I can not understand the concern expressed some criticism here. I use a whole range of Canon lenses with plastic and metal bayonet, with "grade" and "plastic" look. That the processing but at the one supposed to be so much worse than the others, I can not confirm, let alone the subtle suggestion that the processing affects the photographic results. I do not know whether there is a second lens in the DSLR world, in which you can get comparable performance for this price. So far I have mainly used the lens for night shots in rooms with artificial light and worked almost exclusively with autofocus. Last week I made a few dozen shots at a wedding. Committee despite the allegedly defective autofocus almost nil. In sharp 1/40 Exposure Time brilliant shots, and the entire razor. The reported problems with the autofocus I have now, however, also found in newer versions of portraits, and at open aperture you should expect from this lens is no perfect sharpness. Unlike some testers I certainly have not had any problems with the manual focus. I've seen photographs of many Canon lenses. The 50 / 1.8 disqualify as a cheap entry lens, is nonsense in my eyes. Who do not believe me, it can read, the "at least" the same optical level ascribes this lens as the 50 / 1.4 Canon also when an author Guido cancer. I do not know what it looks like in full-frame, but this lens is for me in spite of the little weaknesses of the basic equipment of each kleinsensorigen Canon DSLR. If the money does not matter, should the 50 / 1.4er access to bypass the high ISO values in evening indoors.
