Here We Go Again, New 50mm L Coming in 2018 [CR2]

[ahsanford]

I have always wondered why the original prices of the 35-28-24 lenses were so high. Maybe it was partly the exchange rate. Canon may have been greedy. Or maybe that was the price level that reflected design and production costs while meeting return on investment targets. In any case, it was not a succesful strategy

Why did Canon "shoot itself in the foot".

You answered your own question in the paragraph before. (The shooting of said feet was the original asking price of the 24/28/35 lenses.)

But pricing here depends on what they put in the new 50. Depending on feature set and build, price could vary on that wildly depending on [Max aperture] + [Type of AF] + [IS / no IS] + [Weathersealing]:

f/1.4 + Ring USM + IS + Sealing = you're talking the next L lens with sealing, so probably $1500 or so. You can look at this vs. other options below and deduce 'oh, this guy thinks sealing alone is worth $600-700?' That's not what I mean -- if it's a sealed L lens, it will be a simply higher class of everything and the price will reflect that.

f/1.4 + Ring USM + IS + No Sealing = a very high end non-L lens, perhaps $899-999 due to the cache of f/1.4 and IS. (Many have said such a lens can't happen in non-L as it would threaten 50L sales.)

f/1.4 + Nano USM + IS + No Sealing = a reasonable mid-level lens. f/1.4 and IS should still command a good price, say $799.

f/1.4 + Ring USM + No IS + No Sealing = $599

f/1.4 + Nano USM + No IS + No Sealing = $499

f/1.8 or f/2 + (any combination above) = what, 60-70% of the price of the f/1.4 combination?

- A

 

[CarlMillerPhoto]

$999 seems low for a Canon 50 f/1.4 L IS. If the optics are worse than the Sigma 50mm 1.4, then sure. But if on par or better, I'd imagine Canon making this the premiere "modern" 50mm offering and pricing it the same as the f/1.2 L, if not more depending on where they want to take the line.

 

[ahsanford]

$999 seems low for a Canon 50 f/1.4 L IS. If the optics are worse than the Sigma 50mm 1.4, then sure. But if on par or better, I'd imagine Canon making this the premiere "modern" 50mm offering and pricing it the same as the f/1.2 L, if not more depending on where they want to take the line.

You've misread me. I said the L would be $1500.

A non-L with f/1.4 + IS + ring USM would be $899-999.

- A

 

[CarlMillerPhoto]

$999 seems low for a Canon 50 f/1.4 L IS. If the optics are worse than the Sigma 50mm 1.4, then sure. But if on par or better, I'd imagine Canon making this the premiere "modern" 50mm offering and pricing it the same as the f/1.2 L, if not more depending on where they want to take the line.

You've misread me. I said the L would be $1500.

A non-L with f/1.4 + IS + ring USM would be $899-999.

- A

I wasn't responding to you. Was responding to CR suggesting price of $999 for a 50mm f/1.4L IS would "fit nicely into lineup."

 

[ahsanford]

$999 seems low for a Canon 50 f/1.4 L IS. If the optics are worse than the Sigma 50mm 1.4, then sure. But if on par or better, I'd imagine Canon making this the premiere "modern" 50mm offering and pricing it the same as the f/1.2 L, if not more depending on where they want to take the line.

You've misread me. I said the L would be $1500.

A non-L with f/1.4 + IS + ring USM would be $899-999.

- A

I wasn't responding to you. Was responding to CR suggesting price of $999 for a 50mm f/1.4L IS would "fit nicely into lineup."

Oh, apologies. And I agree with you. L + IS + f/1.4 = not cheap.

I'm still stunned Canon didn't ask for more for the new 85 f/1.4L IS as IS + f/1.4 + full-frame is an industry first, if I'm not mistaken. Though it would be more like $2k.

- A

 

[CarlMillerPhoto]

$999 seems low for a Canon 50 f/1.4 L IS. If the optics are worse than the Sigma 50mm 1.4, then sure. But if on par or better, I'd imagine Canon making this the premiere "modern" 50mm offering and pricing it the same as the f/1.2 L, if not more depending on where they want to take the line.

You've misread me. I said the L would be $1500.

A non-L with f/1.4 + IS + ring USM would be $899-999.

