50mm options.. what would you buy.

[ahsanford]

Nano USM anyone? Speed plus quiet?

I do not need it as don't shoot video, but so long as it's peppier than STM (as some demos have shown), I'm on board.

I personally see nano USM as a potential advancement for future EF-M lenses more than for EF, but hey.

- A

 

[Luds34]

Second, if the in-house competition you refer to is the new nifty fifty, the new EF 50mm f/nooneknows IS USM will categorically mop the floor with it -- faster AF, better wide open IQ, far better build quality, mechanical FTM focusing, internal focusing, IS, etc. There's so much more to lens than sharpness/aperture-per-dollar.

I expect that there be a 50mm f/1.4 replacement at some point in the near future (with in the next year or so). I think Canon will want to get with the times with a true USM motor/focus and a fully internal focusing mechanism. I expect the aperture will maintain f/1.4 and therefore there will be no IS. Also guessing it could easily debut at a $600 price tag.

As for your chart, I'm not sure I see 5 levels of segmentation. I see 2 levels, consumer level like the 35mm f/2 IS or 85mm f/1.8 and then pro level such as the 35mm f/1.4L II, etc. It's not like they have 5 different 35mm primes to choose from, they have 2. Same with the 24mm or the 85mm, etc.

If you include crop, then I'd argue there is a 3rd "budget" segment which would be the super light, plastic STM lenses like the latest 18-55 kit or the UWA 10-18 or the full frame compatible 50mm STM.

 

[Viggo]

I would pay out the nose and throw the shirt off my back in for a retro focal 50 f1.2 L II. Continue the 35 L II tradition, oh my....

 

[TeT]

It will be the 1.2 L II ... Canon is not going to ignore a lens as immensely popular as the current 50 1.2 L,

 

[ahsanford]

As for your chart, I'm not sure I see 5 levels of segmentation. I see 2 levels, consumer level like the 35mm f/2 IS or 85mm f/1.8 and then pro level such as the 35mm f/1.4L II, etc. It's not like they have 5 different 35mm primes to choose from, they have 2. Same with the 24mm or the 85mm, etc.

100% agree there aren't five price points. But there are multiple 'levels of features' right now on what is always (and will always be) a scattered portfolio rolled out over a very long period of time. Some are focus by wire, some have internal focusing, some have USM, some have IS, etc. It will always be marbled and inconsistent like that.

Overall, I see the primes for Canon being in three buckets once they get everything refreshed:

1) Budget/Starter (a very short list: pancake + nifty-fifty)
2) Mid-Grade USM lenses (lump together mid-grade and premium from my chart)
3) L lenses

Right now, the mid grade needs an upgrade desperately. Canon right now has old early 90s lenses at $350-500 and then things shoot up to $1,500+ new pickle jar primes. There's a massive opportunity to offer more lenses like the 24/28/35 refresh from three years ago.

- A

 

[docsmith]

First bought a EF 50 f/1.8 II...amazing if you stop down just a bit. But the AF killed me. So the current STM version might be all many people need. But I upgraded to the EF 50 f/1.4. Love the lens. But then the Sigma 50A was announced. I convinced myself that I needed better performance from f/1.4-f/2.8.

I'll think about whatever Canon releases when it finally comes out, but it is hard for me to imagine needing another 50 mm prime. The 50A is remarkable. I feel for those that have had issues. After I dialed mine in with the dock, it is a great performer.

 

[ahsanford]

First bought a EF 50 f/1.8 II...amazing if you stop down just a bit. But the AF killed me. So the current STM version might be all many people need. But I upgraded to the EF 50 f/1.4. Love the lens. But then the Sigma 50A was announced. I convinced myself that I needed better performance from f/1.4-f/2.8.

I'll think about whatever Canon releases when it finally comes out, but it is hard for me to imagine needing another 50 mm prime. The 50A is remarkable. I feel for those that have had issues. After I dialed mine in with the dock, it is a great performer.

The 50A is remarkable all right. Remarkably large and heavy.

I honestly think that lens is quite an achievement, don't get me wrong. But I prefer the 'size/IQ value proposition' of an 8 out of 10 lens in a smaller footprint that does everything else i want -- internal focusing, IS, rocksolid first party USM AF, etc.

