When are we gonna get some news on canons next 50mm (hopefully with IS)

[Zv]

Will Canon replace one of the 50's this year? The 1.8 II and 1.4 are still selling like hot cakes. I wish they'd just do a minor upgrade to the 1.4 and release it as a version II. No IS but just USM and rounded aperture blades. Same optical formula is fine, just bang it out already! That wouldn't hurt the L sales would it?

 

[DJL329]

An updated 1.4 with a better focusing motor, bit better sealing and no IS would be great.

+1000

I don't shoot video, don't need IS on a fast 50mm and certainly don't want want it made larger and more expensive to accommodate it. Just want that #&@$ 'micro' USM replaced with 'ring' USM.

 

[Rocky]

The 50mm f/1.4 is, by far, my most-used lens. I’m with you 100%.

I’m a little concerned that it might be slower in order to accommodate IS, but the 35mm f/2.0 IS gives me hop! 4-stop IS on an f/1.4 aperture would be a dream come true for me!

For those saying “why do you need IS on a non-tele with that big of an aperture?!”, well, some of us need to run and gun in low-light where a tripod would be extremely prohibitive. (for me, alpine starts while mountaineering. “Hey rope team, do you mind if I get out my tripod and and get some shots with mirror lockup? I know that it’s 2am and dark, windy, and cold but ISO 6400 makes baby Jebus cry…”)

Keep the dram alive!

I'm with you there, IS is great for low light landscapes to keep the ISO down and ensure optimium aperture for DOF and also for handheld video where it is impractical to use a tripod- mountaineering is one of those applications!

I am with you too. I cannot see any reason for people to be "against" IS on standard and wide angle lenses. Just imagine when you are a tourist inside any of the palaces or the great churches. Do you want your wide angle lens to have IS or not ?

 

[Roadtrip]

An updated 1.4 with a better focusing motor, bit better sealing and no IS would be great.

+1000

I don't shoot video, don't need IS on a fast 50mm and certainly don't want want it made larger and more expensive to accommodate it. Just want that #&@$ 'micro' USM replaced with 'ring' USM.

+100,000......and I thought I was the only one that felt that way!

 

[infared]

Based on the quality of the Canon 50mm lenses (especially the f/1.8 & f/1.4) it tells me that Canon is not too interested or concerned about a great quality, fine-tuned normal lens for their full-frame cameras. I think perhaps your hope is displaced here as it appears that Sigma and Zeiss are on the brink of satisfying our needs long before Canon will,(but, you never know!). Although...I cannot understand why we do not have a stunning, well-priced normal lens for our camera bodies....this continually perplexes me and obviously it perplexes others as well and has for quite some time.

 

[RMC33]

An updated 1.4 with a better focusing motor, bit better sealing and no IS would be great.

+1000

I don't shoot video, don't need IS on a fast 50mm and certainly don't want want it made larger and more expensive to accommodate it. Just want that #&@$ 'micro' USM replaced with 'ring' USM.

Give me Ring USM or give me death!

 

[RMC33]

The 50mm f/1.4 is, by far, my most-used lens. I’m with you 100%.

I’m a little concerned that it might be slower in order to accommodate IS, but the 35mm f/2.0 IS gives me hop! 4-stop IS on an f/1.4 aperture would be a dream come true for me!

For those saying “why do you need IS on a non-tele with that big of an aperture?!”, well, some of us need to run and gun in low-light where a tripod would be extremely prohibitive. (for me, alpine starts while mountaineering. “Hey rope team, do you mind if I get out my tripod and and get some shots with mirror lockup? I know that it’s 2am and dark, windy, and cold but ISO 6400 makes baby Jebus cry…”)

Keep the dram alive!

I'm with you there, IS is great for low light landscapes to keep the ISO down and ensure optimium aperture for DOF and also for handheld video where it is impractical to use a tripod- mountaineering is one of those applications!

I am with you too. I cannot see any reason for people to be "against" IS on standard and wide angle lenses. Just imagine when you are a tourist inside any of the palaces or the great churches. Do you want your wide angle lens to have IS or not ?

