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.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.
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.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.
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.ahsanford said:Agree, but I am curious to see how big it will get.cellomaster27 said: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.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.
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.
Wide lens? Fast lens? Don't care: IS on everything please, and you can take my money.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.
Agree. IS typically adds weight, not size.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.
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.Pixel said:Would a 100 or 105mm L of a reasonable size and weight (Sigma ) be out of the question?
An updated EF 20/2.8? Now that I'd buy.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.
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.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.
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.fullstop said:hmmmm ... in my book EF 50/1.8 STM has "no problem" whatsoever.
And some day, when cameras can read minds, your dream might come true.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".