EF 50 f/1.4 II & EF 50 f/1.8 III [CR2]

[7enderbender]

It's quite hard to justify $700 for 50/1.4 if it's just a minor upgrade of the old model. For that price, it'd better be a lot better (doubtful), have something more (like IS) or be significantly more compact (very unlikely). Of course the lottery winners among us might go for that even if they just added red "L" ring to it and nothing more.

I think it is very compact as is. I wouldn't actually mind if it was slightly bigger without getting into the 50L territory. No, I did not win the lottery ;-) But I actually think and have said before that the current model is "too cheap". Again, I don't need an update as far as the optics go. They have served me well over the last 25 years or so. I'd like to see any extra cost go directly towards a very rugged barrel with inner focusing. IS doesn't make sense. I don't like it in general and certainly not on this lens.

What I don't get are the "complaints" that I see on the web lately where people think that the lens isn't "sharp enough" or doesn't have enough contrast etc. It still is one of Canon's best lenses I think. Even wide open it is very very good and more than useful. It's a shame that the EF version lives in this silly little plastic housing with the front element moving in and out and exposed to damaging the motor drive.

[awinphoto]

If they made the autofocus for the 1.4 more reliable and a tad bit sharper at wide open and i'd consider that a major improvement rather than minor improvement.  While it's a "fast"lens, it's not fast in terms of the autofocus and I have to almost pace my shooting a bit to let the lens catch up to me before I fire.  If I consciously remember to do that, i get a high keeper rate.  If I have to shoot at full 8 frames a second with my 7D, i'd be lucky to get any keepers. 

I do find on portraits, even on production portraiture (when I shoot daycares, schools, sports teams, etc) 1.4 is way too thin and typically stop down to at most 2.2 or below so that buys me room for error in microfocus and i have an extremely high keeper rate (as long as I pace myself).  It would be nice if it could keep up with me for those split second make it or break it shots you get with kids...

[anthony11]

Having IS in a 50mm 1.4 would be ridiculously amazing for low light. a 3-4 stop advantage ON TOP of an f/1.4 aperture would have capabilities similar to the Noctilux (though your focus would no longer be razor thin, thankfully).

f/1.4 is still plenty thin, and IS would just add cost, mass, and would be something else to break.  Subject motion dominates anyway

[skitron]

Concerning price point, I would imagine this new 1.4 will need to be priced according to how much it can tangibly outperform the Sigma. The Sigma is a great lens on a crop body and is doing very well marketwise, and some even like it for full frame. So I'd think Canon will need to demonstrate a reason not to buy the Sigma, which will hopefully means better autofocus (though my Sigma is actually doing well in this regard) and better off center sharpness when used on FF. I think Canon will be successful, otherwise why even do the new version, and imagine that puts it about $599. I'll be shocked if it has IS though I'd be all for it since it shoots like an 80 on a crop body. Of course it'd have a completely different price point in that case.

[7enderbender]

Having IS in a 50mm 1.4 would be ridiculously amazing for low light. a 3-4 stop advantage ON TOP of an f/1.4 aperture would have capabilities similar to the Noctilux (though your focus would no longer be razor thin, thankfully).

f/1.4 is still plenty thin, and IS would just add cost, mass, and would be something else to break.  Subject motion dominates anyway

exactly.

[hutjeflut]

lets hopw the 50 1.8 III IQ is as good as the mkII but it gets USM so it actuay bothers focussing unlike the MKII wich is crap when it comes to focusing .

id pay 200 ish euro for a improved version and they get my old one back as thats a shitty lens preformance wise.
but knowing canon its not gonna get USM and cost about 250 euro as all there new lenses are more then twice the price of the old ones.... greedy buggers.

[dilbert]

If the 50/1.4-II goes to $600-$700, what of the 50/1.8-III?

Does that become the new 50mm $300 lens?

If FTM and real USM goes into the 50/1.4, what for the 50/1.8?

A newer 50/1.4 at around $500 would be more to my liking.

[LuCoOc]

If the 50/1.4-II goes to $600-$700, what of the 50/1.8-III?

Does that become the new 50mm $300 lens?

If FTM and real USM goes into the 50/1.4, what for the 50/1.8?

A newer 50/1.4 at around $500 would be more to my liking.

I'm pretty sure canon will raise the price to 600-700 $/€. The gap between the current 1.4 and the 1.2L is big enough for them to do that
Anyway the current lens developements showed impressive improvements maybe we see that in the primes too?!

[Garym5]

This is not good for me as I have just bought the 50 1.4 MK I..Probably will be harder for me to sell the older version if the new does come out.. Probably a random rumor like in 2009 when this came about..

[Etienne]

If the new 50 1.4 is really good I'll get one because it's useful for portraits on both crop and FF and it'll be handy for low light. I have the 1.8: it's not very good at 1.8, the AF is pretty bad, the construction is toy-like, Manual Focus is finicky, so I don't use it much. The current 1.4 is not sufficiently attractive, but a solid v.2 would be attractive even at $700.

[awinphoto]

I am holding my breath on this rumor and taking a wait and see approach on any new lenses, especially in the near future.

[GMCPhotographics]

A 50mm f1.4 that doesn't fall apart after a few years use would be nice...and curing the low contrast when shooting wide open would be ncie too. The 50mm f1.8's AF is oddly more accurate and faster than the f1.4 USM version! I know that the 50mm f1.2 L is a much more expensive and exotic lens....but it really is far far superior to the other two lenses in many ways.

[hutjeflut]

as adition to me other post i think canopn would be doing themselves a favon if they stiopped using any motor but USM as it highly improves the focus ability's of a lens and i guess that the older usm by now is rather cheap to produce and miles better then these anoying micromotors.

i guess its smething people are willing to pay a little more for as now theres often the regret they didnt get a good lens the first time.
like the new kit lens and the 55-250 are great lenses IQ wise however there just terribly slow focusing.

[Flake]

I cannot envisage a huge price increase on any of the new 50mm lenses.  Largely Canon are cheaper than Nikon and the Nikon 1.4 is not much more than the Canon how would Canon justify a massively expensive  version to it's customers?  I expect a lens with a broadly similar price.

[hutjeflut]

I cannot envisage a huge price increase on any of the new 50mm lenses.  Largely Canon are cheaper than Nikon and the Nikon 1.4 is not much more than the Canon how would Canon justify a massively expensive  version to it's customers?  I expect a lens with a broadly similar price.

seeing the past 7 lenses that canon gave a upgrade thats not how things seem to go sadly
all where alot more expencive or almost double the price of the old version.
somehow canon is either way to confident/cocky or people are still stupid enough to buy silly expencive gear wich automaticly justifies the rediculous prices...

im afraid the last is a big part of the problem!

as for the 500 1.8 if it has USM and same or better IQ even i am crazy enough to pay 220 bucks for it and im a real nitpicker on prices.