Canon RF 50mm f/1.8 IS USM coming in 2019? [CR1]

YuengLinger

EOR R
Dec 20, 2012
2,234
252
Southeastern USA
I bet it will be heavier than the 50/1.4, cost the same if not more but still 1.8. And we should all be happy for IS. In this case no thanks. Not that you need IS at 50mm anyway. IS below 85mm is marketing shit.
50/1.4 was just too good, they take it away, not good enough business wise.
That's tellin' 'em. :ROFLMAO:
 

Etienne

EOS 6D MK II
Sep 19, 2010
1,309
93
Ottawa Ontario
I bet it will be heavier than the 50/1.4, cost the same if not more but still 1.8. And we should all be happy for IS. In this case no thanks. Not that you need IS at 50mm anyway. IS below 85mm is marketing shit.
50/1.4 was just too good, they take it away, not good enough business wise.
You sure shot your credibility with this: "IS below 85mm is marketing shit." and even with this: "50/1.4 was just too good"
 

CanonFanBoy

EOS 5D MK IV
Jan 28, 2015
3,013
584
Irving, Texas
I think you guys are missing the point that it has image stabilization. That's a great addition, FINALLY. USM over STM.. I don't even know why they put in STM in the first place. So yes it'll be more expensive. but there are two upgrades in the lens, plus I'm sure the optics will improve based on a different design approach.
STM was a nod to the video guys. Less noise in the focusing and smoother.
 
Last edited:

riker

5D4
Jan 19, 2015
62
23
riker.hu
Nonsense. IS is tremendously useful on wider focal lengths just before and after sunrise and sunset, at night, and when hiking in canyons. IS also means you can handhold 2-3 exposures for HDR in post.
Let's just put aside intentionally not understanding my point for a sec, OK? I hope we do agree that the wider the lens, the less important IS is, right?!
As for me I really don't care for IS at 50mm, especially hiking where weight is #1 concern.
I can hand-hold 1/8-1/15 at 50mm which should be enough. If I need longer exposure, I but the body on the backpack, hold it to a rock or tree, whatever. IS should not be the solution for taking a decent image at 50mm. At 200-300 it is. IS at 50mm is more marketing than necessity.
 

Michael Clark

Now we see through a glass, darkly...
Apr 5, 2016
445
152
If they come out with their own focal reducer adapter for the EOS M system, it will live on in this 'virtual' form, because the patent suggests it is going to be 0.8x so the new crop factor will be 1.28x
That's still not an APS-H sensor. That ship has sailed, never to return.
 
Reactions: pj1974

Michael Clark

Now we see through a glass, darkly...
Apr 5, 2016
445
152
Let's just put aside intentionally not understanding my point for a sec, OK? I hope we do agree that the wider the lens, the less important IS is, right?!
As for me I really don't care for IS at 50mm, especially hiking where weight is #1 concern.
I can hand-hold 1/8-1/15 at 50mm which should be enough. If I need longer exposure, I but the body on the backpack, hold it to a rock or tree, whatever. IS should not be the solution for taking a decent image at 50mm. At 200-300 it is. IS at 50mm is more marketing than necessity.
Not everyone uses a camera the same way you do.

There are use cases when being able to take a handheld shot at 1-2 seconds in places where tripods/monopods are not permitted is revolutionary.
 

slclick

You want DR? Go to Punta Cana
Dec 17, 2013
2,788
211
I think it's time to accept the notion that RF will get all the tidbits we have been begging for on EF.
 
Reactions: ken

dtaylor

Canon 5Ds
Jul 26, 2011
1,136
409
Let's just put aside intentionally not understanding my point for a sec, OK? I hope we do agree that the wider the lens, the less important IS is, right?!
We do not agree.

I can hand-hold 1/8-1/15 at 50mm which should be enough.
Should be enough for what? For a critically sharp 24x36" print? For another stop or two of DoF in dim light? For two hand held frames that are close enough you can HDR blend them later?

I can think of many situations where steady hands and a 1/15 exposure still aren't sufficient.

If I need longer exposure, I but the body on the backpack, hold it to a rock or tree, whatever.
So my choices are freedom of composition with IS, or wasting time looking for a rock that's sorta close to the composition I wanted.

I'll take IS.
 
Reactions: Del Paso

Talys

Canon 6DII
Feb 16, 2017
2,044
312
Vancouver, BC
I bet it will be heavier than the 50/1.4, cost the same if not more but still 1.8. And we should all be happy for IS. In this case no thanks. Not that you need IS at 50mm anyway. IS below 85mm is marketing shit.
50/1.4 was just too good, they take it away, not good enough business wise.
EF50/1.4 is too good... for what?

It's a great lens for bokeh, it is affordable (if not cheap), and it's small. But it has terrible chromatic aberration, it's a bit noisy, has slow-ish autofocus, it isn't in the same league as canon's new large aperture primes for sharpness, and it the AF mechanism can get stuck.

I'd be happy for a 50/1.8 IS :)
 

CanonFanBoy

EOS 5D MK IV
Jan 28, 2015
3,013
584
Irving, Texas
Let's just put aside intentionally not understanding my point for a sec, OK? I hope we do agree that the wider the lens, the less important IS is, right?!
As for me I really don't care for IS at 50mm, especially hiking where weight is #1 concern.
I can hand-hold 1/8-1/15 at 50mm which should be enough. If I need longer exposure, I but the body on the backpack, hold it to a rock or tree, whatever. IS should not be the solution for taking a decent image at 50mm. At 200-300 it is. IS at 50mm is more marketing than necessity.
Less important doesn't = not important, or as you said, "Marketing $ hit." But you are right. The IS module is prohibitively heavy. :rolleyes: IS is not the solution for taking a decent image, but it is a tool and good to have. There isn't always a rock or tree available. o_O Besides, in low light it can help a great deal. Not for you? No problem. Calling it what you did is your personal crap, not reality. I'd have happily paid for IS on my 35, 24-70, and 135 had it been available at the time from Canon. It absolutely helped in low light when I had my Tamron 15-30. Especially for indoor shooting where flash is not an option. Not everyone is out hugging trees, rocks, or backpacks.

Saying you don't want or need it doesn't mean a bunch don't. Especially shaky old men like me. Marketing's job is to make a product appealing to the market. You ain't the market for IS on short focal lengths. That doesn't make IS on short focal lengths $ hit for the rest of us. Why would I want to shoot a person indoors at 1/8 sec without IS when having IS would make that shot easier or even more likely to be on focus? Mountains and rocks don't tend to move. People do... so a faster shutter speed helps. Yes, ISO can be turned up, but there comes a point where that isn't desired.
 
Last edited:

drmikeinpdx

Celebrating 20 years of naughty photography!
I'm loving the Tamron stabilized 45mm f/1.8. Got tired of waiting for Canon to offer something in that category. My only complaint about the Tamron is that it's too damn sharp. I can only use it with models who have a perfect complexion or I have to spend hours retouching. Using it wide open helps - it's fantastic for window light portraits. I'd post some pix, but they are almost all NSFW. I also have the Tamron 85 VC, which works very well too. No focus craziness like people report with the Art lenses.