New 50mm lens coming alongside a high end mirrorless camera [CR1]

[ethanz]

But if it's STM -- even with IS -- I'll buy it and post a video of me smashing it with a hammer on Youtube.

That kind of makes me want it to happen just so I can see that.

 

[Sporgon]

I've been bracing for a non-IS refresh to the EF 50 f/1.4 USM for some time. It's okay.

The key key things are accurate/consistent/fast Nano USM or Ring USM + internal focusing + better IQ wider than f/2.8 than what I have now... (and for it not to become a big pickle jar.)

Not having IS, not having mechanical focusing (if it's Nano), etc would be a bummer, but I would endure.

But if it's STM -- even with IS -- I'll buy it and post a video of me smashing it with a hammer on Youtube.

- A

Seriously, if the new Canon 50/1.4 doesn't have IS, try the Tamron 45/1.8. It is larger than the 50 -58 mm planar formula, but not excessively so, and is a really good, creative lens, offering excellent resolution right across the frame at f/1.8 but without losing the softness of the focus transition zone and bokeh. It is sharper in the centre at f/1.8 than the Canon 50/1.2 is at f/1.8 yet the bokeh is as soft. (This effect is probably why it has quite strong longitudinal CA in the out of focus areas wide open).

50/1.2 fans may scream at me but I could put up images between those two lenses and you wouldn't know which was which at f/1.8, apart from the fact that with the Tamron you are slightly closer to your subject than with the 50 for an identical framing and so the perspective is different - surprisingly so in some cases.

 

[whothafunk]

I actually compared my own 50 1.2L with my girlfriends 50 1.8 II by taking a close up head portrait photo of her and at 1.8, to my shock, the 50 1.8 was sharper.

I would really like a refreshed 50 1.2 or 1.4 atleast from Canon. I dont trust Sigmas autofocus, my experience with 35 1.4 was not impressive.

 

[TAF]

I've noticed many people like the 50, and I am genuinely surprised about it. Oddly, from age 7 to 16 I only had a 50mm to photograph with, because I couldn't afford anything else. So train I did with it. But I disliked it very much. I can still remember of every picture I took in those days whether I was frustrated by 50 being too wide or too narrow Then I read in a Dutch photography book (about the Olympus OM system) the suggestion to use 35mm and 85, and I liked that idea, but those were expensive lenses, so I settled for a 28 and 135 to accompany my 50. From that day on, I never used the 50 again. Later when I got a job I could finally afford 35 / 85, and now my favorite prime set is 24/35/85/200. I recently tried the 50 1.2L because of the beautiful bokeh, but gave up and sold it to be able to afford the 35 1.4 II (which is fantastic, but too heavy).

Perhaps we need to parse the rumor in finer detail: the new 50 will arrive with the FF-ML. Imagine Canon making it the KIT LENS.

It would be 1975 all over again!

Since the folks now running the show were teens (and no doubt doing whatever Japanese kids did to make money to buy cameras - i.e.: the equivalent of mowing lawns or a paper route for US kids in that timeframe) around the same time I was, I could picture (pun intended) the nostalgia taking over...

 

[stevelee]

My first 35mm camera was a Yashica rangefinder with a 45mm lens. Since the theoretical "normal" lens for that size would be something like 43.3mm, if you can believe Pythagoras, that's very close. Many of the best pictures I've taken in my life were taken with that camera. I think learning to shoot at one focal length, and therefore getting used to visualizing the framing even without looking through the camera, was a good practical education for me. That was especially true with shooting color slides. The composition and the exposure had to be right when the shutter was pushed, not in the darkroom, and not on a computer.

 

[Stuart]

LOL - I.e, pretty similar to Nikon's latest - lets hope they do AF.

CR1 indeed until Canon are ready to share - and that may be a way off yet.

 

[Ozarker]

Poor performing 5D4? This is worse than inaccurate sorry! I am saying it because I DO have it and it's fully satisfying .True I only take stills but it's perfect for stills (used with lens range from 14mm to 500mm x 2).

And judging a DSLR mainly for its video capabilities it's ... OK I will not say it although as I said it's not personal but I do not want to be misunderstood again.

