EF 50 f/1.4 II USM

uhhh better autofocus for those of you who dont know how big of a problem the motor is on the mark I lens

What you think about the price?
420$ is that possible ?

real usm – sharper – better bokeh – better color – less front or back focus issues…
etc etc
for 350 you get a metal 50 1.8 which in lots of tests including my own is no sharper than the the 85 dollar lens

nikons went from 289 for the older version to 500 for the newer version…
couple that with canon raising the version II L’s by an average of 600 bucks and you could easily see a 500 dollar lens…
Stark-Arts

We don’t really care what you want to spend on IS.

then again, I’m not sure exactly if a wider objective lens effects vignetting but it seems like it would…

I hope it’s sharp at f/1.4. I don’t realy care for sharpness at f/8. IS would be fine for me.

I want to believe in this : I ordered mine last december in UK (Calumet), I’m still waiting for it.
This lens seems to become unavailable everywhere on the planet since the beginning of the year, only a few shops say they have them in stock, others say they can’t give any delivery date, some even say it’s allready discontinued.

Wondering what will happen to my pending order (is it reasonnable to hop for a mkII at the price I pre-paid for the mkI?) …

“less front or back focus issues”

We’re talking Canon products here, right? With all the poor quality Canon’s pumping out lately, a redone 1.4/50 would sure has hell have more mis-focusing issues than the previous one. :(

And BTW, what is this IS fuss all about? I guess, some guys here would stuff an IS even in an 2.8/14mm… *rolleyes*
Heck, if you need an IS in a 1.4/50mm lens to get sharp pictures, the object you’re about to photograph will most likely move during exposure time in such an extent that it will create a lot of motion blur. (And if it doesn’t move, use f**king tripod!)

[end of rant]

Err well, my lens was sent yesterday, I should receive it shortly, Canon UK still (slowly) delivers 50mm 1.4.
It’s back in stock at amazon UK too.

What’s the [CR-?] rating on this post? Usually you provide that, sometimes you don’t. Does the lack of a CR- number mean it’s below 1, or you just have not decided yet?

That was my thought too. Just yesterday I shot a movie with my Sigma 50mm 1.4 and thought it would be nice if I had IS to smooth out all the little wiggles in it.

I’d prefer a 4/400mm non-DO over a 5.6/500. :-)

However, I think that’s all a matter of preferred themes and personal shooting style. Speaking for myself, fast, “short” primes are of great use to me. I used my 1.8/28mm intensively just last night. :-)

Yes. Nice way to put the to together. I think IS on a medium to wide lens is a fine idea. Everyone loves IS on their 17-55. I do better with IS on smaller lenses than with longer lenses. Longer lenses allow me to control and better balance the rig. Shorter lighter lenses require a very different and more challenging (for me) technique.

Just people people are complaining doesn’t mean Canon’s recent products are poor quality.

Am I missing something here?

My 50@ f1.4 is sharper than many of my lens, colours are fantastic, focus is faster than any other lens in low light including my L’s (@ equivalent aperture).

My mates think I have a special 3d camera when they see pictures that I have used this lens. The bokeh is beautiful.

Maybe I just have an exceptional copy but I see no reason for USM or new optics. I can see a use for IS though.

I’m just hoping for build and optics like the 85mm f/1.8 (ring USM, fixed front element, sharp enough wide open).

I was anticipating purchasing the 200mm f/2.8 but I could very easily re-allocate the funds for that for a new 50 if it arrives.

I’m not sure how useful IS would be, at least not if you’re shooting wide open (which you presumably would be if relying on IS for sharpness). Any shake that IS could compensate for would probably aslo include movement perpendicualr to the focal plane, which IS can’t compensate for; with depth-of-field as shallow as a 50mm f/1.4 wide open you would most likely muddy the area of accetable sharpness across your subject giving no discernable improvement in quality.

Seriously?
You can’t imagine a use for IS in a normal prime? For one thing, subject movement is not nearly as critical as camera movement. A person/model can hold still much more easily than a person operating a camera – shutter release, mirror slap….

Secondly, not all subjects are animal or can move.

Thirdly, IS opens up options for apertures. In the lowest light, you needn’t necessarily shoot at the widest apertures, nor at the highest ISOs. Suppose you want a little more DOF? Suppose you don’t want to crank up to ISO 3200?

IS in any lens is like extending the camera’s usable ISO range another 2-3 stops, without adding noise, detail smearing NR…. Not to mention giving more options for balancing subject and background light.

