EF 50 f/1.4 USM replacement

[ahsanford]

8900 days made me belly laugh. There comes a point where you change your unit of time to something more practical and concise.

You know, like decades or something.

- A

 

[Pookie]

...

 

[Maximilian]

Go get a tamron SP 45 and live happily ever after 8)

At least that's my plan...

 

[ahsanford]

Go get a tamron SP 45 and live happily ever after 8)

Considered it, but AF consistency/accuracy really is critical for me. It's first party or bust for me (for this FL).

I may just eat $900 and get a 50L refurb and never shoot it wider than f/4 -- then the AF won't whiff and I'll have proper ring USM. :

- A

 

[Don Haines]

I have a 50F1.8 and patience while I wait for an upgrade of the F1.4...... patience.....lots of patience...... decades of patience.....

I expect to live another 30 years, so I might get to see the upgrade.......

 

[slclick]

The real issue is that we have no 40 faster than 2.8.

 

[Ryananthony]

The real issue is that we have no 40 faster than 2.8.

 

[Maximilian]

Go get a tamron SP 45 and live happily ever after 8)

Considered it, but AF consistency/accuracy really is critical for me. It's first party or bust for me (for this FL).

I know, I know
That's my fear, too.

OTOH as we've waited up to 8.900 days, maybe we'll have the time for another 1.100 to make the 10.000 full

I may just eat $900 and get a 50L refurb and never shoot it wider than f/4 -- then the AF won't whiff and I'll have proper ring USM. :

As I've read from your lots of post, you want to have that small, light 50mm lens.
So I suppose you wouldn't be happy with that big L grenade.

Just help me with my memory:
What do you have right now? Do you posess a 50/1.4?

If not and if you really got that tired of waiting, have you ever played around with the 50 STM?
I borrowed it once from a friend of mine and I was surprised how good the IQ was and how much better the STM was in comparison to the pancake's STM and to the micro USM of other old lenses.
For that money it really is a bargain. If you've never tried it do so. If you did, forget my advice.
I didn't buy it myself because I decided I still can wait and I don't want to spend the money twice.

Just let me know your thoughts again. Thanks in advance.

 

[ahsanford]

Just help me with my memory:

I own the 50mm f/1.4 USM (as well as the 40 pancake that almost never gets used due to STM), and I have used the 50L over the course of a few rentals (over holidays usually).

I hate slowly focusing lenses when they are intended for what I shoot -- my life, my family, the things going on around me, so USM is a ground floor expectation of mine. So the 50 f/1.8 STM is DOA for me, and it's not optically a major step forward from the previous 50 f/1.8 II anyway.

Smaller (specifically length) is more important than lighter to me, so the 50L's compact design + USM is entirely doable -- I can go that big. I just don't want something as large as a 24-70 zoom when I want a relatively compact prime on there.

However, the 50L has that nutty plane of focus and the odd complete whiff of the AF with off-center subjects on my 5D3. So whenever I rent one I've always either taken off-center / large aperture shots 3x-4x to be safe (when possible to do this), shot on center and cropped off-center, or I stopped down unnecessarily much (say f/4) to make sure I didn't pooch the shot. I simply never have to do that with other Canon lenses than my 50s. My 70-200 2.8 on the 200 @ 2.8 is money off center, as is my 100L, as is my 28/35 IS non-Ls, etc. I appreciate f/1.2 or f/1.4 is a different animal, but that was my experience with the 50L even when modestly stopping down to f/2 or f/2.8.

So I can't say it enough. Update the 50 f/1.4 USM with the non-L IS refresh approach and you could not take my money any faster.

- A

 

[YuengLinger]

Somewhere in a conference room in Tokyo, engineers and marketing are banging their fists on tables, ready to initiate a mutiny because Canon management, despite reading ahsanford's many posts, have not given permission to begin production of the new 50mm 1.4 USM IS. ;D

 

[slclick]

I have yet to hear more than just a handful of people who have experienced the joy of buying the Tammy who previously were anticipating a new 50 from Canon and caved.

