Patent: Canon EF 50mm f/1.4 with apodization filter

[stevelee]

The 50mm f/1.4 did fine on my Rebel for the purposes that I got it. Now I have an 85mm f/1.8 for full frame, and haven't found any need for the 50 on that camera. I recognize the danger of extrapolating one's own needs and interests to the rest of the world. But my experience makes me wonder how widespread beyond forum members here that interest in a 50mm prime might be.

 

[Don Haines]

The 50mm f/1.4 did fine on my Rebel for the purposes that I got it. Now I have an 85mm f/1.8 for full frame, and haven't found any need for the 50 on that camera. I recognize the danger of extrapolating one's own needs and interests to the rest of the world. But my experience makes me wonder how widespread beyond forum members here that interest in a 50mm prime might be.

As an old fart who has been shooting since the time of the dinosaurs, I find this an interesting question.

Everybody (or at least most) used to say that 50mm was the perfect portrait lens.

Now many say 85mm

Many now say 135mm

Some even say 200mm


I think that 50mm demand is partly from tradition, but it is nice to see that we now accept much more variation.

 

[QuisUtDeus]

The 50mm f/1.4 did fine on my Rebel for the purposes that I got it. Now I have an 85mm f/1.8 for full frame, and haven't found any need for the 50 on that camera. I recognize the danger of extrapolating one's own needs and interests to the rest of the world. But my experience makes me wonder how widespread beyond forum members here that interest in a 50mm prime might be.

I used to be in the camp of really wanting Canon to make one and got a 50A. I used it a few times, then it sat on a shelf for a few years and I sold it. The 35/2IS is just better for me.

 

[flip314]

As an old fart who has been shooting since the time of the dinosaurs, I find this an interesting question.

Everybody (or at least most) used to say that 50mm was the perfect portrait lens.

Now many say 85mm

Many now say 135mm

Some even say 200mm


I think that 50mm demand is partly from tradition, but it is nice to see that we now accept much more variation.

These days, I break out my 1200mm f5.6 for portraits.

 

[koenkooi]

The 50mm f/1.4 did fine on my Rebel for the purposes that I got it. Now I have an 85mm f/1.8 for full frame, and haven't found any need for the 50 on that camera. I recognize the danger of extrapolating one's own needs and interests to the rest of the world. But my experience makes me wonder how widespread beyond forum members here that interest in a 50mm prime might be.

Similar story here, I had the 50mm f/1.8 (both the old and the new version) for my 7D and M, but the EF-M 32mm has replaced it for the M and thanks to the eye-AF in the RP the 85mm f/1.8 is on that camera most of the time.
I did rent the RF 50mm f/1.2, the AF on that is much, much faster than on the other lenses. By the time I have enough toy budget saved up to buy the RF 50 the RF 85mm f/1.2 will probably be out and I'll have to choose between the 50, 85 and 85 ds

 

[uri.raz]

As an old fart who has been shooting since the time of the dinosaurs, I find this an interesting question.

Everybody (or at least most) used to say that 50mm was the perfect portrait lens.

Now many say 85mm

Many now say 135mm

Some even say 200mm


I think that 50mm demand is partly from tradition, but it is nice to see that we now accept much more variation.

My photography teacher said (about shooting portraits en face), in a nicer way, that the more prominent the customer's nose is, the longer the lens he would use, even 300mm.

I don't shoot portraits for a living, I would be happy to use a 70-200mm f/2.8 for those. I want fast primes for low light, so I could use lower ISO.

 

[GMCPhotographics]

I find the Canon 50mm lenses an oddity. They just aren't sharp wide open. I've had multiple copies of the 50 f1.2L and multiple 50 f1.4 lenses..and the one I've settled on is the old metal mount 50mm f1.8 from the 80's. It seems that Canon are unwilling or incapable of designing a 50mm that is as sharp as it's other L lenses. The 50mm f1.4 is built like a toy...and it's soft wide open...it has this weird dreamy low contrast effect wide open that I don't care for either. The 50L is a great lens except it's AF is pretty inconsistent and slow in low light and again it's soft wide open. If Canon can design and make stellar lenses like the 35mm f1.4L and the 85mm f1.2L lenses...then a 50mm should be a far more straight forwards design prospect. I suspect that Canon haven't given the lens team a very big budget to design a good 50mm and as a result we've ended up with the crappy half hearted attempts so far. Even a 24-70 f2.8 L is better than any of these primes at f2.8 and that zoom is wide open.
Sure, the RF 50L is an amazing lens...but it's pretty obvious that Canon have been holding back this design / R&D budget for the RF mount. It's over sized and vastly over priced. There is nothing in a 50mm lens that needs the shorter mount...lenses under 38mm need a retro focus design on an SLR. So a 50mm shouldn't have any mirror less benefits vs SLR mounting. If anything...it's likely to be an SLR design with a 20mm flange on the back to make up the lack of a mirror box. Even Sigma seems to be able to design and build a better 50mm f1.4 lens in their ART range...although the usual Sigma focus accuracy seems to cripple it.
Looking at this lens block diagram...to me it looks like a variation on the existing 50mm f1.4 Gaussian optics but with an added apodisation coating. The patent here looks like the addition of the coating on the current 50mm rather than a patent for an entirely new lens...which is also disappointing.