Chasing a 9 or 10 out of 10 lens optically currently comes with two radioactive costs for me -- potentially inconsistent AF (or no AF in the case of the 55mm Otus) and a huge pickle jar footprint. For me -- and I recognize I'm in the minority here -- but I'll take the hamburger on the left below.

- A

 

[rfdesigner]

Nano USM anyone? Speed plus quiet?

I do not need it as don't shoot video, but so long as it's peppier than STM (as some demos have shown), I'm on board.

I personally see nano USM as a potential advancement for future EF-M lenses more than for EF, but hey.

- A

Yes and Yes.

Nano USM will likely find it's way into anything it can, if only because it appears to have all the speed of USM appropriate for pro AF in stills, and all the agility of STM making it appropriate for video; more and more DSLR users, myself included, use their DSLR for stills, and are increasingly making use of the video after-thought of DSLRs...And honestly the better the technology in DSLRs for video, the more we'll shoot video with it

If a 50 replacement ends up with Nano USM I'll give up and go through the possible pain of getting a good sigma ART.

nano USM is another "focus by wire" tech, so will demand the camera is powered up to use it.. so from a user point of view it isn't "cheaper ringUSM" it's "better STM". It's also new tech so it will be worth keeping an eye on rogers lensrentals site in case he mentions the EF-S 18–135mm f/3.5–5.6 IS (first lens to have nanoUSM) regarding failures.

 

[jedy]

I'd love an upgrade to the current f1.4 with better build and image quality. I'd happily pay a little more than the current f1.4 price but if it had IS, a slower f-stop and was double the price, I'd be quite disappointed. The appeal for me with Canons non-L 50s is size, decent f-stop and price. If the quality showed an overall improvement over the current 50 f1.4, keeping the price lower could make it a more attractive option to the third party lenses - and for those without deep pockets.

 

[Larsskv]

I am crossing my fingers for a new 50L. I have the 50 1.2L and like it very much. It isn't sharp, but it produces very pleasing images. Bokeh is fantastic. I would get a new new one if it was a little sharper at f/1.2, and the color fringing was dealt with.

I would rather keep the size and weight down, in stead of it being Sigma 50 ART sharp, BIG AND HEAVY.

 

[Luds34]

Right now, the mid grade needs an upgrade desperately. Canon right now has old early 90s lenses at $350-500 and then things shoot up to $1,500+ new pickle jar primes. There's a massive opportunity to offer more lenses like the 24/28/35 refresh from three years ago.

- A

I definitely agree there is quite the pricing gap between some of those primes in the $300, $400 range and the L glass the next step above going for $1500. That is probably why all the Sigma Art lenses are right in that sub 4 figure mark, they are exploiting that market segment.

However where I'll probably disagree with you a bit (respectively of course) is on the need to replace those 90s lenses with a refresh. Especially if it follows the 24/28 and comes with slow f/2.8 aperture. With lens design where it is today the old adage or primes being sharper then zooms isn't really true anymore. The one main advantage (optics/IQ wise, leaving aside size/weight) is the faster aperture, allowing more light, narrower DOF, leading to better bokeh, etc. I was disappointed with the f/2.8 speed of those new primes. I hope that is not a trend Canon continues.

Besides, those old 90s lenses are pretty solid. I have a couple and they are full USM with incredibly fast, accurate focus. Completely internal focusing, so less to worry about with dust, etc. And they are not pickle jars, if size/weight is something one takes into consideration.

I was just going through photos the other week and came across this one I had kind of missed from last fall. Those 90s lenses are not half bad at capturing the shot. The fast focus and solid camera AF help a lot.
Bike and Dress... Again by Ryan Ludwig, on Flickr

 

[ahsanford]

However where I'll probably disagree with you a bit (respectively of course) is on the need to replace those 90s lenses with a refresh. Especially if it follows the 24/28 and comes with slow f/2.8 aperture. With lens design where it is today the old adage or primes being sharper then zooms isn't really true anymore. The one main advantage (optics/IQ wise, leaving aside size/weight) is the faster aperture, allowing more light, narrower DOF, leading to better bokeh, etc. I was disappointed with the f/2.8 speed of those new primes. I hope that is not a trend Canon continues.

Awesome shot -- thanks for sharing.

Yeah, Canon stayed slow with the 24/28/35 refresh and put IS on it. Nikon, in comparison, didn't put IS on their mid-grade primes but everything was f/1.8.