No, because it will stay at home as I don't plan on dragging around a ~$800 dollar lens on holiday that weighs 200-400g more because of a system that I don't need. I have not needed IS to shoot with my current 50 1.4 ever, 24-70 Mk1/2 or any lens that "needs" IS. Like I said, A 50 STM f/2 with IS for the video and "I want IS" crowd would be great and I may even buy that next to a 50 f/1.4 II but IS on everything is just expensive and heavy~

 

[RLPhoto]

I'm quite content with my 50L. If they can make one better, perhaps canon could make me un-content with it.

 

[ahsanford]

We've riffed on this a few times before. Regardless of what you all want, here is what you are going to get in the next 50mm prime - a 100% similar version of the recent IS primes in a 50mm package:

• Non-L
• IS
• Sharpness should surpass the 50L (remember, the F/1.4 lens is currently sharper than the 50L already at a few apertures)
• Modern USM, Very quick AF
• Internal focusing
• Lightweight
• Vastly improved build quality over the lens it is replacing (in this case, the F/1.4). I own the 50 F/1.4 and the new 28 F/2.8 IS and it is night and day for BQ. Someone nearly hit me when I said the new 28 was an L lens minus the gasket, but I stand by that statement. These new non-L primes are nearly as well built as my 100L macro, but not tank-like like my 70-200 F/2.8 IS II.

The above list is a hammerlock going-to-happen list. Why am I so confident? They are refreshing all non-L primes right now in this exact fashion. They've done the 24, 28, and 35, so the 50 and likely 85 are next. These are twenty year old lenses that need refreshes.

The only debatables are max aperture and filter size. My vote of what we'll get (not what I want, per se) is F/2 and 67mm. As the 24 & 28 IS refreshses got 58mm and then the 35mm F/2 IS got stepped up to 67mm, similarly stepping up the 50mm F/2 IS to a 67mm filter makes sense. Just a hunch on aperture, though.

- A

 

[Rocky]

No, because it will stay at home as I don't plan on dragging around a ~$800 dollar lens on holiday that weighs 200-400g more because of a system that I don't need. I have not needed IS to shoot with my current 50 1.4 ever, 24-70 Mk1/2 or any lens that "needs" IS. Like I said, A 50 STM f/2 with IS for the video and "I want IS" crowd would be great and I may even buy that next to a 50 f/1.4 II but IS on everything is just expensive and heavy~

EF 28mm f2.8 weights 185 gm, EF 28mm f2.8 USM IS weights 260 gm. This difference is only 75 gm. I do not know where did you get the 200-400 gm information. If you do not want to bring a $800 lens on a trip then would you bring a $1800 camera body on a trip???

 

[Sella174]

... I cannot understand why we do not have a stunning, well-priced normal lens for our camera bodies....this continually perplexes me and obviously it perplexes others as well and has for quite some time.

Two reasons:

(1) Zoom lenses sell cameras. Who, especially the target audience of the "entry-level" cameras, will today buy a DSLR kitted with a prime lens?

(2) The non-L primes that are being "updated" are just being done because they are "traditional" lenses and Canon obviously feels that they should still manufacture them. Therefore they get "updated" and made current/modern with IS. The prices of these lenses suggest that Canon felt right from the start that sales will be very slow.

 

[Chuck Alaimo]

An updated 1.4 with a better focusing motor, bit better sealing and no IS would be great. A second model with a STM and IS for video/people who want IS would be great. IS has its place and yes it can be shut off, but I feel the market is large enough for two versions, say a 50 f/2 STM IS and 50 1.4 (updated).

Agreed...

 

[infared]

... I cannot understand why we do not have a stunning, well-priced normal lens for our camera bodies....this continually perplexes me and obviously it perplexes others as well and has for quite some time.

Two reasons:

(1) Zoom lenses sell cameras. Who, especially the target audience of the "entry-level" cameras, will today buy a DSLR kitted with a prime lens?

(2) The non-L primes that are being "updated" are just being done because they are "traditional" lenses and Canon obviously feels that they should still manufacture them. Therefore they get "updated" and made current/modern with IS. The prices of these lenses suggest that Canon felt right from the start that sales will be very slow.

