Maximilian said:
Just for the records:
Put me on the list for a new non-L 50 f/1.4 USM (withorwithout IS).
To me (and this has evolved over time), here are my 50 prime priorities:
- Top priority: Hammerlock AF consistency at wide apertures, fast AF speed, not being a huge heavy pickle jar, internal focusing, faster than f/2
- High priority: IS, flat plane of focus, sharpness in general, particularly better IQ than the 50 f/1.4 USM when shooting wider than f/2.8
- Medium priority: f/1.4 vs. f/1.8 (really don't care), more/better/rounded blades
- Low priority: Weather sealing, if it kicks butt on a 50 MP sensor, modern bayonet hood attachment (surely, we'll get this)
Roll those all of those priorities up, and a smaller non-L 50 f/nooneknows IS (ring) USM remains the dream for me. But if the rumors are true, we'll get nano USM -- aka fancy focus by wire -- on the next non-L 50, and it won't have IS.
So if there's a future [small 50 f/1.4 (nano) USM II] and [large 50 f/1.4L IS (ring) USM], which would I get? Both have key elements of what I want, but not all. I'd effectively be balancing my desire of a smaller modern 50 prime vs. one with top AF and IS.
For all my posting on this, you might think the former would get my vote. But I just rented an 85 f/1.4L IS last Christmas, and the
flawless AF experience I enjoyed at f/1.4 is something I very much want in a new 50. I'm not sure nano USM can deliver that.
- A