New Canon 50mm Coming? [CR1]

[iMagic]

My. Guess. Better IQ than the current 1.4 and 1.8 And sigma 1.4 AND 1.2L at same apertures. 8 round blades. NO IS. The only benefit of the 1.2 L will of course be 1.2 and weather sealing.

[LetTheRightLensIn]

For $849, I'd expect a 50 f/1.4 to either have Zeiss class build & IQ, or the abilities to make coffee and <self censored>

Actually the current on pretty much has zeiss class IQ, the basic zeiss 50mm 1.4 is the same old standard double gauss design, i compared the old contax version and the IQ seemed awfully similar between the two, the zeiss 50mm was no 21mm distagon or anything.

The build quality may be 'slightly' better for the Zeiss though. 

[mrsfotografie]

i have a Sigma 50mm 1.4 and it is awesome. Very solid and pleasant to use for 450 bucks. I definitely wouldn't be in the market for an 850 dollar 50mm.
The pricing of Canon really has me scratching my head lately. If the bodies were expensive and the lenses were cheap I could accept it, or opposite:cheap bodies, expensive glass.
When will we get some really good news?

I agree..have the same lens and LOVE it. It really beats out all the Canon 50mm lenses from a performance/price standpoint.  It was the only choice I could make and feel good. 
 Perhaps the pricing we are seeing is in large-part happening because of the tsunami.......?

I'm with you on this one, my Sigma 50 mm is fabulous 

[Caps18]

I've used the 50mm f/1.2 before, and it is my next and last lens that I will buy. (until something like an ultra-ultra wide lens catches my eye...)



This 50mm f/1.4 better have internal zoom for that price, and have lightning quick AF.  Maybe even IS...

[AJ]

At that price it'll have IS.  Just like the 24 and 28 mm primes.  It'll be aimed at video shooters.

[Etienne]

I'd rather pay $2k for a mk2 version of the 1.2L that doesn't focus shift and isn't soft wide open, than $850 for a mk2 1.4

What are you comparing the 1.2L to in order to call it soft at f1.2?  There is a post above this that mentions the focus shift.

When I owned it (briefly), I compared it to my 85LII, and it was shockingly soft.  Have also tried 2 other copies which both exhibited the same thing.  At f/2, it was razor sharp, but if I'm going to shoot at f/2, I'm not going to spend $1500.

There's no need to pump up on opinions. There are tons of reviews on the EF 50's. Virtually everyone identifies focus shift and border softness in the 50 1.2L. Photozone is pretty reliable: http://www.photozone.de/canon_eos_ff/472-canon_50_12_5d

In fact the 50 1.2L is not as sharp as the $369 50 1.4 at any aperture, and the borders never really sharpen up at any aperture.

What you get for an extra $1130 is a slightly improved bokeh, twice the weight, a loss of resolution across the board, and a red ring. Not a very good deal.

[AG]

At that price it'll have IS.  Just like the 24 and 28 mm primes.  It'll be aimed at video shooters.

Agreed.

Thats the key a lot of people are forgetting, Video is becoming a fast growing segment in the rebel DSLR sector. People are starting to realise that you can get good quality video out of a simple cheap set up. These STM lenses we are seeing appear are aimed at exactly that.
Its the reason why they don't really care if its not sharp until f2, shooting video at f1.4 is doable but not preferable, but its good to have the option there, it would also explain why the STM lenses autofocus is a little slower that USM. No need with video.

Love it or hate it video is here to stay, and by the looks of it the masses are agreeing.

[michi]

I don't care how well built it is or how good it is, $800+ for this type of lens is ridiculous.  I thought Canon had just partially lost their mind with the 24-70 II but apparently it's the new trend.  Sad to see.  Will exclude me from a lot of good glass.

[EOBeav]

There's no need to pump up on opinions. There are tons of reviews on the EF 50's. Virtually everyone identifies focus shift and border softness in the 50 1.2L. Photozone is pretty reliable: http://www.photozone.de/canon_eos_ff/472-canon_50_12_5d

In fact the 50 1.2L is not as sharp as the $369 50 1.4 at any aperture, and the borders never really sharpen up at any aperture.

What you get for an extra $1130 is a slightly improved bokeh, twice the weight, a loss of resolution across the board, and a red ring. Not a very good deal.

I'm not fully aware of all of the optical pros and cons of the 50mm f/1.2L, but I will say this: Dollar for dollar, it doesn't compete with the 50mm f/1.4. And that's considering the noted flaws in THAT lens. I just don't seem images produced with it that would make me go out and drop that extra grand+.  However, I think we're both going to take a raft from the f/1.2L users on this forum...