 

[ahsanford]

I have yet to hear more than just a handful of people who have experienced the joy of buying the Tammy who previously were anticipating a new 50 from Canon and caved.

Apples and oranges to me. I've thought about it, but it's nearly twice as long, twice as heavy and has third party reverse engineered AF routines.

I think AF is a critical need shooting wider than f/2 unless what you shoot allows you to chimp and rehsoot, and I personally don't have that luxury. I honestly think as much as folks pipe up about IQ improvements and IS, a good chunk of the folks asking for a new non-L 50 would readily take the existing f/1.4 optics dumped into a modern housing with proper ring USM and pony up $499 for it. Take the #1 with a bullet problem with the current f/1.4 -- the hunting / failing AF setup -- and it's a perfectly serviceable prime.

I, of course, would like better IQ and IS, but not everybody wants to pony up $699-999 for a non-L prime like I gladly would.

- A

 

[BillB]

I have yet to hear more than just a handful of people who have experienced the joy of buying the Tammy who previously were anticipating a new 50 from Canon and caved.

Apples and oranges to me. I've thought about it, but it's nearly twice as long, twice as heavy and has third party reverse engineered AF routines.

I think AF is a critical need shooting wider than f/2 unless what you shoot allows you to chimp and rehsoot, and I personally don't have that luxury. I honestly think as much as folks pipe up about IQ improvements and IS, a good chunk of the folks asking for a new non-L 50 would readily take the existing f/1.4 optics dumped into a modern housing with proper ring USM and pony up $499 for it. Take the #1 with a bullet problem with the current f/1.4 -- the hunting / failing AF setup -- and it's a perfectly serviceable prime.

I, of course, would like better IQ and IS, but not everybody wants to pony up $699-999 for a non-L prime like I gladly would.

- A

I don't know how many people would readily pay $499 for a repackaged f1.4 with USM and the same glass, but I think there would be quite a few people complaining bitterly and repeatedly about poor performance at f1.4, lack of IS, and Canon's eternal greediness if that came to pass.. Not that they would pay $699 or more for better optics. My guess is that a new non-L 50mm might be similar to the 35mm f2.0 IS rather than be another f1.4.

 

[ahsanford]

I don't know how many people would readily pay $499 for a repackaged f1.4 with USM and the same glass, but I think there would be quite a few people complaining bitterly and repeatedly about poor performance at f1.4, lack of IS, and Canon's eternal greediness if that came to pass.. Not that they would pay $699 or more for better optics. My guess is that a new non-L 50mm might be similar to the 35mm f2.0 IS rather than be another f1.4.

I'm just prioritizing the biggest area of improvement needed. If a sharp as a tack (35 f/2 IS) lens came out with whiffy AF that could be damaged by pressing on a protruding externally focusing front element design, people would be equally irate as your scenario above.

My point: I think a lot of people are taking for granted that the biggest problem of the EF 50 f/1.4 USM -- the AF -- will be addressed and are jumping to concerns #2 (wide open IQ) and #3 (IS).

But if I had to choose between a sharper mk II with the same Mk I AF setup vs. a same sharpness as mk I + modern ring USM, I'd honestly take the latter. I recognize not everyone would make that choice.

- A

 

[BillB]

I don't know how many people would readily pay $499 for a repackaged f1.4 with USM and the same glass, but I think there would be quite a few people complaining bitterly and repeatedly about poor performance at f1.4, lack of IS, and Canon's eternal greediness if that came to pass.. Not that they would pay $699 or more for better optics. My guess is that a new non-L 50mm might be similar to the 35mm f2.0 IS rather than be another f1.4.

I'm just prioritizing the biggest area of improvement needed. If a sharp as a tack (35 f/2 IS) lens came out with whiffy AF that could be damaged by pressing on a protruding externally focusing front element design, people would be equally irate as your scenario above.

My point: I think a lot of people are taking for granted that the biggest problem of the EF 50 f/1.4 USM -- the AF -- will be addressed and are jumping to concerns #2 (wide open IQ) and #3 (IS).

But if I had to choose between a sharper mk II with the same Mk I AF setup vs. a same sharpness as mk I + modern ring USM, I'd honestly take the latter. I recognize not everyone would make that choice.

