Canon RF 50mm f/1.8 IS USM coming in 2019? [CR1]

[Aaron D]

It's still dead.

Not dead. Just really sick.

 

[dtaylor]

No focus craziness like people report with the Art lenses.

I owned the pre-Art Sigma 50 f/1.4. Good lens, great bokeh, but AF was always hit or miss. The Tamron is sharper wide open, much sharper in the corners, and AF is fast and sure.

 

[Ozarker]

I'm loving the Tamron stabilized 45mm f/1.8. Got tired of waiting for Canon to offer something in that category. My only complaint about the Tamron is that it's too damn sharp. I can only use it with models who have a perfect complexion or I have to spend hours retouching. Using it wide open helps - it's fantastic for window light portraits. I'd post some pix, but they are almost all NSFW. I also have the Tamron 85 VC, which works very well too. No focus craziness like people report with the Art lenses.

You live a glamorous life!

 

[Talys]

Not dead. Just really sick.

Reminds me of the "I'm not dead!" scene in Monty Python's Quest for the Holy Grail

 

[mb66energy]

If this lens has (1) size of EF 1.8 85, (2) IQ comparable to EF-M 1.4 32 and (3) ~1:2 macro it can be a winner @ 600 $/EUR. It would be an upmarket replacement of the EF 50mm 2.5 macro and a good "wide angle" lens for my taste of photography.

 

[Refurb7]

I'm loving the Tamron stabilized 45mm f/1.8. Got tired of waiting for Canon to offer something in that category. My only complaint about the Tamron is that it's too damn sharp. I can only use it with models who have a perfect complexion or I have to spend hours retouching. Using it wide open helps - it's fantastic for window light portraits. I'd post some pix, but they are almost all NSFW. I also have the Tamron 85 VC, which works very well too. No focus craziness like people report with the Art lenses.

I too have the Tamron 85mm VC. I'd call that one too damn sharp too. It's sometimes very unkind to people's complexion (but usually good).

 

[degos]

I think you guys are missing the point that it has image stabilization. That's a great addition, FINALLY.

Yay, Canon has caught-up with Tamron. The scrappy underdog finally levels with the Japanese corporate behemoth. Err, wait a moment...

I've given-up on Canon for any lens that isn't a long-white. I went through a few Sigma Arts before settling on Tamron VC lenses; their 15-30 and 45 are just lovely. If I had $$$ available I'd add the 85. That change surprised me since I've been shooting with Canon since 1988 and I didn't buy a third-party lens until the Sigma 50 Art in 2014.

 

[riker]

EF50/1.4 is too good... for what?

It's a great lens for bokeh, it is affordable (if not cheap), and it's small. But it has terrible chromatic aberration, it's a bit noisy, has slow-ish autofocus, it isn't in the same league as canon's new large aperture primes for sharpness, and it the AF mechanism can get stuck.

I'd be happy for a 50/1.8 IS

You do understand the meaning of "was", right? ...and it still remains a unique lens regarding aperture+mobility+lowprice, there's nothing to match. That's why I believe many of us are wishing for a next generation of it. Not 1.2, not 1.8, not IS, not big, not heavy, just an optically renewed version of the same thing. 50/1.4 whichs is not more than 300g. I really had enough of "development" where next generation lenses always cost tons of money and I still have to sacrifice something for better IQ. Usually size and weight (+price). The 50/1.8 was a nice exception where the 50/1.8 STM is a decent upgrade. Whishing the same for the the 50/1.4.

 

[riker]

Well, the RF mount desperately needs some not-so-fast, relatively affordable primes. But I was hoping the next 50mm f/1.8 IS would be for the EF-M. Canon did an amazing job with the 32mm f/1.4 - it seems like the only gap in the EOS M prime lineup is now a decent portrait lens.

That's right, and the 22/2 is pretty good too. Add the 50/1.8, a 70-200/4, make a more pro body and we are good to go for travel, street, etc. Could finally compete with Sony and Fuji.

 

[Aaron D]

Reminds me of the "I'm not dead!" scene in Monty Python's Quest for the Holy Grail

Yeah, "It's just a flesh wound—I've had worse!"

