A Canon 50mm f/1.2L Replacement [CR1]

[Canon Rumors]

<p>A new <a href="http://www.canonrumors.com/2015/03/canon-ef-50mm-f1-8-stm-coming-next-month-cr1/" target="_blank">Canon EF 50mm f/1.8 STM is expected sometime in April</a>, although the exact date isn’t known. I suspect it could show up after the new Rebels begin shipping.</p>
<p>We have received two mentions over the last few weeks about a replacement for the EF 50mm f/1.2L. We’re told the latest design of the 50L is slightly smaller, and a bit heavier. The front element is bigger than the current version, and that the focus shift issue will be gone thanks to a floating element.</p>
<p>We think the next L prime from Canon will be a replacement of the EF 35mm f/1.4L, and that a 50L replacement will be in the distant future, likely 2016 at the earliest.</p>

 

[Loswr]

We think the next L prime from Canon will be a replacement of the EF 35mm f/1.4L...

I hope so.

 

[infared]

I bet this lens is $2200 and not as good as the Sigma Art. :
We shall see.

 

[jeffa4444]

Lets hope the EF50mm f1.8 STM lens gets a metal mount like the EF40mm f2.8 STM. Aside from DOF as sensors become more sensitive the need for f1.2 become less relevant and the focus should be on an L version of the f1.4.

 

[TWI by Dustin Abbott]

This lens will no doubt sell a ton anyway, but if it is a significant upgrade over the nifty fifty it could be interesting. I've owned the shorty forty since it came out, and while I rarely use it, I probably will never get rid of it, either. I sometimes do take it in a pocket when I go out with long glass...just in case.

Also, this new lens, like the 40STM, will probably do very nice double duty on the EOS M system.

 

[ahsanford]

I am not going to rant that we need the non-L EF 50mm f/nooneknows IS USM more than this.
I am not going to rant that we need the non-L EF 50mm f/nooneknows IS USM more than this.
I am not going to rant that we need the non-L EF 50mm f/nooneknows IS USM more than this.
I am not going to rant that we need the non-L EF 50mm f/nooneknows IS USM more than this.
I am not going to rant that we need the non-L EF 50mm f/nooneknows IS USM more than this.

...annnnnnnnnnnd 100. Phew. My fingers were getting tired.

- A

 

[grainier]

[quote author=Canon Rumors]STM[/quote]

Jeez, what does it take to make a 50 with proper USM?

 

[ahsanford]

[quote author=Canon Rumors]STM

Jeez, what does it take to make a 50 with proper USM?
[/quote]

It's going to happen, but it will be with the 50 that I have already consumed all of my rant-love for in this thread.

- A

 

[K]

I doubt this one. The 50 1.2 is a sought after lens. However, Canon does tend to listen to and react to the professional market much more. After all, these are the people buying all of Canon's highest end gear. But looking at things practically, it doesn't seem to warrant any update at least in the near future.

However, a 50mm 1.4 USM that is actually sharp would be very welcome. From the 50mm 1.8 to the 50mm 1.2, there is nothing. The current 1.4 gets a lot of bad press on the internet for quite a while. Most reviewers straight out say to pass on it and get the 1.8 instead.

Reason would indicate that Canon should not forfeit this market segment and address the weakness of their very old 1.4.

Either that, or make the 1.8 better to where there's no point in having anything between the 1.8 and 1.2.


A new 35mm L would be very welcome.

 

[Ruined]

IMO the 85L II needs an update more than the 50mm f/1.2L.

The 50L may require some skill to master, but at least it does not have the mechanical clunkiness, reliability issues, and slow focus of the 85L II. Granted the 85L II output is stunning, but I think they need to revisit the design so it is not so susceptible to damage and also focuses faster.

 

[ahsanford]

I bet this lens is $2200 and not as good as the Sigma Art. :
We shall see.

This, of course, gets to what is 'as good as'. Let me start by saying that I am not either side of the fence on 50L vs. 50 Art -- they are different lenses for different people. I actually want neither of them (I want the non-L IS refresh of the 50 f/1.4).

From a sharpness perspective -- which is always the first thing we look at -- it's not particularly close. The 50 Art is a stellar instrument, nearly Zeiss Otus good.

Yet some other folks rave about the draw/bokeh/magic of the 50L. This usually starts a fight on these forums as 'magic' is not quantifiable, what is good/bad bokeh is subjective, and some people really want numbers.

And I constantly harp on features and non IQ issues: IS, size/weight, ergonomics, build quality, focus speed, focus reliability, etc.

I'm not sticking up for the 50L or it's nutty price tag -- far from it. I'm just saying there is a lot more to a lens than the images it can theoretically capture, otherwise we'd all be shooting MF Zeiss glass.

So I truly believe 'the best 50' does not exist. The best 50 for each of us does. Which one that is depends on what's important to you.

- A

 

[ajfotofilmagem]

IMO the 85L II needs an update more than the 50mm f/1.2L.
The 50L may require some skill to master, but at least it does not have the mechanical clunkiness, reliability issues, and slow focus of the 85L II. Granted the 85L II output is stunning, but I think they need to revisit the design so it is not so susceptible to damage and also focuses faster.

