A New 50 Coming Soon? [CR1]

[Sporgon]

 Beginners don't have that kind of money to spend on a 50 (especially one that isn't 1.4).

Who's to say only beginners use a 50mm prime ?

From my point of view there is naf all difference between f1.4 and 1.8 on a 50. I'd much rather have the slightly slower lens with a smaller objective lens and sharp fully open rather than a 1.4 that is really soft at that aperture.

If I'm out hiking in a beautiful landscape looking for pictures I don't want to be lumbered with carrying gear, and that includes a tripod, so IS on a standard or wide angle lens is very useful to me, and I'm sure to others.

50mm has traditionally been a lens that the manufacturer can offer obsolute top image quality with an affordable price tag. Not everybody wants to fork out for and lug around a lens such as the ( albeit fantastic ) 24-70 f2.8 II.

[Ewinter]

I'm game for this, especially if they can do a sharp wide open and fast AF

[eddiemrg]

mmmmh... 50mm f2.0 IS probably...
Or something projected to beat A series from Sigma?

If the new 50 will be worth of it probably will be mine

[fox40phil]

why 1.8 ? hm... a new 1.4 or 1.2L would be better...   with weather seeling!!!

[vikta11]

I will welcome this lens since I'm already using the 35 f2 IS and 85 f1.8. The 24-70 ii cost too much and lacks the creativity of the faster primes for my 5Dmk3

[dswtan]

"Canon has noticed that the pricing on the 3 mentioned lenses at launch was too high and lead to poor initial sales numbers. Since the lenses have been price dropped, they are selling better."

*So* hope they try this on the Big Whites soon!! 

[mwh1964]

Have the 35 f2 IS. Use it for stills and quite pleased with the IS. If the new fifty would perform equally or better then for most photogs such a lens should be a serious consideration.

[Etienne]

I just got the 35 f/2 IS after the price drop ($550), and it's a good value at that price. Half the size and weight of the Sigma 1.4, very sharp, IS is a bonus!

I hope the new 50 comes out with IS, but I hope it is f/1.4 and sharp wide open. I'd go to $750 if it's 1.4 and sharp wide open. But perhaps $500 for 1.8

How about a new sharp 85 1.8 with IS? That would be worth $900

[EverydayGetaway]

 Beginners don't have that kind of money to spend on a 50 (especially one that isn't 1.4).

Who's to say only beginners use a 50mm prime ?

From my point of view there is naf all difference between f1.4 and 1.8 on a 50. I'd much rather have the slightly slower lens with a smaller objective lens and sharp fully open rather than a 1.4 that is really soft at that aperture.

If I'm out hiking in a beautiful landscape looking for pictures I don't want to be lumbered with carrying gear, and that includes a tripod, so IS on a standard or wide angle lens is very useful to me, and I'm sure to others.

50mm has traditionally been a lens that the manufacturer can offer obsolute top image quality with an affordable price tag. Not everybody wants to fork out for and lug around a lens such as the ( albeit fantastic ) 24-70 f2.8 II.

This.

I find it funny how everyone gets in arms about it being 1.8 instead of 1.4.  I have a 50mm 1.4 and I use it at f/2 most of the time.  On FF I find that f/1.4 the DOF is often too narrow, if this 50mm f/1.8 is a good performer I know I'll be all over it 

[Etienne]

 Beginners don't have that kind of money to spend on a 50 (especially one that isn't 1.4).

Who's to say only beginners use a 50mm prime ?

From my point of view there is naf all difference between f1.4 and 1.8 on a 50. I'd much rather have the slightly slower lens with a smaller objective lens and sharp fully open rather than a 1.4 that is really soft at that aperture.

If I'm out hiking in a beautiful landscape looking for pictures I don't want to be lumbered with carrying gear, and that includes a tripod, so IS on a standard or wide angle lens is very useful to me, and I'm sure to others.

50mm has traditionally been a lens that the manufacturer can offer obsolute top image quality with an affordable price tag. Not everybody wants to fork out for and lug around a lens such as the ( albeit fantastic ) 24-70 f2.8 II.

This.

I find it funny how everyone gets in arms about it being 1.8 instead of 1.4.  I have a 50mm 1.4 and I use it at f/2 most of the time.  On FF I find that f/1.4 the DOF is often too narrow, if this 50mm f/1.8 is a good performer I know I'll be all over it 

f/1.4 allows you to get shallow DOF at longer focal distances. Not all shallow DOF photography and videography is headshots, in which 1.4, or even 2.8, on FF can be too shallow.

[Sporgon]

 Beginners don't have that kind of money to spend on a 50 (especially one that isn't 1.4).

Who's to say only beginners use a 50mm prime ?

From my point of view there is naf all difference between f1.4 and 1.8 on a 50. I'd much rather have the slightly slower lens with a smaller objective lens and sharp fully open rather than a 1.4 that is really soft at that aperture.

If I'm out hiking in a beautiful landscape looking for pictures I don't want to be lumbered with carrying gear, and that includes a tripod, so IS on a standard or wide angle lens is very useful to me, and I'm sure to others.