I happen to love my 28 f/2.8 IS USM for great IQ in a small package, but I fully understand those who want larger aperture glass.

- A

 

[docsmith]

First bought a EF 50 f/1.8 II...amazing if you stop down just a bit. But the AF killed me. So the current STM version might be all many people need. But I upgraded to the EF 50 f/1.4. Love the lens. But then the Sigma 50A was announced. I convinced myself that I needed better performance from f/1.4-f/2.8.

I'll think about whatever Canon releases when it finally comes out, but it is hard for me to imagine needing another 50 mm prime. The 50A is remarkable. I feel for those that have had issues. After I dialed mine in with the dock, it is a great performer.

The 50A is remarkable all right. Remarkably large and heavy.

I honestly think that lens is quite an achievement, don't get me wrong. But I prefer the 'size/IQ value proposition' of an 8 out of 10 lens in a smaller footprint that does everything else i want -- internal focusing, IS, rocksolid first party USM AF, etc.

Chasing a 9 or 10 out of 10 lens optically currently comes with two radioactive costs for me -- potentially inconsistent AF (or no AF in the case of the 55mm Otus) and a huge pickle jar footprint. For me -- and I recognize I'm in the minority here -- but I'll take the hamburger on the left below.

- A

I kept the 40 mm f/2.8. Just a little bit wider, but even smaller and lighter. So, if I want small and light, that is my go to. But I had all three as options for ~18 months. I reached for the Sigma, despite the size, almost every time I wanted a prime in that range. Best IQ of any pickle jar I've ever seen.

 

[RMahtab]

I have the 50mm 1.8 STM and I love it!

 

[JonAustin]

I have a pristine 50/2.5 CM, which is the oldest EF lens I own, both in terms of lens design and length of ownership (12+ years). I rarely use it for macro anymore, since I have a 100/2.8L IS Macro. I'd like to replace it with an equally sharp, faster (aperture and focusing) 50, ideally -- but not necessarily -- with IS.

So I voted for the 50mm f/2.0 IS USM, which in my case means any 50mm with true ring USM and IS, with a maximum aperture of f/2.0 or faster.

But I'd also buy a 50/1.4 with ring USM (since the USM on the current 50/1.4 isn't true ring USM, would its successor be considered a "II"?) if it were released sooner.

 

[ahsanford]

But I'd also buy a 50/1.4 with ring USM (since the USM on the current 50/1.4 isn't true ring USM, would its successor be considered a "II"?) if it were released sooner.

Good question. If the new 50 was a newer/fancier EF 50mm f/1.4 USM with ring USM, I think it would just be a 'II' version as 'micro-USM' was never in the title of the original 1993 lens.

As far as what I would / would not buy in a new 50:

• EF 50mm f/1.4 USM II = Buy. Opportunity lost with no IS, but if it's this or nothing, I'll take it.
• EF 50mm f/1.4 IS USM = Buy. Pricey, but if still relatively small compared to the pickle jars, I'd be in.
• EF 50mm f/1.8 IS USM = Buy.
• EF 50mm f/2.0 IS USM = Buy. Could be awesomely tiny and low-profile, but I imagine they'd never put this out given that the budget STM lens is still f/1.8.
• EF 50mm f/anything L USM = Not buy. Presumably too big/expensive/specialized for my needs, but we'll see. If it was not a draw/bokeh specialist of a lens and was sharper across the frame, I'd maaaaybe consider it.
• EF 50mm f/2.5 1:2 compact macro USM = Not buy. I think I need f/2 or quicker, and I don't need another macro (either due to a large internal focusing housing or non-internal focusing design that leans out a great deal.)
• EF 50mm of any sort with STM = kill it with a hammer. Not good enough for this class of lens.

I imagine everyone's personal buy / not buy list is quite different, though.

- A

 

[J.R.]

If Canon can make a 50 f/2 IS with the same form factor and same IQ as the 35 f/2 IS, we could just have a winner.

 

[Luds34]

However where I'll probably disagree with you a bit (respectively of course) is on the need to replace those 90s lenses with a refresh. Especially if it follows the 24/28 and comes with slow f/2.8 aperture. With lens design where it is today the old adage or primes being sharper then zooms isn't really true anymore. The one main advantage (optics/IQ wise, leaving aside size/weight) is the faster aperture, allowing more light, narrower DOF, leading to better bokeh, etc. I was disappointed with the f/2.8 speed of those new primes. I hope that is not a trend Canon continues.

