Any News On Canon 50mm Image Stabilized Lens ?

LonelyBoy said:
Thanks for the explanation (truly), but I note you didn't mention the Sigma 50 Art. I thought it was retrofocal as well, and certainly cheaper than the Zeiss? Large, yes, but affordable (at least, relatively).

And, if I'm wrong and that level of quality can be achieved with a DG formula, great! I take that comment back. But I'd like better optics than the current 50/1.4, especially if the price is going to approach or exceed that of the 50A.

Also, "legendary" it may be, but isn't the 50/1.0 not known for great image quality?

I did forget about the Sigma! I looked it up and I think you're right, it looks like a retrofocus design.

I think the current EF 50mm 1.4 is an aberration- it's just not a good lens at all. Suited perhaps for the expectations of photogs in the mid-90s, but not for today's high-resolution digital sensors. Nikon's new 50mm 1.4 AFs and 58mm 1.4 AFs are both modified gauss-type designs and both perform excellently even wide-open so it can be done. Not that I think the retrofocus 50's are not worth it, but I'd personally like to see more work done on optimizing max-aperture performance of double-gauss designs before jumping to massive retrofocus lenses.
 
Upvote 0
KateH said:
I did forget about the Sigma! I looked it up and I think you're right, it looks like a retrofocus design.

I think the current EF 50mm 1.4 is an aberration- it's just not a good lens at all. Suited perhaps for the expectations of photogs in the mid-90s, but not for today's high-resolution digital sensors. Nikon's new 50mm 1.4 AFs and 58mm 1.4 AFs are both modified gauss-type designs and both perform excellently even wide-open so it can be done. Not that I think the retrofocus 50's are not worth it, but I'd personally like to see more work done on optimizing max-aperture performance of double-gauss designs before jumping to massive retrofocus lenses.

Well, if you tell me a DG 50mm can give the same level of image quality as the 50A, I'll believe you, and look forward to someone doing it for Canon (I have no experience with the Nikons). I just want the 50A with Canon AF, though f/2 and IS (also with Canon AF) would work too. Ah well, we will see.
 
Upvote 0
gobucks said:
Hjalmarg1 said:
mrzero said:
I would add that there is nothing to suggest that the 50mm IS will be 1.4 -- except for some commentors' hopes and dreams. The last rumor suggested 1.8. http://www.canonrumors.com/2013/11/is-versions-in-50mm-85mm-135mm-coming-cr1/ The previous IS primes all came in at the same apertures as the non-USM versions they replaced (24mm 2.8, 28mm 2.8, and 35mm 2.0). I could see the 50mm (and 85mm) being 2.0 as well. Although the current 50mm 1.4 is not exactly the same USM as other lenses, I think the 50mm 1.4 remake could likely get bumped up to L status and price.
I also doubt the new 50mm WITH IS (keep dreaming) will have an aperture wider than f1.8. If I am wrong this lens will be superb.

I really don't understand what is so far-fetched about the idea of a 50mm 1.4 IS. So far Canon has updated 3 primes with IS, the 24mm 2.8, 28mm 2.8, and 35mm F2 - all three have the same aperture as their predecessors, I have no idea why Canon wouldn't do the same with the 50mm, where 50mm is the easiest focal length for wide aperture lenses. If you were taking the SATs, and had a problem that read "2.8 -> 2.8, 2.8 -> 2.8, 2.0 -> 2.0, 1.4 -> ??", the most logical answer would be "1.4", not "2.0".

To clarify, the three lenses that were already replaced with IS versions are not USM lenses with full-time manual focus. The 50mm 1.4 is a "Micro USM" lens with full-time manual focus. The 50mm 1.8 II was the non-USM non-FTM lens at that slot. Hence, from a marketing and overall product line perspective, it seemed like 50mm 1.8 was the next to be replaced with the IS USM, and it would remain at 1.8. That would leave the existing 50mm 1.4 USM in the lineup, just like Canon left the 28mm 1.8 USM lens with FTM in the lineup. The last rumor that came out was for the 50mm IS at 1.8. However, the 50mm 1.8 STM came out without much notice in the rumor mill, much like the EF-S 24mm 2.8 STM did.

At this point, it wouldn't surprise me if the 50mm IS came out at 1.4, 1.8, or even 2.0. Frankly, I just hope it comes out at all! However, I still think that it is more likely to come in at 1.8, or even 2.0. If it comes out at 1.4, that would be great, but it would be a deviation from the prior course.
 
Upvote 0
I'm perfectly happy for Canon to stick with double gauss, since it seems that results in a much more compact lens than the retrofocus of sigma and zeiss. The Sigma is nearly as big and heavy as my Tamron 24-70VC, so lugging it around kills one of the main advantages of a prime over a zoom. Canon's prosumer lenses are not studio lenses. They are for travel, events, and walk-around. Most people who would buy a $300-600 prime are probably putting them on a 6D or 7D or something like that. I mostly shoot during frequent vacations, and it's hard to describe how much more pleasant a day of shooting is with a prime like my 35mm IS (on a wandering around town day) than when I have to carry my Tamron cuz I need the wide coverage. Ignoring resale value, I dont think I'd trade my 35 IS for eithe the sigma or 1.4L for my own needs.