Of course, we already know that most of the people around here knocking a particular camera and praising another have never touched either... much less taken a photo with them. Some people believe everything they read and everything they watch on YouTube.

 

[tron]

My first 35mm camera was a Yashica rangefinder with a 45mm lens. Since the theoretical "normal" lens for that size would be something like 43.3mm, if you can believe Pythagoras, that's very close. Many of the best pictures I've taken in my life were taken with that camera. I think learning to shoot at one focal length, and therefore getting used to visualizing the framing even without looking through the camera, was a good practical education for me. That was especially true with shooting color slides. The composition and the exposure had to be right when the shutter was pushed, not in the darkroom, and not on a computer.

My first SLR was a Konica Autoreflex TC with a 40mm 1.8 lens. I learned a lot using it after reading its instructions. Now by its instructions I do not mean just its buttons but learning about shutter, aperture, depth of field etc. Its instructions were a mini photographic course! By mentioning this I feel the urge to start searching for them. I must have them somewhere...

 

[ahsanford]

You can google it, but I feel a bit off linking it here. A guy apparently either transcribed his manual (incl. screencaps of the graphics) and then attempted to copyright it and preclude further distribtion.

Just google "Konica Autoreflex TC instructions" and it's the first hit.

- A

 

[Del Paso]

I've been bracing for a non-IS refresh to the EF 50 f/1.4 USM for some time. It's okay.

The key key things are accurate/consistent/fast Nano USM or Ring USM + internal focusing + better IQ wider than f/2.8 than what I have now... (and for it not to become a big pickle jar.)

Not having IS, not having mechanical focusing (if it's Nano), etc would be a bummer, but I would endure.

But if it's STM -- even with IS -- I'll buy it and post a video of me smashing it with a hammer on Youtube.

- A

I do have the 40mm STM, a wonderful little lens.
But I hate using it, because of stupid STM. There is absolutely no "focusing feeling".
On the other hand, this lens is a tiny pancake, so , maybe, STM should be tolerated , but definitely not on a 1,4/50mm.

 

[tron]

You can google it, but I feel a bit off linking it here. A guy apparently either transcribed his manual (incl. screencaps of the graphics) and then attempted to copyright it and preclude further distribtion.

Just google "Konica Autoreflex TC instructions" and it's the first hit.

- A

Many thanks! I believe there was also a colorful poster but maybe this was it in that form. Again thanks.

 

[Hector1970]

I’ve had three Canon 50mm.
The 1.8 was the first and I really enjoyed it. It was the first lens I got that could really throw backgrouns out of focus. I always found it sharp.
Someone dropped and broke it so I moved onto the 50mm 1.4.
While this was not super sharp at 1.4 it created very pleasing images. People who had their portrait taken with it enjoyed the photos. Lastly I have the 1.2. I find it super sharp with a good bokeh if prone to blown highlights due to the wide aperture. This is a much maligned lens here but my experience had been very positive. I don’t have real world focusing problems (the 85mm 1.2 is much slower and hunts more). Images are very complimentary to subjects.
The 24-70!2.8 II is so good I don’t use the 50mm as much as I should.
I hope Ahsanford gets what he wants as he’s looked for it for so long. I’m quite satisfied with the existing 1.2.
I have the 40 STM 2.8. It’s lovely and small but looks a bit too small on a full frame. It is STM and quick to focus. Not sure why it would be a bad thing on a new 50mm.

 

[fullstop]

I have the 40 STM 2.8. It’s lovely and small but looks a bit too small on a full frame. It is STM and quick to focus. Not sure why it would be a bad thing on a new 50mm.

Wow, astounding what type of criteria some people have.

I also have the EF 40/2.8 and like its excellent IQ and especially that it looks and is small.
On very compact mirrorfree [Canon?] FF cameras such pancake lenses will not look "too small", but just right

It is exactly the size and type of prime lens I'd like to get a few with new native mount for mirrorfree FF ... 20/2.8, 40/2.0, 85/2.4 ... or so.

 

[Don Haines]

Just say Nano USM, Neuro. Lie to me. I need this.

- A

Ok.... Nano USM....

Can I have one too?

 

[pgeezer]

I've been waiting for a sealed EF 50mm f1.4 IS USM just like the EF 35mm f2 IS USM for awhile now. That lens would get a lot of use if it were as good as the 35 mm.