- A

I wasn't responding to you. Was responding to CR suggesting price of $999 for a 50mm f/1.4L IS would "fit nicely into lineup."

Oh, apologies. And I agree with you. L + IS + f/1.4 = not cheap.

I'm still stunned Canon didn't ask for more for the new 85 f/1.4L IS as IS + f/1.4 + full-frame is an industry first, if I'm not mistaken. Though it would be more like $2k.

- A

No worries. And definitely agreed about 85 1.4 IS. Would think $2k would've been the price tag too. However, I've heard rumors that the optical quality is just "good," so maybe there was too much compromise to get IS in and it's unable to beat the Sigma 85 1.4 and/or Tamron 85 1.8 VC in wide open/corner sharpness? Will be eager to test the lens myself.

 

[Antono Refa]

I think there's more to consider than binary cheap spot expensive spot to consider.

1) The f/1.2 lenses just don't fill the same spots as, say, Sigma 50mm & 85mm art lenses.

To make the point, Canon doesn't have lenses to fill the same spots as the Sigma Arts, Zeiss Otuses, and Nikon 58mm f/1.4G.

2) The f-stop difference is much smaller than in the wider lenses. IMHO, there would be more competition between an 85mm f/1.8 IS USM & an 85mm f/1.4L USM than there is between a 24mm f/2.8 IS USM & a 24mm f/1.4L USM.

3) The L versions of the 24mm & 35mm are newer than the L versions of the 50mm & 85mm, so it's easier to upgrade just the non-L versions.

On the other hand, the 50mm f/1.8 was recently upgraded. This makes harder to have three new lenses sell at three different price points, especially as...

4) The economy being what it is, Canon would rather not make two new primes of the same focal length at the same time.

So making an 85mm f/1.4L IS USM makes more sense than an 85mm f/1.8 IS USM + 85mm f/1.4L USM, esp as Canon can keep on selling the existing 85mm f/1.8 USM.

I think Canon will make a 50mm f/1.4L IS USM, no upgrade to the non-L prime.

 

[drnedel]

Give us 55 or 58 mm. You will get more potential upgraders.

Why? I'd like to hear your reasoning.

I would guess for the original commenter it's as simple as something filling the "ideal" niche in primes between 35mm and 85mm focal lengths. I have found that I've moved away from my 50mm usage over the years, while 35mm (wide-to-normal) and 85mm (portrait) get used much more frequently. Would a 60mm provide enough differentiation to lure me to buying a new lens? Probably not for me personally - but it might be different enough to appeal to somebody.

Any Nikon guy or Otus owner wandering around here?

I more than once found myself in a situation where, while shooting with my 35mm, I wanted a more "restricted" view. But switching to 50mm the difference in focal length was just a wee bit to small. Also, if shooting portraiture, I often just take along my 135mm and 50mm, the latter for more "environmental" portrait. While it is a conscious decision on my part to use these two vastly differing focal length, the switch is sometimes too radical, and, at least on paper, a, say, 58mm lens would be more appropriate.

As said, any Nikon guy around who could give real life insight into this question?

 

[YuengLinger]

I think there's more to consider than binary cheap spot expensive spot to consider.

1) The f/1.2 lenses just don't fill the same spots as, say, Sigma 50mm & 85mm art lenses.

To make the point, Canon doesn't have lenses to fill the same sports as the Sigma Arts, Zeiss Otuses, and Nikon 58mm f/1.4G.

2) The f-stop difference is much smaller than in the wider lenses. IMHO, there would be more competition between an 85mm f/1.8 IS USM & an 85mm f/1.4L USM than there is between a 24mm f/2.8 IS USM & a 24mm f/1.4L USM.

3) The L versions of the 24mm & 35mm are newer than the L versions of the 50mm & 85mm, so it's easier to upgrade just the non-L versions.

On the other hand, the 50mm f/1.8 was recently upgraded. This makes harder to have three new lenses sell at three different price points, especially as...

4) The economy being what it is, Canon would rather not make two new primes of the same focal length at the same time.

So making an 85mm f/1.4L IS USM makes more sense than an 85mm f/1.8 IS USM + 85mm f/1.4L USM, esp as Canon can keep on selling the existing 85mm f/1.8 USM.

I think Canon will make a 50mm f/1.4L IS USM, no upgrade to the non-L prime.