Here’s the kicker: I’d use it on both my 5DMkII AND EOS 3. I wouldn’t have to push my Tri-X any more. I could shoot Velvia in not so great light. I could use ISO 100 film where normally i’d have to use grainier ISO 400 film. And, on the 5DMkII, you’d effectively push past the Nikons as far as ISO/noise issues are concerned. At least with that lens.

That’s the fuss.

And, yeah, the 50/1.2L is fraught with problems. But, it’s, technically, a pretty difficult design and engineering problem. They didn’t get it right. But, the 1.4 has been out for a long time. It works better than any other 50 prime except the Contax and most recent Leica-R Summilux E60/ROM. They don’t need to re-engineer it too much, except to improve the halation issue at 1.4. Maybe just internal flocking? Coatings? Add some more aperture blades and make it even more bokelicious and slap IS on it.

I’d buy it so fast their heads would spin. And, i recently bought the Sigma 50/1.4, which i’m happy with. IS in my favorite focal length would make me deliriously happy.

I’m 85% sure that they will not announce about IS in the new 50mm f1.4 and only USM.

@nero:

out of my four primes (24 2.8, 35 f2, 50 f1.4, 85 1.8), the 50mm f1.4 performs the worst optically when wide open out of all of them in my opinion. The 24mm is close, but that’s more of a chromatic abberation problem than the issues I have with the 50 1.4. It seems the 1.8 was even better wide open than the 1.4 is wide open, although of course, that lens couldn’t open up to 1.4 when I had it ;)

Even so, the 50mm still produces some beautiful shots at f1.4, almost dreamy. I still like it, but I would love an upgraded version of it, especially one with better focusing.

I don’t want a 50…I want a new 35L! I can’t find it anywhere

I have no clue whether or not there will be a new 50/1.4 but if being backordered is some indication of a new version that must apply to an awful lot of other glass too. On 14th January I ordered….

50/1.4 (delivered 4th Feb – 21 days later)

85/1.8 (delivered 4th Feb – 21 days later)

16-35/2.8 II (delivered 3rd March – 58 days later)

24-70/2.8 (*** still backordered ***)

and on 19th January I ordered….

Sigma 10/2.8 Fisheye (delivered today – 52 days later)

Oh yeah, I also ordered a 5D2 back in December and gave up waiting for that to be delivered. I guess a 5D3 must be just round the corner. I bought a 1D3 instead.

Let’s face it, Canon’s supply chain is in tatters.

where are you backordering from? most stock goes to specialty dealers first. the only one of these lenses we have been out of has been the 50 1.4. the 5d2 has been slow, but that list started in december, and we we’re about 80 deep when the first units shipped.
some mail order houses may only order once a year to max their discount, so when they are out, they will tell you it’s ‘backordered’ from canon. much easier to put it on someone else. i’m not saying that is your problem, but we ALWAYS have those lenses, with the exception of sigma (we carry Tamron, and Tokina) and hot new dslr’s, that will be in high demand will always be more challenging.

I sense a bit of misunderstanding here. ;-)

First of all, IS per se isn’t “bad” at all. I own a 2.8/70-200 IS and like the IS pretty much. In general (and in my opinion), IS is good thing in *telephoto* lenses – be it prime or zoom – because it can help to bridge the gap between the exposure time needed for avoiding motion blur and avoiding blur because of hand-shake (according to the “reciprocal focal length” rule of thumb).

However, one should not ignore the potential downsides of an IS system because laws of physics are not to be fooled with. ;-)
IS adds extra elements to the optical construction which quite likely will have negative effects on other properties of the lens like overall/maximum sharpness, contrast and the like.

Especially when we’re talking about lenses being used on a 5D2 (or a 1Ds3), these cameras already takes optics to their limits, so I would prefer having *very* sharp lenses in order to make as much use as possible of the high resultion provided by the camera.

However, I must admit, that my point of view might narrowed down a bit by the stuff I usually shoot. This breaks up in mainly to large groups:
1. Objects that don’t move at all (e.g. architecture). These objects allow me to chose DOF, low ISO and so on absolutely at will even in the middle of the night with the help of a tripod => no IS needed. (And, yes, I don’t mind carrying a tripod around for the whole day, thank you.)
2. Objects that move on their own and, more importantly, mostly out of the range of my control. With objects like this, IS in *normal* and *wide angle* lenses doesn’t help me at all, because at exposure times of 1/60s or longer, I will sure as hell get motion blur.