Valid points....perhaps a Sigma Artline 50mm f/1.4 is the best hope for a reasonably priced, better quality AF normal lens. I know the Zeiss is going to cost a fortune but set a new standard, which it most likely will.

 

[ahsanford]

I just fail to see why this new 50mm will be a problem. We will then have:

$125 or so --> 50 F/1.8: nifty fifty
$350 or so --> 50 F/1.4 (sort of) USM: a great lens for the dollar (like the 85 F/1.8
$800 or so --> new 50 F/? IS USM
$1300? (I have forgotten) --> the 50L F/1.2: the high art / portraiture lens, the je ne sais quoi lens, the bokeh magic lens, etc.

That third option is perfectly placed. Many people who feel the L is overpriced or underfeatured will jump at the new offering. I certainly will.

- A

 

[Chuck Alaimo]

I just fail to see why this new 50mm will be a problem. We will then have:

$125 or so --> 50 F/1.8: nifty fifty
$350 or so --> 50 F/1.4 (sort of) USM: a great lens for the dollar (like the 85 F/1.8
$800 or so --> new 50 F/? IS USM
$1300? (I have forgotten) --> the 50L F/1.2: the high art / portraiture lens, the je ne sais quoi lens, the bokeh magic lens, etc.

That third option is perfectly placed. Many people who feel the L is overpriced or underfeatured will jump at the new offering. I certainly will.

- A

The problem is --- many feel that the 1.4 is the one that needs to be updated...as a 1.4!!!! The market for primes seems to have a clear line in the sand ---the camp that wants a slower lens with IS and a camp that wants a fast lens and doesn't care for IS. The next divide is price - the only way to please both camps is to make a 1.4 with IS but I seriously doubt such a thing would be made available under 1K - or IQ will be garbage from 1.4-2.8.

I just want an optically improved 1.4...or, lets get it on with a 50mmL 1.2v2!

 

[jdramirez]

I'd pay 900 for a50mm that is sharp wide open... but it is to much to ask for at the moment...

 

[ahsanford]

I just fail to see why this new 50mm will be a problem. We will then have:

$125 or so --> 50 F/1.8: nifty fifty
$350 or so --> 50 F/1.4 (sort of) USM: a great lens for the dollar (like the 85 F/1.8
$800 or so --> new 50 F/? IS USM
$1300? (I have forgotten) --> the 50L F/1.2: the high art / portraiture lens, the je ne sais quoi lens, the bokeh magic lens, etc.

That third option is perfectly placed. Many people who feel the L is overpriced or underfeatured will jump at the new offering. I certainly will.

- A

The problem is --- many feel that the 1.4 is the one that needs to be updated...as a 1.4!!!! The market for primes seems to have a clear line in the sand ---the camp that wants a slower lens with IS and a camp that wants a fast lens and doesn't care for IS. The next divide is price - the only way to please both camps is to make a 1.4 with IS but I seriously doubt such a thing would be made available under 1K - or IQ will be garbage from 1.4-2.8.

I just want an optically improved 1.4...or, lets get it on with a 50mmL 1.2v2!

I think some of us (and this is not an indictment) are getting hung up in F/1.4 vs. F/2. It's just one stop. The other improvements -- general overall sharpness, internal focusing, IS, much much faster focusing, better build -- would have me buy this lens at F/2 or F/1.4.

I know I am in the minority here, but I'd gladly give up one stop for all those improvements.

As for 50Lv2, agree. It doesn't even stack up to the current F/1.4 in the corners. For 3-4x the price, it should everything the cheaper one does and more.

- A

 

[Pi]

As for 50Lv2, agree. It doesn't even stack up to the current F/1.4 in the corners. For 3-4x the price, it should everything the cheaper one does and more.

No, it should be different, and it is. F/1.2 poses different design requirements.

 

[pj1974]

I think some of us (and this is not an indictment) are getting hung up in F/1.4 vs. F/2. It's just one stop. The other improvements -- general overall sharpness, internal focusing, IS, much much faster focusing, better build -- would have me buy this lens at F/2 or F/1.4.