 

[BillB]

The 50mm f/1.4 did fine on my Rebel for the purposes that I got it. Now I have an 85mm f/1.8 for full frame, and haven't found any need for the 50 on that camera. I recognize the danger of extrapolating one's own needs and interests to the rest of the world. But my experience makes me wonder how widespread beyond forum members here that interest in a 50mm prime might be.

Yep. The market for less expensive primes shrank with the availability of good zooms, and that was a while ago.

 

[Kit.]

As an old fart who has been shooting since the time of the dinosaurs, I find this an interesting question.

Everybody (or at least most) used to say that 50mm was the perfect portrait lens.

It was a cheap lightweight lens suitable to shooting both environmental portraits and studio portraits.

 

[Hector1970]

I'm puzzled by this too. The 50/1.8 has been literally the same glass since 1987. I had the MkI, pro-quality one. It and the 50/1.4 never were sharp, just the obvious combination of portable and low-light. I also had the 50/1.2 and again, just not sharp.

These (and the 1.0, also not sharp) are all double-Gauss designs. Then the RF50 and Otus 55 are utterly different, with no underlying design concept I can name by looking at it.

So I was thinking that perhaps improving substantially on the double-Gauss designs would make the lens so big that you lose it's portability aspect. (The RF50 is almost the exact size of the RF24-105/4IS), and so they stuck with portability.

However, Leica 50s have been quite sharp, and the APO-Summicron high-buck 50/2 is mentioned as the world's sharpest lens (along with the RF50 and the Otus 55) despite being a double-Gauss.

I may not represent enough buyers to make it worth producing, but I'd be happy to pay twice as much for a 50/1.4 or 50/1.8 that is a lot sharper but no bigger. That said, the Leice 35/1.4ASPH works fine on my R and I may just get another Leica lens for a portable 50mm solution.

I had the nifty fifty 1.8 and for a cheap lens it was sharp.
I had the 50 1.4 which wasn't sharp wide open but produced attractive photos
I still have the 50 1.2 - I do find this sharp.
I haven't been as unhappy as others on the 50mm choices.
The RF 50mm does sound interesting.

 

[GMCPhotographics]

I don't think your "38mm" rule of thumb is accurate. I think a pinhole lens has to be the focal length away from the film/sensor, but that means a 44mm pinhole is the widest you could shoot on an EF body. Once you start throwing lenses in, I think single lenses and cemented doublets have to be pretty close to that, but more complicated formulae are anyone's guess. Back with manually-designed lenses a human indeed would put a specific retrofocus group on the end of a design, but I suppose nowadays the retrofocus feature is spread throughout the lens.

Looking at my RF50, the rear element is actually jutting 1-2mm PAST the mount surface, into the camera. That means 18mm from the sensor.

http://www.coinimaging.com/retrofocus.html and example of an old website that pre-dates the mirrorless spin. a 50mm lens doesn't require retro focus design to make the focal length work on a n SLR with a 38mm mirror box assembly.

The rear element of the RF 50 is fairly irrelevant in this discussion. There is no specific design requiement for the rear element to be that close to the sensor plane. But that doesn't stop Canon from designing this lens that way anyhow. This basic design could easily have been adapted to either an SLR format or RF format with a change of a few rear elements to dial in the ubiquitous mirror box distance requirement.

But my argument still stands, If Canon can make a sharp 35mm f1.4 lens or a 24mm f1.4 lens which are both retro focus..then why not a sharp ef 50mm f1.2 or f1.4 lens? They seem to be able to make a sharp 85mm f1.2 and f1.4 lens and that's not much longer in focal length. The 85mm f1.2 kind of proves that a double Gaussian optic can be very sharp.

 

[jolyonralph]

I don't think many people (even that one) were unhappy with the image quality of the old 50/1.4; it was the fragile micro-USM that could be damaged by bumping the extending front element. If this has ring- or nano-USM it would address that, at least. But doesn't the apodization filter heavily reduce the light transmission, making it less suitable for general use?

Add me to the list of those who didn't like the old 50/1.4 In general the 50/1.8 STM is a far better lens at less than half the price.

 

[jtf]

I've been using the 50 1.4 in all its' different versions since '75. I did buy the Sigma Art 50 on sale a while back and intended to sell the Canon 50 but decided to keep it for the small size. When using the M5 for my walk around the Canon 50 fits in my jacket pocket with room to spare.

I ended up doing the same thing with the 85 1.8 after buying the Art 85 1.4

 

[ashmadux]

Interesting comments.

I have been shooting with the 50 1.4 for about 8 years, exclusively at 2.8. At that aperture, I have experienced none of the image quality concerns that permeate these comments. Mine is very sharp...it took four copies to land on my current version. However, once i go below 2.8, the AF pretty much goes to hell. And at 1.4, the image is a haze.

And i also own a 35 f2 IS- that was nicely fixed up by canon after being sold a broken lens. Um, yeah, my 50 is better than the new model 35 in both sharpness and bokeh. Boken for the 35 is not one its strong points- it is rakish at best, and oof trees and shrubbery can look pretty horrible at times.

That said I am curious why canon has not updated the optical formula for this, the 85 18 (and its UGLY purple hazey, wide open images). They have put in a ton of work for an L version, while the normal version lingers. The forums + customers for years have been begging for an update, and...nothing. 20 years old formula....it's just crazy.