+1 Agree with your prediction and hope it is true!

 

[ahsanford]

2) The f-stop difference is much smaller than in the wider lenses. IMHO, there would be more competition between an 85mm f/1.8 IS USM & an 85mm f/1.4L USM than there is between a 24mm f/2.8 IS USM & a 24mm f/1.4L USM.

Good insights -- appreciate the post. Re #2 above, it's an interesting theory. The 50mm focal length in particular (and the 85 somewhat as well) can deliver large aperture lenses relatively inexpensively compared to other FLs. Currently, we have:

50mm f/1.2L II USM @ $1,349
50mm f/1.4 USM @ $349
50mm f/1.8 STM @ $125

(this same sort of price falloff in other FLs one would imagine would require a good stop max aperture difference per price point)

But that is not to say that the jump from f/1.4 to f/1.2 costs $1000 to deliver. Not at all. I contend a great deal of that L vs. non-L cost in other places -- quality/solidness of build, proper ring-type USM, more elements, more aperture blades, weathersealing, etc.

And there's also that nutty notion of double gauss vs. a retrofocus design. You could have two radically different 50 f/1.4 designs. For instance, a general use inexpensive non-L 50 f/1.4 IS will not steal L business if the light falloff / rendering isn't as good.

So this gives Canon a canvas of elements of a design -- IS vs. no IS, DG vs. retrofocus, sealed vs. not sealed, max aperture, focusing technology, IS vs. no IS, etc. to 'Frankenstein' together a stable of different 50s to serve various needs.

I argue the place between 50 f/1.8 STM and 50 f/1.2L II is the place that needs attention the most. Canon may may also make a new L with IS like they just did with 85mm recently, but the mid-grade instrument needs a helping hand into the 21st century, IMHO.

- A

 

[Antono Refa]

2) The f-stop difference is much smaller than in the wider lenses. IMHO, there would be more competition between an 85mm f/1.8 IS USM & an 85mm f/1.4L USM than there is between a 24mm f/2.8 IS USM & a 24mm f/1.4L USM.

Good insights -- appreciate the post. Re #2 above, it's an interesting theory. The 50mm focal length in particular (and the 85 somewhat as well) can deliver large aperture lenses relatively inexpensively compared to other FLs. Currently, we have:

50mm f/1.2L II USM @ $1,349
50mm f/1.4 USM @ $349
50mm f/1.8 STM @ $125

(this same sort of price falloff in other FLs one would imagine would require a good stop max aperture difference per price point)

But that is not to say that the jump from f/1.4 to f/1.2 costs $1000 to deliver. Not at all. I contend a great deal of that L vs. non-L cost in other places -- quality/solidness of build, proper ring-type USM, more elements, more aperture blades, weathersealing, etc.

And there's also that nutty notion of double gauss vs. a retrofocus design. You could have two radically different 50 f/1.4 designs. For instance, a general use inexpensive non-L 50 f/1.4 IS will not steal L business if the light falloff / rendering isn't as good.

So this gives Canon a canvas of elements of a design -- IS vs. no IS, DG vs. retrofocus, sealed vs. not sealed, max aperture, focusing technology, IS vs. no IS, etc. to 'Frankenstein' together a stable of different 50s to serve various needs.

I argue the place between 50 f/1.8 STM and 50 f/1.2L II is the place that needs attention the most. Canon may may also make a new L with IS like they just did with 85mm recently, but the mid-grade instrument needs a helping hand into the 21st century, IMHO.

I hope you're right. I would run straight to the nearest photo shop to buy 50mm + 85mm f/1.8 IS USM @ $550 each, but will definitely not pay $1,600 each for f/1.4L IS USM. My pockets just aren't deep enough.

 

[ahsanford]

I hope you're right. I would run straight to the nearest photo shop to buy 50mm + 85mm f/1.8 IS USM @ $550 each, but will definitely not pay $1,600 each for f/1.4L IS USM. My pockets just aren't deep enough.

I think they'll do it, but I'm guessing it will be nano / 'peppy focus by wire' for that price point. It would appear that mid-grade lenses (effectively, every non-L EF lens other than the nifty fifty and shorty mcforty) no longer warrant ring USM.