- A

Fair enough. Reliable AF is essential, and I think wide open IQ is also very important, especially now that there are high quality zooms . Realistically, I think a new lens will need both for success. The tradeoffs between maximum aperture, IS and cost are less clear to me. My guess is that the L will be f1.4, the non L will be f1.8-f2.0, and that both will have USM and IS.

 

[Maximilian]

Just help me with my memory:

...
So I can't say it enough. Update the 50 f/1.4 USM with the non-L IS refresh approach and you could not take my money any faster.

Thank you! I hope I'll keep that in mind until the next 50 mm thread.

I second your arguments in almost every point. So let's hope that Canon can see reason to fullfill out wish. :-\

 

[Jopa]

Go get a tamron SP 45 and live happily ever after 8)

Considered it, but AF consistency/accuracy really is critical for me. It's first party or bust for me (for this FL).

I may just eat $900 and get a 50L refurb and never shoot it wider than f/4 -- then the AF won't whiff and I'll have proper ring USM. :

- A

3rd party lenses are hit and miss, but this one feels more like a hit to me. I bought it for video due to IS, but later realized it shoots better stills than video (noisy video AF compared to STM). The (PD)AF accuracy was great.

 

[aceflibble]

Go get a tamron SP 45 and live happily ever after 8)

Considered it, but AF consistency/accuracy really is critical for me. It's first party or bust for me (for this FL).

The Tamron 45mm's AF accuracy is equally as good as all of the Canon 50mm. Whether you really think that is good enough or not is a different matter; lots of people aren't happy with the Canon's AF, either, since they're all old designs except the cheap f/1.8 STM, and that is accurate but slow focus-by-wire. But the Tamron is absolutely equal to them in accuracy. I've rented & borrowed it several times and the thing which impressed me most was the fact it was the first third-party lens I've used which was perfectly accurate every time.

Where Tamron falls short is AF speed. Sigma try to match first-party in speed but are horribly inconsistent in accuracy, to the point where AFMA and even Sigma's own dock can't help. Tamron went the opposite way; they manage to match first-party in consistent accuracy but they are noticeably slower, and just a hair louder.

For non-action stills (and let's face it, how many people are shooting fast action with a 50mm?) the Tamron is essentially as-good-as-it-gets. The bigger issue with it is simply that the transmission is three quarters of a stop darker than the f-stop indicates. If you can get past that, it's better-built than any of the Canon 50mm (or the 40mm), it's just as accurate, it's just as consistent, and it's optically superior. Plus it has stabilisation, of course. It really is only the speed—both in terms of light and AF—that lets it down.

(Disclosure: as much as I love the Tamron and would recommend it to anybody else in a heartbeat, because most of my work is shot at f/4-8 and I happen to get a big discount on Canon, the Canon 50mm f/1.2 does me fine—hell, the f/1.8 STM and f/1.4 would do fine too, at these apertures—and I don't own the Tamron myself. Every time I've used it I've wanted to buy one of my own, but reality is I don't shoot faster than f/2.8 often enough to justify buying duplicate focal lengths; when you stop down they're all the same and the Canon is already sat here, so buying another would just be a blind waste of money. If I didn't have the discount on Canon and the existing lens broke, I'd replace it with the Tamron without question; if I regularly shot wider than f/2.8 I'd throw out the Canon and get the Tamron.)

 

[ykn123]

I own the SP 45 1.8 and absolutely love it. It's sharp and AF was never an issue on my 5DSr, 5DM4. It's stabilized as well.

 

[Kathode-Ray]

I agree with that, the accuracy of the Tamron is fine but the 50 1.4 has faster AF. But for me, the Tamron is much more useable: it's sharper, very silent and has IS. Perfect for shooting a movie, and stills. I'm glad I got it and sold the Canon 1.4. With the ability to update the firmware through USB, i'm not too worried about future compatibility.

The Tammy could have used a focus limiter, no kidding! It has a very long throw and focuses down to 29cm.

Here's an AFMA screenshot of FoCal calibration on a 6DmkII, looks pretty consistent to me.