If they can make a pretty decent cheap double gauss 1.8, and a very good 1.2, im sure they can make a much better 1.4 this time around. The current 1.4 is just a 24 year old dog of a lens, it doesnt mean double gauss as a whole is bad.
 
Upvote 0
mrzero said:
To clarify, the three lenses that were already replaced with IS versions are not USM lenses with full-time manual focus. The 50mm 1.4 is a "Micro USM" lens with full-time manual focus. The 50mm 1.8 II was the non-USM non-FTM lens at that slot. Hence, from a marketing and overall product line perspective, it seemed like 50mm 1.8 was the next to be replaced with the IS USM, and it would remain at 1.8. That would leave the existing 50mm 1.4 USM in the lineup, just like Canon left the 28mm 1.8 USM lens with FTM in the lineup. The last rumor that came out was for the 50mm IS at 1.8. However, the 50mm 1.8 STM came out without much notice in the rumor mill, much like the EF-S 24mm 2.8 STM did.

At this point, it wouldn't surprise me if the 50mm IS came out at 1.4, 1.8, or even 2.0. Frankly, I just hope it comes out at all! However, I still think that it is more likely to come in at 1.8, or even 2.0. If it comes out at 1.4, that would be great, but it would be a deviation from the prior course.

Are you telling me that the 35/2 IS I have is not full-time-manual focus, ring-USM? Because I'm 99% sure it is. Or did I misunderstand you somehow?
 
Upvote 0
LonelyBoy said:
mrzero said:
To clarify, the three lenses that were already replaced with IS versions are not USM lenses with full-time manual focus. The 50mm 1.4 is a "Micro USM" lens with full-time manual focus. The 50mm 1.8 II was the non-USM non-FTM lens at that slot. Hence, from a marketing and overall product line perspective, it seemed like 50mm 1.8 was the next to be replaced with the IS USM, and it would remain at 1.8. That would leave the existing 50mm 1.4 USM in the lineup, just like Canon left the 28mm 1.8 USM lens with FTM in the lineup. The last rumor that came out was for the 50mm IS at 1.8. However, the 50mm 1.8 STM came out without much notice in the rumor mill, much like the EF-S 24mm 2.8 STM did.

At this point, it wouldn't surprise me if the 50mm IS came out at 1.4, 1.8, or even 2.0. Frankly, I just hope it comes out at all! However, I still think that it is more likely to come in at 1.8, or even 2.0. If it comes out at 1.4, that would be great, but it would be a deviation from the prior course.

Are you telling me that the 35/2 IS I have is not full-time-manual focus, ring-USM? Because I'm 99% sure it is. Or did I misunderstand you somehow?

The old lenses are not USM lenses and they don't have full-time manual focus. They were replaced with IS versions that are USM with FTM.
 
Upvote 0
Jan 21, 2015
262
148
gobucks said:
If they can make a pretty decent cheap double gauss 1.8, and a very good 1.2, im sure they can make a much better 1.4 this time around. The current 1.4 is just a 24 year old dog of a lens, it doesnt mean double gauss as a whole is bad.
Uhh... but I think it's even older actually. I mean, isn't the EF 50mm 1.4 pretty much the same thing as the FD 50mm 1.4? Making it kinda like over 40 years old? Of course there are now better coatings etc. but still.. AFAIK this is what I've read from a few places, even on this forum someone has stated so.
 
Upvote 0
Proscribo said:
Uhh... but I think it's even older actually. I mean, isn't the EF 50mm 1.4 pretty much the same thing as the FD 50mm 1.4? Making it kinda like over 40 years old? Of course there are now better coatings etc. but still.. AFAIK this is what I've read from a few places, even on this forum someone has stated so.

I checked block diagrams, and the EF 50mm 1.4 and nFD 50mm 1.4 are very similar but not identical. Pretty much the same =/= the same; every 50mm 1.4 (or 1.5) from every manufacturer has used more or less the same formula since the 1930s but even super minor tweaks to element shape & position will have a large effect on sharpness, aberrations and bokeh.

I've owned both the nFD 50mm f/1.4 and the EF 50mm f/1.4 and they definitely have different character- I actually liked the nFD better wide-open. Of course, all 50mm lenses have nearly indistinguishable performance by f/5.6 but I absolutely noticed a difference between the EF and nFD 50's wide-open.
 
Upvote 0

StudentOfLight

I'm on a life-long journey of self-discovery
Nov 2, 2013
1,442
5
41
Cape Town
Crosswind said:
The only reason to upgrade from my 50 1.8 STM to a 50 1.4 STM IS would not be the stabilizer but a lens design which prevents comatic (not chromatic) abberations. I guess this is wishful thinking as coma correction is only something for Canon's L-series... rrrright?
I have a few L lenses and they all suffer from coma at maximum aperture, even the expensive ones.
 
Upvote 0