I just checked the lens timing release table I use (link) and for [EF] + [non-L], since the 24/28/35 IS refresh in 2012, here are all the lenses released:

2012: EF 40mm f/2.8 STM
2014: EF 24-105mm f/3.5-5.6 IS STM
2014: EF 400mm f/4 DO IS II USM (Ring)
2015: EF 50mm f/1.8 STM
2016: EF70-300mm f/4-5.6 IS II USM (Nano)

...we have not a single ring USM lens to be found other than the $6900 400 DO prime, which is hardly a mid-level instrument.

I'll say it: Ring USM = RIP for mid-level glass. :'( Somehow, something we've counted on for 20+ years is now somehow priced out of this market segment.

- A

 

[Antono Refa]

I hope you're right. I would run straight to the nearest photo shop to buy 50mm + 85mm f/1.8 IS USM @ $550 each, but will definitely not pay $1,600 each for f/1.4L IS USM. My pockets just aren't deep enough.

I think they'll do it, but I'm guessing it will be nano / 'peppy focus by wire' for that price point.

I'll live with that.

 

[traveller]

2) The f-stop difference is much smaller than in the wider lenses. IMHO, there would be more competition between an 85mm f/1.8 IS USM & an 85mm f/1.4L USM than there is between a 24mm f/2.8 IS USM & a 24mm f/1.4L USM.

Good insights -- appreciate the post. Re #2 above, it's an interesting theory. The 50mm focal length in particular (and the 85 somewhat as well) can deliver large aperture lenses relatively inexpensively compared to other FLs. Currently, we have:

50mm f/1.2L II USM @ $1,349
50mm f/1.4 USM @ $349
50mm f/1.8 STM @ $125

(this same sort of price falloff in other FLs one would imagine would require a good stop max aperture difference per price point)

But that is not to say that the jump from f/1.4 to f/1.2 costs $1000 to deliver. Not at all. I contend a great deal of that L vs. non-L cost in other places -- quality/solidness of build, proper ring-type USM, more elements, more aperture blades, weathersealing, etc.

And there's also that nutty notion of double gauss vs. a retrofocus design. You could have two radically different 50 f/1.4 designs. For instance, a general use inexpensive non-L 50 f/1.4 IS will not steal L business if the light falloff / rendering isn't as good.

So this gives Canon a canvas of elements of a design -- IS vs. no IS, DG vs. retrofocus, sealed vs. not sealed, max aperture, focusing technology, IS vs. no IS, etc. to 'Frankenstein' together a stable of different 50s to serve various needs.

I argue the place between 50 f/1.8 STM and 50 f/1.2L II is the place that needs attention the most. Canon may may also make a new L with IS like they just did with 85mm recently, but the mid-grade instrument needs a helping hand into the 21st century, IMHO.

- A

I'd have to agree with Antono Refa that a 50mm f/1.4L upgrade is more likely than a non-L, but perhaps your price expectations are too pessimistic. The Canon 85mm f/1.4L IS is brand new pre-order status and yet is US$300 cheaper than the old 85mm f/1.2L II. If the same ratios were applied to a new 50mm f/1.4L IS, then this would be a US$1150 lens -so not cheap, but only US$200 more than the Sigma 50mm f/1.4 Art...

 

[ahsanford]

I'd have to agree with Antono Refa that a 50mm f/1.4L upgrade is more likely than a non-L, but perhaps your price expectations are too pessimistic. The Canon 85mm f/1.4L IS is brand new pre-order status and yet is US$300 cheaper than the old 85mm f/1.2L II. If the same ratios were applied to a new 50mm f/1.4L IS, then this would be a US$1150 lens -so not cheap, but only US$200 more than the Sigma 50mm f/1.4 Art...

Possibly, but the 85L II isn't cotton balls in the corners the way the current 50L is. I think there's a huge pent-up demand for a fundamentally higher resolving 50 prime that might not exist at the 85mm FL, a demand folks would gladly pony up the bucks for.

But I could be wrong.

- A

 

[slclick]

I'm so glad I don't have a dog in this fight, I just can't stand the 50 on FF perspective and if I do shoot it it's on my 24-70mk2
It's just too frustrating waiting for what should be a foregone conclusion that Canon would have a great 50 and lower variants like they do a 35. SMH