enjoy, don't fret...

I just ordered one on Ebay for $115. Looking forward to trying it out. Everything I could find says its worth every penny.

I tried it on my 6d and got rid of it after one day of shooting. It works ok but I found that AF is not very accurate in low light and images have a duller "kit"-like look compared to L lenses or even 40mm pancake. I am not impressed with colors and contrast at f1.8 and not at all impressed with bokeh quality. With postprocessing, it can produce good results though. It's a great beginner lens or for infrequent use but when comparinng to 85mm f1.8 images or even 50mm f1.4, the difference is striking.

Alexsfo wrote:

images have a duller "kit"-like look compared to L lenses or even 40mm pancake.

Agree - from what I've seen, the 40mm seems a better lens for the money.

Al Downie wrote:

Alexsfo wrote:

images have a duller "kit"-like look compared to L lenses or even 40mm pancake.

Agree - from what I've seen, the 40mm seems a better lens for the money.

I have both, and they look pretty similar to me. The 40 I think is a tad better, but I prefer the focal length anyway..

Fro sure the new 50 is better than it's predecessors.

Al Downie wrote:

Alexsfo wrote:

images have a duller "kit"-like look compared to L lenses or even 40mm pancake.

Agree - from what I've seen, the 40mm seems a better lens for the money.

I have both, and they look pretty similar to me. The 40 I think is a tad better, but I prefer the focal length anyway..

Fro sure the new 50 is better than it's predecessors.

It is definately better than predecessor:
- better bokeh though still poor but the old one had the worst bokeh ever
- quieter AF
- metal mount
- smaller - almost pancake
- apparently better optics

Nevertheless, images look very similar to the old one. They lack contrast and color, and don't transcend skin tonality the way higher end Canon lenses do on FF bodies. I very much like cinematic images that Canon 6d produce wth better lenses. 50mm STM is still a great choice for beginners or for those not spoiled by magical L glass. It is a solid budget option which makes Canon EF such a great and versatile system for any level.