50mm options.. what would you buy.

[Zv]

IS would be nice in a f/2 STM or USM but I'm not bothered all that much now since getting the f/1.8 STM. That thing is sweet as! Cheap and cheerful!

I'm curious if we'll see an updated f/1.4 version. I'm fairly certain if we do get one it won't have IS. Then what would get IS? An f/2 seems probable. Since we already have a STM could this next 50 have that Nano USM perhaps?? A 50mm f/2 IS NUSM? That would make it ripe for video use which we are seeing a lot of support for recently.

I'm kinda over the whole fast 50 thing. Fifty isn't really my focal length of choice, I'm more of a wide or tele guy. Only reason I have one is to have something compact and versatile in the bag at all times. Which is why I love my little STM.

Nah. No more fifties for me!

 

[tcmatthews]

I have a number of 50mm lenses. For of the voting options the 50 STM is good enough. But, I also own the Sony EF 55f1.8 the STM is good but I gave up waiting for Canon to release a high quality 50mm lens. I am more likely to use prime lens on my Sony A7II than my Canon Cameras anyway. I would like for Canon to release a new 50mmf2 full 1:1 macro without need to use the live size converter. I might be interested in buying that.

Most want an updated 50f1.4 with IS completely updated more inline the 35 IS but I am not likely to buy one. I have always seen the current 50L as a specialty lens not really interested because of the shortcomings.

 

[JonAustin]

I've been thinking about this a bit since my last post, and -- regardless what the 50mm lens I want Canon to produce would look like -- I'm beginning to come to terms with the notion that their next 50mm non-STM, non-L prime lens will not be equipped with IS.

Sure, Image Stabilization is great, it's a cornerstone Canon technology, and most of us want it, in at least some of our lenses (all but my 50mm prime are equipped with IS). But think about the slow, drip-drip-drip process by which Canon gradually improves individual products and pushes out their technology. We're still waiting for a 400/5.6L II, with or without IS. Likewise a 300/4L IS II. There are rumors of a third-generation 24-70/2.8L which finally receives IS. On the body side, my friend PuppyFace over on photo.net is still waiting for Eye-Contolled-Focus -- which was featured in a number of film SLR bodies -- to make its debut in the dSLR arena.

Anyway, bottom line, the 50/1.4 design is so old and overdue for an update, that I think Canon will give its successor the same maximum aperture, true ring USM, contemporary body styling, possibly an updated optical design and / or more modern lens coatings. And then wait another decade or two before updating it with IS.

 

[jd7]

All of this talk about 50 mm lenses got me thinking more about it, and I think what I'd really like to see is an f/1.4 lens around the 60 mm or even 65 mm mark (ideally with IS, but not if it means a smaller maximum aperture). I like a 35 mm, and I'd like to have a longer prime for portraits, but I find it difficult to decide between 50 mm and 85 mm. I like a bit of context/surroundings in the shot, and I find my 85 mm seems to lack much versatility (or is that just me?!) even though it's great for a particular type of shot.

I've also seen a few portraits by Peter Coulson on F-Stoppers recently which I really liked, and from what I can tell he seems to take a lot of his shots at around the equivalent of 60 mm to 75 mm (he is often shooting with a Hasselblad rather than a 35 mm camera though).

Would anyone else be (more) tempted by a prime around the 60 mm or 65 mm mark?

 

[j-nord]

Would anyone else be (more) tempted by a prime around the 60 mm or 65 mm mark?

65mm-ish would probably interest me more especially with a very good MFD and fast AF. I recently picked up the 50mm f1.8 STM and nearing the MFD the AF gets very very slow, similar to the 50mm f2.5 compact macro I had before it (although it's slow 100% of the time). IS would be good too but it would have to be very good at f2 to sacrifice a f1.4 or f1.8.

 

[rfdesigner]

So with voting's now closed we have our answer.

If canon wants to replace the 50f1.4 and to sell as many lenses as possible to CR contributers, they need a 50mm F1.4 ringUSM, letting either the price or aperture suffer significantly to add IS will dent sales, although letting the price rise to keep the f1.4 when adding IS is more popular than shrinking the aperture.

 

[ahsanford]

So with voting's now closed we have our answer.

If canon wants to replace the 50f1.4 and to sell as many lenses as possible to CR contributers, they need a 50mm F1.4 ringUSM, letting either the price or aperture suffer significantly to add IS will dent sales, although letting the price rise to keep the f1.4 when adding IS is more popular than shrinking the aperture.

Personally, I see a ton of variation on this depending on how good optically this lens will be, and then our mind jumps to price, and then we answer the poll. So I'll wager some respondents would love a 50mm f/1.4 IS USM but mentally have a $1,000+ price tag in their heads and they may have made cheaper choices.

Though that might happen, let's unpack that a bit. Let's presume for a sec that the new lens will be f/1.4 for now (indulge me):

• If it's as strong as the Sigma Art optically, then yes, a 50mm f/1.4 IS USM would absolutely steal sales from the 50L and I'd expect this new lens to be north of $1,000 (even without gaskets, a red ring, etc.).
  
  
• But if the new lens coming is optically improved but not earth-shakingly awesome -- let's say the new 50mm f/1.4 IS USM is like the 35mm f/2 IS USM (very good, but not the best in that FL). Perhaps to keep the lens compact like the current 50 f/1.4, they focus on the ring USM / internal focusing aspects of the design but not radically change the current f/1.4 design's optical formula. I think it's possible that lens could come in around $750. Heck, if the new lens is just the identical 1993 optical formula in a new modern housing, that honestly could be a $500 lens.
  
  

I'm convinced we'll see the latter and not the former happen. So I'm expecting a new 50mm lens in the $500-800 range, and my money is on it having IS. Whether it's f/1.4 or not remains a total mystery.

- A

 

[JonAustin]

Would anyone else be (more) tempted by a prime around the 60 mm or 65 mm mark?

We've just received another new rumor about a forthcoming 50mm lens:

http://www.canonrumors.com/forum/index.php?PHPSESSID=491dc108527b511d84f3aa8d655829e8&topic=29391.0

But I, too, might be tempted by a 60-65mm replacement. My only primes are the 35 f/2 IS, the 50 f/2.5 CM and the 100 f/2.8L IS macro. I used to own an 85 f/1.8, but the FL didn't really "speak to me," so I replaced it with the above 100mm lens.

So I'm thinking that the 60-65mm range would fit nicely between the 35 and 100. I could run a query in Lightroom to see what percentage of the shots I've taken with my standard zoom are in / near this FL range, but there's not much point unless / until Canon actually releases (or even announces) something.

 

[canonix]

I got the Sigma 50mm F1.4 DG HSM Art Lens and am very satisfied. I really love taking Portraits with it, because the light sets in better than with any other lense I had, also the pictures are very sharp.

 

[peterzuehlke]

I'd like an 85 or 90mm f/2.0 or faster IS to compliment my 35mm IS. Where I usually shoot there is no room for a tripod or monopod even and of course no light. And an included rubbery lens shade for when the mosh pit people fly into me would be good too. But I would settle for a 50mm f/2.0 or faster IS.