We got 24mm, 28mm, 35mm and then it all stopped. The 100 macro fills in the long end but it would be nice to have a 50mm and an 85mm with the same construction as the previous three.

Maybe they didn't sell? That would be nuts as these lenses are really nice and compact. That 35mm is a VERY useful lens.

A compact 200mm f3.5 IS would be pretty nice too!

 

[Michael Clark]

That Nikon 58mm lens is huuuuuuuuuge and will apparently cost around $6000. Who exactly is this lens aimed at? It's far too big for a walkaround lens and far too expensive for it's limited use. All for the purpose of showing off f0.95 - far to shallow to be practical for real world use imho. Besides if the bokeh and sharpness at f0.95 don't blow the Otus lenses out of the water...

Smooth bokeh and across the frame flat field correction (a/k/a "sharpness" by those who don't know any better and think a flat test chart shot at close distances is the ultimate test of a lens) are usually at odds with one another when designing lenses.

Most of the lenses that are legendary for amazingly smooth bokeh are either very long telephoto lenses (that don't really require much field curvature correction since only a couple of degrees worth of a sphere's arc isn't all that much less 'flat' than the lasagna noodle shaped fields of focus we call "flat" for more corrected shorter focal length lenses) or shorter lenses that leave field curvature uncorrected or undercorrected.

Most of the lenses that have very flat fields of focus also tend to have harsh/busy bokeh.

 

[Michael Clark]

5DIV is roughly the same segment as D850 (and D810 before), despite different pixel count. 6D and 6DII is roughly the same segment as D700 and D750.

Nah. The 6D and 6DII are direct competitors of the 600D/610D series.

 

[Michael Clark]

My first SLR was a Konica Autoreflex TC with a 40mm 1.8 lens. I learned a lot using it after reading its instructions. Now by its instructions I do not mean just its buttons but learning about shutter, aperture, depth of field etc. Its instructions were a mini photographic course! By mentioning this I feel the urge to start searching for them. I must have them somewhere...

My first SLR was a Konica FS-1 with a Hexanon 40/1.8. Eventually the aperture mechanism broke and it would no longer stop down - every photo was taken wide open, regardless of the aperture ring position. I replaced it with a used Hexanon 50/1.8 mail ordered from B&H.

 

[Respinder]

That Nikon 58mm lens is huuuuuuuuuge and will apparently cost around $6000. Who exactly is this lens aimed at? It's far too big for a walkaround lens and far too expensive for it's limited use. All for the purpose of showing off f0.95 - far to shallow to be practical for real world use imho. Besides if the bokeh and sharpness at f0.95 don't blow the Otus lenses out of the water...

I don't care I want one I truly am a glutton-for-punishment for big fast lenses.
Only problem: Its frickin MANUAL FOCUS! When was the last time Nikon made a manual focus lens? Like 40 years ago?! Why did they think it was a good time to start that again? The difficulty of using this lens with MF will be insane!
Seriously this is all the more reason for Canon to give us a practical 50 f1.0 AF lens! Yes, they can release a 1.2 and 1.4 too - but my money is going to the 1.0!

 

[hmatthes]

I don't care I want one I truly am a glutton-for-punishment for big fast lenses.
Only problem: Its frickin MANUAL FOCUS! When was the last time Nikon made a manual focus lens? Like 40 years ago?! Why did they think it was a good time to start that again? The difficulty of using this lens with MF will be insane!
Seriously this is all the more reason for Canon to give us a practical 50 f1.0 AF lens! Yes, they can release a 1.2 and 1.4 too - but my money is going to the 1.0!

My friends with Leica rangefinders (manual focus only) all drool over the Noctilux .095 UNTIL they try to nail focus on someone's eye... impossible for most folks. Then they go for a f1.4 Summilux or even f2.0 Summicron (also MF) -- and get better pictures! My FF Leica Q's f1.7 Summilux is probably the best of all! It has AF but I like to MF often.

But Canon AF high speed lenses work extremely well. I had trouble with an 85/1.2 but love the new 85/1.4 -- All our EF glass with f1.4 nail their focus every time.

I don't want/need anything faster than 1.4... But I'm an old curmudgeon who is stuck in their ways.