 

[esimmons]

honest question, what justifies the large increase in pricing on mirrorless lenses from all systems vs dslr lenses? they use smaller glass elements (which is the largest single parts cost) which should lower production costs. just seems like price gouging for early adopters. i've been dying for a good 50mm from canon for years now, but no way i'm paying the rumored $500ish for a 1.8, even if it does have usm and is. maybe i'm cheap and uninformed...

 

[Talys]

Yeah, "It's just a flesh wound—I've had worse!"

That was the first scene I thought of (the knight that gets all hacked up), then I remembered the other scene too -- where the fellow with the plague is being dumped into the cart, and keeps complaining that he's not dead

 

[peterzuehlke]

I'm loving the Tamron stabilized 45mm f/1.8. Got tired of waiting for Canon to offer something in that category. My only complaint about the Tamron is that it's too damn sharp. I can only use it with models who have a perfect complexion or I have to spend hours retouching. Using it wide open helps - it's fantastic for window light portraits. I'd post some pix, but they are almost all NSFW. I also have the Tamron 85 VC, which works very well too. No focus craziness like people report with the Art lenses.

When I first read this post, I was thinking, did I write that? HaHa! Two of my favorite lenses. Was waiting for the Canon 85mm IS but gave up. The Tamron is a little slower in focusing, but I think the bokeh is better (lower astigmatism probably). Happy with jumping ship. This is something I think Canon has to pay attention to: online there is a lot of obsessing about the cutting edge of camera sensors, but I think a lot of us actually buy a system because of lenses. I have shot Canon primarily since the mid 80s because of the lenses. Now with Tamron and Sigma making excellent glass (think Tamron builds for some Zeiss products and Sigma had made zooms for Leica) it allows other choices in bodies. And if some of them have IBIS, better AF, and now very good color, just hang some third party glass on and I at least am not the fanboy I used to be.

 

[Aaron D]

That was the first scene I thought of (the knight that gets all hacked up), then I remembered the other scene too -- where the fellow with the plague is being dumped into the cart, and keeps complaining that he's not dead

Ha! And doesn't he eventually get clubbed on the head? Genius comedy!

 

[cellomaster27]

I'm loving the Tamron stabilized 45mm f/1.8. Got tired of waiting for Canon to offer something in that category. My only complaint about the Tamron is that it's too damn sharp. I can only use it with models who have a perfect complexion or I have to spend hours retouching. Using it wide open helps - it's fantastic for window light portraits. I'd post some pix, but they are almost all NSFW. I also have the Tamron 85 VC, which works very well too. No focus craziness like people report with the Art lenses.

Let me put it this way.. You can work with a super sharp image but you can't work with something that isn't.

 

[trulandphoto]

I still can't understand why we've not had an L series 35, 50, 85 1.8L set of primes. Not everyone wants 1.2 but they'd still love the L quality.

Yes, I picked up the Tamron SP 45mm f/1.8 Di VC USD. A bargain at it's $399 price back in the Fall.

 

[wockawocka]

I always found metering off with the Tamron 85 VC, It was about -1 ev under exposed relatvie to Canon lenses. It was so bad I wrote to Bryan Carnathan about it.

 

[Yasko]

honest question, what justifies the large increase in pricing on mirrorless lenses from all systems vs dslr lenses? they use smaller glass elements (which is the largest single parts cost) which should lower production costs. just seems like price gouging for early adopters. i've been dying for a good 50mm from canon for years now, but no way i'm paying the rumored $500ish for a 1.8, even if it does have usm and is. maybe i'm cheap and uninformed...

May be it‘s no double gaussian design but a more complex one like we saw with the third party lenses recently.
First let‘s see what we get and how much it costs... although Canon never was the bargain supplier for lenses .

 

[slclick]

Can anyone shed some light on how retrofocus glass will be any different with the RF design vs EF? Can it be a shrinking of the pickle jar or is there no way around that?

 

[nchoh]

That's right, and the 22/2 is pretty good too. Add the 50/1.8, a 70-200/4, make a more pro body and we are good to go for travel, street, etc. Could finally compete with Sony and Fuji.

Canon took #1 mirror-less sales for 2018 but you consider not competitive? Huh?

Also Canon already has a superb 55-200 F4.5-5.6.