The price would need to be @least $3500, since a 400mm f/4 is fundamentally the same bits of glass as a 300 2.8, which currently costs $4k, which I think is a more likely final point for a 400 f/4 no DO lens price point, you know they made a prototype of a 400mm f/4 non DO to compare against the DO? You can see a picture of it on DP Review under the 400mm f/4 DO release. I do agree with the fundamental issue that the lens costs too much, and that there needs to be a refractive optics alternative to it. I also agree about increased demand of long glass, but I don’t think many people want f5.6 lenses, even at good length…

jesus tim… you need to buy your stuff elsewhere…..

Agree. You cheap bastards.

i don’t think $500 or $600 will be material to 50 1.4 IS buyers. I spent $3,300 on a 5d mark II to get 2 stop better ISO, why i will care only $500 to get another 2 stop better ISO?

much cheaper low light lens solution than 5d Mark II for low income users as well.

Even 16-35 II, i hope canon will add IS to it, $400 price increasing is not really material to most ff users.

My 50 1.4 sucks. The AF is terrible. Maybe I got a lemon?

On the forums I frequent Warehouse Express is often recommended. I’ve heard about resellerratings and have looked there myself, quite rececntly, but didn’t and don’t feel the need for Warehouse Express. Jessops’ pricing is all over the map. Sometimes they can offer the best deals in the country; other times they are 30% dearer than everyone else. We have a site in the UK…

http://www.camerapricebuster.co.uk/

which roots out and tracks the best prices across a number of products and retailers. I normally pick my supplier according to the best price available at the time of order. I would be happy to purchase from the vast majority of suppliers they list, just so long as the price was right.

I’m quite convinced that the supply chain debacle is of Canon’s own making and is a deliberate ploy to run out stocks at old prices and to force everyone to come into line at the new prices. We’ve had two rises in SRP from Canon so far this year. Another is forecast for 1st April.

Of course, the places with silly prices will be hanging onto their old stocks longer since there will be no demand to pay over the odds. Everybody wants a bargain and I’m head of that queue with my purchasing habits.

Warehouse Express have been very honourable through all this and the service has been great. I wonder if they’ve really made any money at all on the lenses I’ve just bought from them. Ditto Jessops. I don’t know what dealer margins are like but here is how the best street/online prices today compare with the prices I paid…

10/2.8 Now = £557. I paid £379.

50/1.4 Now = £300. I paid £220.

85/1.8 Now = £300. I paid £242.

16-35 Now = £1184. I paid £924.

24-70 Now = £1025. I will be paying £775.

The shortage is (has been) very real in the UK.

“Even 16-35 II, i hope canon will add IS to it”

I presume, you meant to say “16-35 III”.
However, the day Canon introduces an IS wide angle (zoom) will most probably be the day I stop buying Canon lenses.
(And gladly switch to Nikon afterwards.)

I disagree with Anonymous that “IS in any lens is like extending the camera’s usable ISO range another 2-3 stops”. It’s not: the exposure is the same, so, unlike increasing the *real* ISO, you do not get to increase the shutter speed. IS is, as Sebastian states, more like a tripod. However, while Sebastian may not mind carrying a tripod around all day, many of us are not as unconcerned and there are many times when a tripod is not an option.

Sebastian, your second point is not really relevant. Just because IS does not help with motion blur does not argue against its usefulness in a lens that otherwise has the same maximum aperture. You argument would only be relevant in a choice between, say, a 50mm f/1.4 and a 50mm f/2.8 IS. Your argument is the same as saying that tripods are not useful for “normal and wide angle lenses”. Sure, there are times when a tripod is not useful, but that is not the case all of the time.

Also, you support your argument with the claims: “IS […] quite likely will have negative effects on […] sharpness” and that a 5D2 “takes optics to their limits”. You offer no evidence to support either claim. Did you just make them up? The only reason lenses–or camera bodies–have IS is make the images more sharp, not less sharp. You already granted that point. Now you are implying that IS with a 5D2 is pointless because some imagined deficiency in the optics of all IS lenses defeats the benefits of the higher resolution of that camera body. The “reciprocal focal length” rule is based on the perceived sharpness of a specific size of print viewed at a specific distance. The higher resolution only makes a real difference on bigger prints (or prints from smaller crops). If you make the print larger (or the crop smaller) and then view the print from the same distance as before, you will have to shoot faster or steadier than before, in which case IS (or a tripod) is even more important for sharpness.