I know I am in the minority here, but I'd gladly give up one stop for all those improvements.

As for 50Lv2, agree. It doesn't even stack up to the current F/1.4 in the corners. For 3-4x the price, it should everything the cheaper one does and more.

In part I do agree with you - personally my needs and style of photography means that I'm not so hung up on the maximum aperture issue (ie between f/1.4 - f/2). However I wouldn't want anything slower than f/2 - though I do understand there are people who need f/1.4 (rather than f/2).

Particularly if there the lens comes with IS - f/2 would work great for certain applications. And having a robust focus (STM as a minimum, or true ring USM as my preference) - ie fast, accurate, consistent.

More importantly, I want the next Canon 50mm lens - to have great IQ (sharp, contrasty, smooth bokeh, low CAs, little vignetting) when it's wide open.

Then if anything the lens' IQ should 'improve from there' in the range f/wide-open till f/5.6. I doubt I'll use such a lens at smaller apertures than f/5.6.

The new EF Canon 35mm f/2 IS USM looks attractive... just I use the 50mm focus length more than I use 35mm. I'd be prepared to spend up to $1000 AUD for a lens that fits the bill. I'm looking forward to what might be around the corner.... 8)

Paul

 

[Chuck Alaimo]

I just fail to see why this new 50mm will be a problem. We will then have:

$125 or so --> 50 F/1.8: nifty fifty
$350 or so --> 50 F/1.4 (sort of) USM: a great lens for the dollar (like the 85 F/1.8
$800 or so --> new 50 F/? IS USM
$1300? (I have forgotten) --> the 50L F/1.2: the high art / portraiture lens, the je ne sais quoi lens, the bokeh magic lens, etc.

That third option is perfectly placed. Many people who feel the L is overpriced or underfeatured will jump at the new offering. I certainly will.

- A

The problem is --- many feel that the 1.4 is the one that needs to be updated...as a 1.4!!!! The market for primes seems to have a clear line in the sand ---the camp that wants a slower lens with IS and a camp that wants a fast lens and doesn't care for IS. The next divide is price - the only way to please both camps is to make a 1.4 with IS but I seriously doubt such a thing would be made available under 1K - or IQ will be garbage from 1.4-2.8.

I just want an optically improved 1.4...or, lets get it on with a 50mmL 1.2v2!

I think some of us (and this is not an indictment) are getting hung up in F/1.4 vs. F/2. It's just one stop. The other improvements -- general overall sharpness, internal focusing, IS, much much faster focusing, better build -- would have me buy this lens at F/2 or F/1.4.

I know I am in the minority here, but I'd gladly give up one stop for all those improvements.

As for 50Lv2, agree. It doesn't even stack up to the current F/1.4 in the corners. For 3-4x the price, it should everything the cheaper one does and more.

- A

I think the camps are pretty evenly divided (because there are a lot of video folks that want the IS). But for those of us hunting for amazing bokeh, f2 is not f1.4!

In my shoes, I want bokeh. If the new 50 is f2 with IS and costs $900, well that just gives me the extra nudge to upgrade my 24-70 to the v2 because that lens is from what I have heard nothing short of amazing!!!! With that lens now out, the only reason to go for a prime in that range is --- bokeh. 2.8 vs 2.0 doesn't let in enough light to make that a wedding lens. 1.4 vs 2.8 though, now that is a difference maker. I can handheld my 50mm down to 1/40th of a second no problem - so with IS I could go down to 1/10th ---but, that won't be of much use at a wedding reception because people are moving.

So yeah, in a nutshell, if it's f2 with IS, that just gives me another reason to save the pennies for the 24-70. But if its f1.4 no IS but improved IQ, corners, AF...then I'd snag one!

Either way, I do think that each variation is different enough to warrant both. But again I really feel that we're talking about apples and oranges here. f2 with IS will appeal to some --- 1.4 no IS will appeal to other...but like I said - if all they release is f2 with IS, I will just go with the 24-70 because the IQ will most likely be better and there is a lot more versatility to the zoom (and no compromise in IQ). And mounted on a 5d3, I have no problems just boosting the ISO to keep my SS at a reasonable level!