Great Shard for little money

have to play, bought this lens. Because of the price I did not expect anything. This expectation was exceeded _TOTAL_.

What I knew before? - If you are looking on the net, is heaps EF50mm 1 tests for Canon: see 1.8 II. These tests come, largely, the same result:
- Cheap feel
- Shaky, because also cheaper focus ring
+/- Slower (u. Louder) Autofocus
+/- Bayonet plastic, so also cheap, but works fine
+/- "Comic panel", leads with only five or six-blade, the waste and to funny effects
++ Very good imaging performance
++ Extremely good value for money
(And more diverse)

My opinion: All the items that can be found on the lens, except the durability, I can confirm.
=> Who can get involved in such an objective will not be disappointed.

Used an EOS 650D - My application: photos with open aperture, rarely indoors without a flash.

Cropping objects (photos with "effect")
In order to indemnify objects when shooting, so to have a low depth of field, rich neither the kit lens, even the "vacation zoom", which is one of my photographic equipment. It was not until an aperture of 2.0 or less can be played properly with the focus point.

Exactly for this application can I Canon EF 50mm 1: 1.8 II highly recommend (see sample images). While there are apparently some "peculiar effects" (see the photo of the keyboard, the keys here were not yellow), but the result is pretty good and has potential for the "creative amateur photographers". => If you want to experiment with so something is definitely served properly with the Canon EF 50mm 1: 1.8 II!

Indoor shots without flash:
Here I have not experimented much - I have the lens only for a few days - but the depth of field seems 2.0 or a little more to be in order as early as (approx). Of course there will be blurring at the edge of the image, but the images were not as bad as it could suggest some tests. (Unfortunately I have no test picture that I can publish, but you will certainly find it here on the net.)

Other: Autofocus
- Is loud => no video with auto focus, when you want to use the camera sound ...
- Is not as slow as I had feared. While the lens is not the fastest, I know, but it can easily keep up with the 18-55 (Kit)
- Meets most - often is "marksmanship" criticized. I'm not sure if that is a real "problem", or whether the reviewers / testers only the aperture wide open and have to use the wrong program the camera ... (for EUR 80, - - EUR 90, - "meets" the lens with my EOS 650D surprisingly well. Maybe it's yes to the (cross-) sensors the camera ...?!)

Other: Portraits
It is often written that the lens is the ideal lens for portraits. I can not quite follow. I want "nice people photograph", I need one hand an "Open lens" for highlighting the subject, on the other hand, I would like the person but not too much back to my body. In my opinion, 80mm focal length are not ideal for this purpose. A few mm longer would prefer me here.
In addition, sufficient for the depth of focus, probably, also a stop of 2.0 or 2.8 ...
=> Here everyone should decide for themselves.

My conclusion (for me): The Canon EF 50mm 1: 1.8 II is probably my "immerdrauf Shard". As I zoom a little and enjoy playing, I can arrange myself with the fixed focus.

Especially when one considers the price, it is certainly not a "more creative" lens with the same price / performance ratio can buy. This alone qualifies the Canon EF 50mm 1: 1.8 II to be a really good lens.

Supplement, or other words: "For _DEN_ price is the lens absolutely outrageous!"

=> A very strong buy recommendation from me!

PS: At the inserted test patterns - unfortunately I can not insert comments / Title
The inclusion of the keyboard displays a photo with open aperture. (Illuminated was with white LEDs, photo without flash) Here some keys act as if they were yellowed. Currently I am trying to find out whether it is an error of lentil or the camera. Real all keys are white ...
The photo with the headphones: My opinion: WOW!
Despite the black motif (amplifier), the focus is phenomenal. (Of course I have the focus (manually) the lint caught up on the receiver ... ;-)) The result looks when it comes to depth of field, a lot better than I expected "through the viewfinder".

Both were snapshots without a tripod. The images are (brightness, ...) unprocessed. The first image is cut, the 2nd "as is".