Two New Professional Lenses Coming Ahead of Photokina? [CR1]

Antono Refa

EOS 6D MK II
Mar 26, 2014
848
128
ahsanford said:
there's a near certainty a 50 f/1.4L IS in the vein of the recent 85 f/1.4L IS has to happen as well. IS has to show up in a 50 in at least one price point.
With image resolution on the rise, every other manufacturer making an uber 50mm f/1.4, and the 85mm f/1.4L IS USM, I think a 50mm f/1.4L IS USM is inevitable.
 

H. Jones

Photojournalist
Aug 1, 2014
232
36
ahsanford said:
The more I think about it, if a non-L 50 f/1.4 USM II is coming (sans IS, as the rumors indicate), there's a near certainty a 50 f/1.4L IS in the vein of the recent 85 f/1.4L IS has to happen as well. IS has to show up in a 50 in at least one price point.
For a while I was of the opinion that fast non-telephoto primes didn't really need IS, but testing out the 35mm f/2 IS changed my mind on that.

Even at 35mm, the IS was an awesome addition. Especially as a photojournalist, shooting video/stills together is normally a tough game of switching lenses or going on and off a tripod, but with the 35mm it was like having a tripod built in and still having a fast prime to bring ISO down on stills. I was considering the 35mm f/1.4L II for a while, but now I honestly might just pick up the IS.

So with that in mind, I hope Canon seriously considers releasing a 50mm f/1.4 IS, L or not. I would probably replace my back-up 50mm f/1.8 with that easily and get much more use out of it.
 

cellomaster27

Capture the moment!
Jun 3, 2013
352
50
San Jose - CA
ahsanford said:
cellomaster27 said:
melgross said:
Ive never really found f1.2 to hold a real advantage over 1.4. With normal focus issues, both automatic and manual (particularly with the crappy manual focus aids on digital cameras) things could even be worse, not better. I’d rather have a seriously improved 1.4 instead.
I'd love to see canon make a 50mm like their new 85mm f1.4. If the improvements are similar, I'd jump on that real quick.
Agree, but I am curious to see how big it will get.

The 35L --> 35L II got slightly bigger, and man did we thank them for what that II could do optically.

The 85 f/1.2L II --> 85 f/1.4L IS, though not a true sequel, got a lot bigger, but that was in large part due to moving to an internally focusing design. (Compare here at MFD without hoods to see what I mean.)

But the next 50L may be a major change from double gauss to a retrofocus design. If that happens, it could be huge, like Sigma Art / Zeiss Otus big.

- A
True.. but the implementation of IS will make it bigger. The other lenses that you mentioned, do not have IS. In terms of front filter size, the 85 1.2 was a 72mm and the 85 1.4 is 77mm. I don't know too much about lens construction but since the current 50 1.2 is also 72mm, if the new 50mm 1.4 is say 77mm as well (granted that it would have IS), that would be amazing! Weight wise, again the 85mm lenses, the sigma is beefy while the canon isn't small, it's not that heavy. Canon 950g; Sigma 1.15kg. ;)
 

fullstop

EOS 6D MK II
Apr 23, 2018
1,088
153
is does not necessarily make lenses (significantly) bigger. see 70-200/4 L IS vs. non-IS. and ef 24/28/35 with IS are also reasonably compact. retrofocus design and/or oversized image circle make lenses bigger.

a 50/1.4 L IS in the same league as the 85/1.4 would be my expectation for a new 50. Ditch the 1.2L and the 1.4 non IS. for consumers i'd love a cheapo EF 50/1.8 STM with IS added. :)
 

Pixel

EOS 80D
Sep 6, 2011
105
7
Would a 100 or 105mm L of a reasonable size and weight (Sigma ) be out of the question?
 

ahsanford

Particular Member
Aug 16, 2012
7,972
502
H. Jones said:
For a while I was of the opinion that fast non-telephoto primes didn't really need IS, but testing out the 35mm f/2 IS changed my mind on that.
Wide lens? Fast lens? Don't care: IS on everything please, and you can take my money.

As an available light guy who often goes places a tripod is not allowed, IS = virtual speed. As my subjects are rarely moving, every stop of IS is a stop I can funnel into walking the ISO down. Or in cases the ISO is not problematic I can stop the lens down for sharpness/composition needs while the non-IS lens is forced to shoot wide open.

Now it may be less impactful at different FLs (I tend to see a higher number of stops of IS on my longer glass than on my wider glass), but I'll still use it. With my 16-35 f/L IS, I can take handheld shots of a church interior or nighttime city skyline at ISO 800 instead of ISO 3200 or 6400. That's helpful!

- A
 

ahsanford

Particular Member
Aug 16, 2012
7,972
502
fullstop said:
is does not necessarily make lenses (significantly) bigger. see 70-200/4 L IS vs. non-IS. and ef 24/28/35 with IS are also reasonably compact. retrofocus design and/or oversized image circle make lenses bigger.
Agree. IS typically adds weight, not size.

