A New 50 Coming Soon? [CR1]

[Sporgon]

If I get 10 years out of it, it'll cost me roughly £100 / year for reliable no worry usage. If I sell it for 80% of what I bought it for....then that's even better.

Same reason here for upgrading from the 100mm non-L macro to the L version ... and my primary concern with the new non-L IS lenses, it's seldom mentioned in tech geek threads. I don't buy red ring because it looks cool (actually I taped it), but because it's much more reliable, and even after less than 10years I'm pretty confident with my 100L/70-300L/17-40L.

You both make fair points; however the build of the new series of IS primes is a big improvement over the old 'consumer grade' lenses of the past. Time will tell how robust they really are.

Personally I use less L glass now because of the AF accuracy and adjustability of the new cameras, so I basically don't use manual focus anymore, something that the L s are much better made for.

I think I'm in the minority of people on CR who don't have Elle's Disease. Good job really 'cos I have a disease involving long faces, tails and four hoofs 

[e17paul]

Even if the quality is equivalent  the new 24/28/35mm a price 5 times higher than the current 50 F1.8 would scare potential buyers and push them to Sigma.

Regardless of price, an IS lens can't push someone to buy a non IS lens.

These lenses are specifically made with IS for hybrid shooters/videographers. Non IS lenses are not an alternative.

I love IS for a 50mm lens.  I want to be able to shoot to at least 1/30 and lower shutterspeed with this focal length handheld.

+1

My 50/2.5 lives on my 6D. If it could freeze water hand held, it would be more versatile. I can usually manage 1/30 handheld, but IS would comfortably allow 1/15 or 1/8. With full time MF override, quiet AF and weatherproofing, it would be perfect. I'm hoping for the new lens to have closer focus than the 50/1.8, 50/1.4 & 50/1.2L. It may well do, because Canon seem to be phasing out lenses with the old noisy focus motor, in favour of USM on full frame and STM on EF-S. Fortunately, the roll out of STM lenses is solving this.

I'm guessing that the new 50 IS will come in at a higher price, and the 50/1.4 will become the bargain model. Then, there is also the 40/2.8 STM to prop up the range, as currently the 2nd cheapest and 2nd lightest prime in the lineup. Canon have to improve the perceived quality at the low end, the focus rings on some of the kit zooms feel loose and ready to fall off when tried in the shop. That might help encourage sales of L-series lenses, but it must also help the sales of mirrorless cameras by Sony, Fuji, Olympus & Panasonic

[dadgummit]

If I get 10 years out of it, it'll cost me roughly £100 / year for reliable no worry usage. If I sell it for 80% of what I bought it for....then that's even better.

Same reason here for upgrading from the 100mm non-L macro to the L version ... and my primary concern with the new non-L IS lenses, it's seldom mentioned in tech geek threads. I don't buy red ring because it looks cool (actually I taped it), but because it's much more reliable, and even after less than 10years I'm pretty confident with my 100L/70-300L/17-40L.

I have had the 100mm Macro for about 6 years and it works as good as the day I first opened the box.  What reliability concerns do you have? I would think that since the L has IS, and IS is almost always the weak link in any lens' reliability I would assume the older lens would last longer than the L.

[Marsu42]

What reliability concerns do you have?

It broke down twice due to water/mist/dew/... getting in, when I saw the second repair estimate I decided that buying the L version is cheaper for outdoor shooting near ground level. Of course the non-L is fine if you use it indoors or very, very carefully outdoors, the iq is nearly the same and the IS doesn't make a difference near 1:1

[GMCPhotographics]

What reliability concerns do you have?

It broke down twice due to water/mist/dew/... getting in, when I saw the second repair estimate I decided that buying the L version is cheaper for outdoor shooting near ground level. Of course the non-L is fine if you use it indoors or very, very carefully outdoors, the iq is nearly the same and the IS doesn't make a difference near 1:1

My 100LIS macro is a little sharper than my non L was. The zoom ring on the L is a lot smoother and better geared. For macro work, this is essential. The body shell on the L is mostly magnesium / aluminium alloy, which is why it feels like plastic. It's not cool to the touch. The IS unit is great for some types of photos. When I shoot ring shots, wide open at f2.8 it's amazing. But for 1:1 stuff, a tripod is needed. The colours and contrast I'm seeing from the L lens are a lot better too.

[Marsu42]

My 100LIS macro is a little sharper than my non L was. The zoom ring on the L is a lot smoother and better geared. For macro work, this is essential. [...] The colours and contrast I'm seeing from the L lens are a lot better too. [...] The colours and contrast I'm seeing from the L lens are a lot better too.

Probably all true, but they are both very good macro lenses, and considering the price the rule of diminishing returns applies... but recently the price of the L has gone down, so it's worth the price difference by now unless it's a cheaper, used non-L.

When I shoot ring shots, wide open at f2.8 it's amazing.

Indeed, but who wants to shoot 1:1 macro at f2.8? At least I don't, that's why I keep using my 60d for some macros as it has a deeper dof (plus more working distance) than the 6d and the L is very good on both cameras. The f2.8 of the L is nice for dual use as a portrait lens though. But all ot, this used to be a 50mm thread :-o

[Sella174]

... 'cos I have a disease involving long faces, tails and four hoofs 

You too?