Awesome shot -- thanks for sharing.

Yeah, Canon stayed slow with the 24/28/35 refresh and put IS on it. Nikon, in comparison, didn't put IS on their mid-grade primes but everything was f/1.8.

I happen to love my 28 f/2.8 IS USM for great IQ in a small package, but I fully understand those who want larger aperture glass.

- A

Hey, once in a while I get lucky and I end up with a decent shot!

In fairness I really haven't heard any negatives about any of those new lenses, including the 28mm. I think the newer lenses, while sharper, really have excelled in correcting CA versus the older designs. The f/2.8 is just my personal preference, others may not care. I guess my biggest point is that we all probably like to pile on the older designs and the reality is they are still pretty decent pieces of glass. The whole stop pixel peeping and looking at camera spec sheets and "get out and shoot" mantra comes to mind.

I did break my f/2.8 prime rule and really enjoyed the EF-S 24mm STM on my 70D, and especially on a Rebel body. Nice compact kit with a slightly wide to normal view great for out and about with the fam. Of course the M + 22mm kind of stole that thunder with both a smaller size and better aperture.

 

[JonAustin]

As far as what I would / would not buy in a new 50:

• EF 50mm f/1.4 USM II = Buy. Opportunity lost with no IS, but if it's this or nothing, I'll take it.
• EF 50mm f/1.4 IS USM = Buy. Pricey, but if still relatively small compared to the pickle jars, I'd be in.
• EF 50mm f/1.8 IS USM = Buy.
• EF 50mm f/2.0 IS USM = Buy. Could be awesomely tiny and low-profile, but I imagine they'd never put this out given that the budget STM lens is still f/1.8.
• EF 50mm f/anything L USM = Not buy. Presumably too big/expensive/specialized for my needs, but we'll see. If it was not a draw/bokeh specialist of a lens and was sharper across the frame, I'd maaaaybe consider it.
• EF 50mm f/2.5 1:2 compact macro USM = Not buy. I think I need f/2 or quicker, and I don't need another macro (either due to a large internal focusing housing or non-internal focusing design that leans out a great deal.)
• EF 50mm of any sort with STM = kill it with a hammer. Not good enough for this class of lens.

I imagine everyone's personal buy / not buy list is quite different, though.

- A

I agree completely, with the exception of the potential future L variant. Wouldn't even consider it. All my zooms are L's, but I just don't need a 50L. I'm not a bokeh fanatic, and if I were, f/1.4 would be plenty fast for me, particularly if it were sharp wide open.

 

[ahsanford]

As far as what I would / would not buy in a new 50:

• EF 50mm f/1.4 USM II = Buy. Opportunity lost with no IS, but if it's this or nothing, I'll take it.
• EF 50mm f/1.4 IS USM = Buy. Pricey, but if still relatively small compared to the pickle jars, I'd be in.
• EF 50mm f/1.8 IS USM = Buy.
• EF 50mm f/2.0 IS USM = Buy. Could be awesomely tiny and low-profile, but I imagine they'd never put this out given that the budget STM lens is still f/1.8.
• EF 50mm f/anything L USM = Not buy. Presumably too big/expensive/specialized for my needs, but we'll see. If it was not a draw/bokeh specialist of a lens and was sharper across the frame, I'd maaaaybe consider it.
• EF 50mm f/2.5 1:2 compact macro USM = Not buy. I think I need f/2 or quicker, and I don't need another macro (either due to a large internal focusing housing or non-internal focusing design that leans out a great deal.)
• EF 50mm of any sort with STM = kill it with a hammer. Not good enough for this class of lens.

I imagine everyone's personal buy / not buy list is quite different, though.

- A

I agree completely, with the exception of the potential future L variant. Wouldn't even consider it. All my zooms are L's, but I just don't need a 50L. I'm not a bokeh fanatic, and if I were, f/1.4 would be plenty fast for me, particularly if it were sharp wide open.

Agree. I only put the 50L up there if it remained compact yet also got sharper across the frame. Doubt both will happen. Much more likely the 50 f/1.2L II will step and go toe to toe sharpness-wise with the Sigma 50 Art, much like how the 35L II did to the Sigma 35 Art. The only way a new 50L pulls that off is getting much bigger, and I have no need for that.

- A