[bdunbar79]

Not from me.  I have the 50 f/1.2L and will probably sell it.  It's not worth the extra money and outdoors at low ISO the 50 f/1.4 color rendition is actually slightly better, especially on my 1Ds 3.  There's nothing magical about it particularly, and side-by-side images, even wide, aren't any different to me.  Another point, stopped down narrower than f/4, both the 1.4 and 1.8 lens are sharper, which matters to me.  I've been told I'm wrong on this point yet I see it in my images, and Bryan Carnathan's charts show what I get.  The 50 f/1.2L is a specialty lens from f/1.2 to f/2.8.  After that, the 1.4 matches it or does slightly better, and this is well documented in all reviews of the lenses.

If you want great images from f/1.2 to f/2.8, the 50L is the only lens that will do it.  But narrower, there are actually better lenses.

[Random Orbits]

There's no need to pump up on opinions. There are tons of reviews on the EF 50's. Virtually everyone identifies focus shift and border softness in the 50 1.2L. Photozone is pretty reliable: http://www.photozone.de/canon_eos_ff/472-canon_50_12_5d

In fact the 50 1.2L is not as sharp as the $369 50 1.4 at any aperture, and the borders never really sharpen up at any aperture.

What you get for an extra $1130 is a slightly improved bokeh, twice the weight, a loss of resolution across the board, and a red ring. Not a very good deal.

The 50L is as sharp as the 50 1.4 most everywhere and its AF is better.  The canon f/1.2 and f/1.4 have similar resolution and both do better overall (average of center and edge measurements) than the Sigma and Zeiss f/1.4 offerings.  TDP also found that the f/1.2 is the best option from f/1.2 to ~f/2.8.

http://www.lensrentals.com/blog/2012/01/the-great-50mm-shootout

The nice thing I like about the lensrentals evaluation was that they used the same body.  Many reviews are done when the lenses are introduced with different bodies and comparing them can be more difficult.  I'm not defending the 50L's price, but it performs as well as any Canon-mount 50mm f/1.4 lens at large apertures (f/4 and larger).  I've used a canon 50 f/1.4 and the resolution was much worse from f/1.4 to f/2 (even after MFA).  Maybe it was the copy I was using, but it's AF accuracy was horrible from f/1.4 to f/2.  LiveView AF produced better results than phase-detect AF.

It's one thing to say that none of the fast Canon-mount 50mm primes from any manufacturer performs well outside of the center and that the canon f/1.2 and f/1.4 do well against the competition.  You can then argue whether or not f/1.2, the bokeh, build quality are worth the premium price.  That's fair.  But I'm don't think it's fair to say that the f/1.2 loses on resolution when there really isn't a better option at large apertures for Canon shooters.

[Daniel Flather]

There's nothing magical about it........


........If you want great images from f/1.2 to f/2.8, the 50L is the only lens that will do it.

[Random Orbits]

I'm not fully aware of all of the optical pros and cons of the 50mm f/1.2L, but I will say this: Dollar for dollar, it doesn't compete with the 50mm f/1.4. And that's considering the noted flaws in THAT lens. I just don't seem images produced with it that would make me go out and drop that extra grand+.  However, I think we're both going to take a raft from the f/1.2L users on this forum...

Considering price to performance, the 50mm f/1.4 wins but then the f/1.8 might win that competition versus the f/1.4 as well.   

If given the choice of someone giving you the choice between the 50L and the 50 f/1.4 for free, I'm sure most people would pick the 50L.  When our own funds are on the line, then I'm sure many of the previous choices would change.  The 50L versus 50 non-L feels a bit more contentious perhaps because the options are closer in IQ than at other prime focal lengths (24, 35 or 85mm).  But if this rumor is true that the 50 f/1.4 replacement is going to be around 800, then the it'd change the ratios between those opting between the f/1.2, f/1.4 or nothing at all because at that point, Canon will stop making the current f/1.4 and prices will rise similarly to the 24-70 I's as inventory runs out and all that is left is the 24-70 II and 3rd party options.

[Dave Roush]

To me the only thing that makes sense would be having a lens with the new stepper motor (STM). I would think that the new standard on consumer cameras will be the hybrid auto focus system.

[bdunbar79]

There's nothing magical about it........


........If you want great images from f/1.2 to f/2.8, the 50L is the only lens that will do it.

Daniel, as much as I respect you as a person and a photographer (and I do) that photo proves nothing.  The 50 f/1.4 for all we know could have taken the exact same photo.  If I shoot out in daylight at low ISO on a 1Ds3 or 5D3, my photos from the two lenses are exactly the same.  There is no $1100 difference.  I'll agree with you that the 50L lens is sharper 1.2 to 2, but beyond that it isn't.  Low to mid ISO the 1.4 lens performs just as well, which is why everyone is questionning the price.  Most pros that I know prefer the 24-70L zoom lens over any of Canon's 50's.  I personally like 50mm, so I own all 3, but I'll be the first to admit the 50L was way overpriced.  I will probably keep it because I like the build quality.