50mm has traditionally been a lens that the manufacturer can offer obsolute top image quality with an affordable price tag. Not everybody wants to fork out for and lug around a lens such as the ( albeit fantastic ) 24-70 f2.8 II.

This.

I find it funny how everyone gets in arms about it being 1.8 instead of 1.4.  I have a 50mm 1.4 and I use it at f/2 most of the time.  On FF I find that f/1.4 the DOF is often too narrow, if this 50mm f/1.8 is a good performer I know I'll be all over it 

f/1.4 allows you to get shallow DOF at longer focal distances. Not all shallow DOF photography and videography is headshots, in which 1.4, or even 2.8, on FF can be too shallow.

You're right about the very fast apertures being more practical when the subject is further away. On a 50mm at about 12 feet you have about 16" of dof at f1.4 and about 20" at f1.8. For me it makes no difference especially if the 1.8 lens is very sharp at 1.8 so there is more sharp contrast between in and out of focus.

[LetTheRightLensIn]

I wonder why they don't just give the 50 1.4 proper USM high-precision AF. They use an out and out faulty design on that, why do they never fix it? The mechanism was not designed with enough precision and, much worse, it has a design flaw that causes it to break in unreasonable fashion, they should've recalled the AF design.

That said this might be a nice new lens.

[immaculens]

I find it funny how everyone gets in arms about it being 1.8 instead of 1.4.  I have a 50mm 1.4 and I use it at f/2 most of the time.  On FF I find that f/1.4 the DOF is often too narrow, if this 50mm f/1.8 is a good performer I know I'll be all over it 

50mm on my crop sensor is my fave focal length (short prime). Looking forward to a new 50 1.8 IS in 2014 - hope it happens!

I got the 40 hotcake because I wanted a bit wider, sold my 50 1.8..... repurchased a 50 1.8 and love it!
...now the 40 hotcake sits...

also have an 85 1.8 collecting dust. Sharp copy but too long on a crop for my shooting style. my 40 & 85 are for sale... Bring on a 50 IS...

[AndreeOnline]

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 actually disagree. I have a friend who's super into video (shoots with a hacked GH2) and doesn't care about in-lens stabilization. If you're really serious about video you'll have your own stabilization rigs, which is partly why he wants to add a 60d and 50 1.8 to his kit.

It's similar to the argument about the 70d's LV focus. A lot of people said serious video shooters wouldn't use it. I think the same applies here, which is why a stabilized 50 1.8 at around 5x the cost of the previous generation doesn't make sense. Beginners don't have that kind of money to spend on a 50 (especially one that isn't 1.4).

So, who disagrees... you or your friend?  =)

I agree regarding auto focus—I wouldn't touch that with today's standards. But IS is different.

First of all: for many DSLR video shooters, putting the camera on a rig is a fail right there. As a concept it's not wrong, but it might be highly desirable to shoot "rigless".

Plus, a rig typically excels in stabilizing the motion to the point where you might not need post stabilization, or where you end up with camera movement that can be fixed in post, to a degree.

But what IS does is that it removes the micro stutter that is impossible to fix in post. This can be beneficial even with a rig setup.

Now, the photography world has traditionally done well without IS on wideish primes. The reason we're seeing these lenses now is due to video.

I do a lot of video on a DSLR (on and off rig) and I would take IS on my Sigma 35mm 1.4 or 50 1.4 any day.

[EverydayGetaway]

 Beginners don't have that kind of money to spend on a 50 (especially one that isn't 1.4).

Who's to say only beginners use a 50mm prime ?

From my point of view there is naf all difference between f1.4 and 1.8 on a 50. I'd much rather have the slightly slower lens with a smaller objective lens and sharp fully open rather than a 1.4 that is really soft at that aperture.

If I'm out hiking in a beautiful landscape looking for pictures I don't want to be lumbered with carrying gear, and that includes a tripod, so IS on a standard or wide angle lens is very useful to me, and I'm sure to others.

50mm has traditionally been a lens that the manufacturer can offer obsolute top image quality with an affordable price tag. Not everybody wants to fork out for and lug around a lens such as the ( albeit fantastic ) 24-70 f2.8 II.

This.

I find it funny how everyone gets in arms about it being 1.8 instead of 1.4.  I have a 50mm 1.4 and I use it at f/2 most of the time.  On FF I find that f/1.4 the DOF is often too narrow, if this 50mm f/1.8 is a good performer I know I'll be all over it 

f/1.4 allows you to get shallow DOF at longer focal distances. Not all shallow DOF photography and videography is headshots, in which 1.4, or even 2.8, on FF can be too shallow.

You're right about the very fast apertures being more practical when the subject is further away. On a 50mm at about 12 feet you have about 16" of dof at f1.4 and about 20" at f1.8. For me it makes no difference especially if the 1.8 lens is very sharp at 1.8 so there is more sharp contrast between in and out of focus.

Exactly.  Of course there's a difference, but it's so minimal that you're not going to notice it 90% of the time.  Very rarely do I feel the need to open my 50mm all the way to 1.4.