Of course, if you are happy to use a tripod every time it would make any difference, then IS is not a compelling feature for you. I cannot disagree with that. However, it *is* a compelling feature for many others.

I’m not attributing any magical properties to IS or claiming that the optics in an IS lens are necessarily any better (or worse) than the optics in an non-IS lens. IS just has the effect of a built-in tripod with some obvious benefits and limitations. Any buyer for such a lens has to ask: Are there any alternative lenses with or without IS? Is the image quality measurably different between the lenses? (Don’t just assume that an IS lens must be worse. This is not the case for the 70-200mm f/4L IS, for example.) Is a built-in tripod important for the use to which I intend to put this lens? Does this outweight any measured difference in image quality? Is it worth the money?

I couldn’t speculate whether yours is lemon or not…lol…all I know that I do a lot of low light band photos and my 50 hasn’t let me down. The AF on the 5d (compared to 40d @ same focal length and settings) does however let me down on occasions.

nope we dont want IS in all lenses, we want IS inbody! so all our lenses benefit from that.

No freaking way!

Has anyone noticed that the EF 35mm f/2 has been completely out of stock for over a month now? Maybe this is an indicator of something to come. I might argue that this lens is in greater need of an update than the EF 50 f/1.4.

I am interested in a prime of roughly that focal length for the small physical size and relatively large aperture. Though I agree that f/2 isn’t a huge improvement over f/2.8, it will allow shots that you couldn’t get with the f/2.8 (especially for those of us who aren’t shooting full-frame). I would just like something built to more modern standards… but Canon doesn’t seem too interested in consumer-level primes lately.

Just a thought

In my world, in-body IS would be a total Canon-suicide for a very big part of their market.. Imagine how many folks out there, that have spended thousands of dollars making their lens-collection as IS-rich as possible.. And then Canon starts to upgrade all of their bodies with in-body IS.. And the serious amateur-photographers out there will start to loose money, as IS-lenses will be no more (Or very little) more valuable than non-IS-lenses.. I would change platform sooner than they thought possible. Man, would I feel scr***d

yep…. i just jumped into FF land with a 5D classic and as prices drop I think a lot of people will be doing the same…. that said, I love the camera and Im never going back to 1.6x but I do miss the reach… my 400/5.6 isn’t as great as it used to be and the prospect of a big/expensive 500/4 (or 600mm which would be even better) isn’t really all that great… I know that canon made a 500/5.6 in the FD days and Nikon had a 600/5.6… in the digital age and with IS technology no longer being in its infancy, I think these lenses would be exactly what is needed for the starting resurgence in FF.

I would normally agree with you, except i just bought the 5DMkII. So, unless they can unleash in-body IS in that camera, with a firmware update, i’m going to have to hope for the in-lens solution for a couple of years….

The other benefit of the in-lens solution is that i should be able to use it on my film camera.

But, yeah – going forward, i just don’t buy the Canon excuse that in-lens is a more effective answer. I just don’t want to have to re-buy all my lenses. Of course, that’s what Canon would prefer. We own more lenses than bodies. And, once we all reach our limits as far as sensor resolution goes, they’ll have few ways to convince us we need to upgrade the bodies. I’m quite certain they’re saving some features for that day. When we no longer need more megapixels, they’ll finally offer us IS and ECF.

To sum up, then, IS is:

A) like extending the ISO range, except without the extra noise or the faster shutter speeds to freeze motion.

B) like extending the maximum aperture, except without the shallower depth of field or the faster shutter speeds to freeze motion.

C) like a built-in tripod, except, because it is built-in, you cannot whip it out to wave it in the faces of muggers or ladies.

Maybe we should offer that to Canon’s advertising department to see if they want to use it. They can cleverly throw in “D) like all of the above”, and then Nikon can kiss their market share goodbye. ;-)

The existing 50/1.4 seems fine optically to me, the two I’ve had (the first was stolen) are/were certainly good enough wide open if focused accurately.

But I swear they’re made out of scotch tape and string. I’ve had four AF repairs in four years. The moving front element is especially vulnerable, but the internals are so fragile even a soft side blow kills it.

Now, admittedly, I shoot punk rock, sh!t happens. But my 24/1.4 I use probably 5x as much as my 50/1.4, and it’s only needed service once, and even that was an “it just kept getting softer” rather than the “failed stone dead” my 50/1.4 keeps pulling.

Although the one 24/1.4 repair, at $250, was nearly three $90 50/1.4 rebuilds.