jolyonralph said:ahsanford said:Rowk said:EF 135mm f/2L USM @ 1996...
It's time!!
Take a number, dude. It's not your turn yet.
- A
They did say "professional" lenses
50mm f/0.7
mass market
Upvote
0
jolyonralph said:ahsanford said:Rowk said:EF 135mm f/2L USM @ 1996...
It's time!!
Take a number, dude. It's not your turn yet.
- A
They did say "professional" lenses
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.
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.
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
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.
ethanz said:You just had to use a 50mm picture that wasn't the non-L to tease Adam, right?
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.
Pixel said:Would a 100 or 105mm L of a reasonable size and weight (Sigma ) be out of the question?
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
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.
fullstop said:hmmmm ... in my book EF 50/1.8 STM has "no problem" whatsoever.
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".
fullstop said:why would one ever need FTM, when the lens has "fast and accurate AF"?