Canon EF 50mm f1.4

[Marsu42]

I just want a new 50mm f1.4L USM IS.

I don't think anyone really NEEDS IS in a 50mm.

I think it depends on the usage and photog profile: An amateur on a tourism trip shooting with a noisy aps-c sensor indoors in low light will appreciate IS when not using a tripod. On the other hand, pros won't need it because fast shutter speeds in my experience beat IS when looking at 100% crops and IS doesn't help with motion blur for event shots. The latter is the reason why the new 24-70 still has no IS.

As for video, Canon obviously cannot make up their mind. They are releasing someting for video usage, but everyone with more experience shooting video seems to use other stabilizer gear. So the market for mid-priced wide angle primes with IS might be very small.

One aspect I like about IS (I've got it on my 70-300L) is not that it enables longer shutter speeds, but that it stabilizes the frame and lets me concentrate on the scene. When using a 50mm on a crop = 80mm this effect is still visible

[Tcapp]

I just want a new 50mm f1.4L USM IS.

I don't think anyone really NEEDS IS in a 50mm.

I think it depends on the usage and photog profile: An amateur on a tourism trip shooting with a noisy aps-c sensor indoors in low light will appreciate IS when not using a tripod. On the other hand, pros won't need it because fast shutter speeds in my experience beat IS when looking at 100% crops and IS doesn't help with motion blur for event shots. The latter is the reason why the new 24-70 still has no IS.

As for video, Canon obviously cannot make up their mind. They are releasing someting for video usage, but everyone with more experience shooting video seems to use other stabilizer gear. So the market for mid-priced wide angle primes with IS might be very small.

One aspect I like about IS (I've got it on my 70-300L) is not that it enables longer shutter speeds, but that it stabilizes the frame and lets me concentrate on the scene. When using a 50mm on a crop = 80mm this effect is still visible

If you really want a stabilized 50mm, try a sony camera. They have the stabilization in the sensor, so all lenses are IS.

[Marsu42]

If you really want a stabilized 50mm, try a sony camera. They have the stabilization in the sensor, so all lenses are IS.

In fact, back when I decided which brand I'll get I nearly bought a Sony instead of my Canon - the Sensor is about the same as on the low-noise Nikons, and the Sony models have very good live view video af because of the fixed mirror. However, I just *hate* the evf and thus got a traditional dslr with optical viewfinder. Apart from that, the electronic stabilizer on the Sony dslrs isn't as effective as the mechanical one in my 70-300L.

And you're forgetting the biggest difference: An electronic stabilizer, at least on older Sony bodies, does *not* affect the frame before shooting!

[Tcapp]

If you really want a stabilized 50mm, try a sony camera. They have the stabilization in the sensor, so all lenses are IS.

In fact, back when I decided which brand I'll get I nearly bought a Sony instead of my Canon - the Sensor is about the same as on the low-noise Nikons, and the Sony models have very good live view video af because of the fixed mirror. However, I just *hate* the evf and thus got a traditional dslr with optical viewfinder. Apart from that, the electronic stabilizer on the Sony dslrs isn't as effective as the mechanical one in my 70-300L.

And you're forgetting the biggest difference: An electronic stabilizer, at least on older Sony bodies, does *not* affect the frame before shooting!

I know. HAHA. I was being totally sarcastic. I hate sony cameras. I actually bought one when I was first starting out and returned it cause i couldn't go above 400 iso back then on the sony. I got the Nikon d90 instead. That in body stabilization and live view af is what lured me in, but image quality, and crappy lens selection drove me away.

Long live canon!

[Marsu42]

I know. HAHA. I was being totally sarcastic.

I really didn't get that - because I don't think that (apart from the efv) Sony is that bad at all, they even got expensive pro bodies I'd exchange for my 60d this very moment. If Sony would run magic lantern. Which it doesn't. So watch out - sooner or later, Sony might have the last laugh on you :-p

[Tcapp]

I know. HAHA. I was being totally sarcastic.

I really didn't get that - because I don't think that (apart from the efv) Sony is that bad at all, they even got expensive pro bodies I'd exchange for my 60d this very moment. If Sony would run magic lantern. Which it doesn't. So watch out - sooner or later, Sony might have the last laugh on you :-p

Maybe. I dont think the translucent mirror thing is a good way to go for pro bodies though. you looks like a third stop of your light right there (or am i wrong?). It has been a while since I had used the sony and was disappointed. Its strange though, cause they make the BEST tvs, great gaming systems, they invented blu-ray, and more. They are a great company and I do expect great things from them eventually.

[Marsu42]

Maybe. I dont think the translucent mirror thing is a good way to go for pro bodies though. you looks like a third stop of your light right there (or am i wrong?).

It's two thirds: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canon_EOS_RT ... however, with a good sensor and a fast lens it doesn't make a difference in ok light. The thing is: I once owned an non-digital Canon RT with a fixed mirror and it was the greatest camera I ever had! With a fixed, translucent mirror, you can actually see what you shoot (no blackout) and this makes tracking *much* easier, and the response time was stellar. I only needed to lightly touch the button and it had already made the picture before I knew it - with my current 60d, there is a considerable lag between "butterfly sits on flower" and "camera makes picture of flower without butterfly". A 7d2 with a translucent mirror would be the killer for wildlife shots.

[Tcapp]

Maybe. I dont think the translucent mirror thing is a good way to go for pro bodies though. you looks like a third stop of your light right there (or am i wrong?).

It's two thirds: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canon_EOS_RT ... however, with a good sensor and a fast lens it doesn't make a difference in ok light. The thing is: I once owned an non-digital Canon RT with a fixed mirror and it was the greatest camera I ever had! With a fixed, translucent mirror, you can actually see what you shoot (no blackout) and this makes tracking *much* easier, and the response time was stellar. I only needed to lightly touch the button and it had already made the picture before I knew it - with my current 60d, there is a considerable lag between "butterfly sits on flower" and "camera makes picture of flower without butterfly". A 7d2 with a translucent mirror would be the killer for wildlife shots.

Great point. Would be good for certain things i guess. But for my low light work, i would hate to have a two third stop handicap. Thats almost the difference between shooting at 6400 iso and 12.8k iso.

[davidbellissima]

When I was in the market for a 50mm F1.4 I did a lot of research and finally settled on the Sigma 50mm F1.4. By most accounts it gets better reviews and in my experience it is brilliant! Highly recommended.

[preppyak]

Which begs the question, are the new 24 and 28 IS lenses for video specifically? I don't see them being useful for stills...

Yes, that's pretty much the only excuse for making them so slow. Also, 50mm is one of the primes that is in a normal cinematographers bag, so, I'd be you'll see a 50mm IS prime at some point. 35mm and 85mm would be the others.