- A
 

ahsanford

Particular Member
Aug 16, 2012
7,972
502
Pixel said:
Would a 100 or 105mm L of a reasonable size and weight (Sigma ) be out of the question?
If Canon puts out some screamer of a 105 f/1.4 lens before updating the 135L, there will be hell to pay. Someone will pay for a plane ticket to Japan just so that they can berate/punch/moon the entire Canon marketing team.

It would be like if -- of all the lenses in the original non-L USM prime line from the 90s -- Canon chose to update the EF 20 f/2.8 USM before the 50 or 85.

- A
 

Frodo

EOS RP
Nov 3, 2012
288
14
ahsanford said:
It would be like if -- of all the lenses in the original non-L USM prime line from the 90s -- Canon chose to update the EF 20 f/2.8 USM before the 50 or 85.
- A
An updated EF 20/2.8? Now that I'd buy.
An updated 85/2 IS to match my 35/2 IS? Absolutely.

For me, 50mm is meh. But I acknowledge the gap in the EF series.
 

ahsanford

Particular Member
Aug 16, 2012
7,972
502
Frodo said:
An updated EF 20/2.8? Now that I'd buy.
An updated 85/2 IS to match my 35/2 IS? Absolutely.

For me, 50mm is meh. But I acknowledge the gap in the EF series.
We have 3 lovely 85 primes in EF right now that do not have too much wrong with them. Sure, the 85 f/1.8 is old but largely a great value with USM and decent sharpness per dollar, the f1.2L II is a unique rendering instrument and the f/1.4L IS ticks just about every box there is. Further, they are all pretty modern -- two are internally focusing and all have ring USM.

But with 50s, we have 3 of them (no, the compact macro doesn't count) and they all have non-trivial problems in performance and feature set. Canon does not sell a 50mm prime lens with reliable + fast autofocus, with a flat field of focus or anything resembling a sharp image across the frame. Canon needs at least one new offering on the middle/high side, if not two.

- A
 

fullstop

EOS 6D MK II
Apr 23, 2018
1,088
153
hmmmm ... in my book EF 50/1.8 STM has "no problem" whatsoever. I find it absolutely fabulous, good IQ, sharp, not much CA (less than 1.4). It is very compact, light and STM drive is superior in speed, precision and mechanical mechanical stability compared to the infamous AF drive on the 50/1.4. It is silent, works well on all EOS bodies, including EOS-M mirrorless line and also suitable for video. And it offers maximum bang for literally a few bucks.

I prefer it a lot over the 50/1.4. Difference in light and subject isolation is negligable in my experience.

Only improvement I'd like would be removal of manual focus ring and IS added instead. :)
 

ahsanford

Particular Member
Aug 16, 2012
7,972
502
fullstop said:
hmmmm ... in my book EF 50/1.8 STM has "no problem" whatsoever.
Sure, it's a killer value. I just can't stand FBW and my 50 f/1.4's AF hunts but it does it quickly. I prefer it over the f/1.8 STM.

So -- to me, in fairness to my prior posts -- the f/1.8 STM is lovely but not ticking the boxes I need. I continue to wait for a 35 f/2 IS USM like instrument (perhaps not in specifics on aperture) that is internally focusing, FTM mechanical focusing, modern ring USM, has reliable/consistent AF when shot on the wide open end and generates sharp photos. It doesn't need to be a Sigma Art atom-splittingly sharp instrument-- just 90% as good in half the size. :D

- A
 

fullstop

EOS 6D MK II
Apr 23, 2018
1,088
153
why would one ever need FTM, when the lens has "fast and accurate AF"?

I want the latter, and hardly ever twist focus rings. Only in very rare situations when AF is absolutely not possible do I switch to MF. I have not yet encountered a use case, where I would want to use FTM and intervene / fiddle with camera's AF system. ]. Focus by wire is also no issue for me, as long as focussing happens snappy and precisely.

I pay for AF in camera body and each and every Canon lens I purchase - so i want it to do the work. reliably, without any fuss. I am in charge of image idea, composition, timing/moment, light, post-processing/final look. Technicalities like exposure, focus and the like are my camera's job. I aspire to [some day, hopefully] be a "photographer", a "creator of images", a "vision-ary" - am not interested in being a "camera operator" and even less a "photo mechanic". :)
 

YuengLinger

EOS 5D MK IV
Dec 20, 2012
2,576
679
Southeastern USA
fullstop said:
why would one ever need FTM, when the lens has "fast and accurate AF"?

I want the latter, and hardly ever twist focus rings. Only in very rare situations when AF is absolutely not possible do I switch to MF. I have not yet encountered a use case, where I would want to use FTM and intervene / fiddle with camera's AF system. ]. Focus by wire is also no issue for me, as long as focussing happens snappy and precisely.

I pay for AF in camera body and each and every Canon lens I purchase - so i want it to do the work. reliably, without any fuss. I am in charge of image idea, composition, timing/moment, light, post-processing/final look. Technicalities like exposure, focus and the like are my camera's job. I aspire to [some day, hopefully] be a "photographer", a "creator of images", a "vision-ary" - am not interested in being a "camera operator" and even less a "photo mechanic". :)
And some day, when cameras can read minds, your dream might come true.