I Disagree.
Canon 85L ii works great for any stationary object. But Canon 50L was beaten by Sigma Art, and will probably be beaten by the new 50mm STM (in the same aperture diaphragm).

 

[sanj]

I doubt this one. The 50 1.2 is a sought after lens. However, Canon does tend to listen to and react to the professional market much more. After all, these are the people buying all of Canon's highest end gear. But looking at things practically, it doesn't seem to warrant any update at least in the near future.

However, a 50mm 1.4 USM that is actually sharp would be very welcome. From the 50mm 1.8 to the 50mm 1.2, there is nothing. The current 1.4 gets a lot of bad press on the internet for quite a while. Most reviewers straight out say to pass on it and get the 1.8 instead.

Reason would indicate that Canon should not forfeit this market segment and address the weakness of their very old 1.4.

Either that, or make the 1.8 better to where there's no point in having anything between the 1.8 and 1.2.


A new 35mm L would be very welcome.

Ahm.

 

[infared]

I bet this lens is $2200 and not as good as the Sigma Art. :
We shall see.

This, of course, gets to what is 'as good as'. Let me start by saying that I am not either side of the fence on 50L vs. 50 Art -- they are different lenses for different people. I actually want neither of them (I want the non-L IS refresh of the 50 f/1.4).

From a sharpness perspective -- which is always the first thing we look at -- it's not particularly close. The 50 Art is a stellar instrument, nearly Zeiss Otus good.

Yet some other folks rave about the draw/bokeh/magic of the 50L. This usually starts a fight on these forums as 'magic' is not quantifiable, what is good/bad bokeh is subjective, and some people really want numbers.

And I constantly harp on features and non IQ issues: IS, size/weight, ergonomics, build quality, focus speed, focus reliability, etc.

I'm not sticking up for the 50L or it's nutty price tag -- far from it. I'm just saying there is a lot more to a lens than the images it can theoretically capture, otherwise we'd all be shooting MF Zeiss glass.

So I truly believe 'the best 50' does not exist. The best 50 for each of us does. Which one that is depends on what's important to you.

- A

Well said...I love my 50mm Art...I have my 85mm L II when I REALLY want to get all creamy! LOL!....I think the lens that everyone would like to see would be an decently built f/1.4 IS. One that is reasonably priced. They would sell a ton of them for years. Right? Not my thing...but I get that ...why doesn't Canon??????

 

[ahsanford]

Well said...I love my 50mm Art...I have my 85mm L II when I REALLY want to get all creamy! LOL!....I think the lens that everyone would like to see would be an decently built f/1.4 IS. One that is reasonably priced. They would sell a ton of them for years. Right? Not my thing...but I get that ...why doesn't Canon??????

Again, you won't get an argument from me. I've been saying what's in the attached pic for some time.

I just want a sharp, great focusing 50 prime that fits in roughly the same housing as the 35 f/2 IS USM. I want a competent little 50. I don't need a pickle jar with record-breaking resolution or a specialist arty lens that can't resolve in the corners.

Honestly, I'd plunk $500 down right now for an existing EF 50 f/1.4 with proper/real/fast/consistent ring-USM focusing and internal focusing (no more extending the front element to focus). That's all I need. The IS is gravy.

- A

 

[jeffa4444]

Well said...I love my 50mm Art...I have my 85mm L II when I REALLY want to get all creamy! LOL!....I think the lens that everyone would like to see would be an decently built f/1.4 IS. One that is reasonably priced. They would sell a ton of them for years. Right? Not my thing...but I get that ...why doesn't Canon??????

Again, you won't get an argument from me. I've been saying what's in the attached pic for some time.

I just want a sharp, great focusing 50 prime that fits in roughly the same housing as the 35 f/2 IS USM. I want a competent little 50. I don't need a pickle jar with record-breaking resolution or a specialist arty lens that can't resolve in the corners.

Honestly, I'd plunk $500 down right now for an existing EF 50 f/1.4 with proper/real/fast/consistent ring-USM focusing and internal focusing (no more extending the front element to focus). That's all I need. The IS is gravy.

- A

Could not have said it better. We want nay we need an EF50 f1.4 IS USM lens period thats sharp across the frame and has minimum lateral & axial chromatic aberration.

 

[sulla]

Oh I'm all in for a premium IQ, reliable AF 50mm with at least 1.4, red ring or not. Just love the look of 50mm.

 

[Ruined]

IMO the 85L II needs an update more than the 50mm f/1.2L.
The 50L may require some skill to master, but at least it does not have the mechanical clunkiness, reliability issues, and slow focus of the 85L II. Granted the 85L II output is stunning, but I think they need to revisit the design so it is not so susceptible to damage and also focuses faster.

I Disagree.
Canon 85L ii works great for any stationary object. But Canon 50L was beaten by Sigma Art, and will probably be beaten by the new 50mm STM (in the same aperture diaphragm).

Canon 85L II is quoted by Lens Rentals as one of the lenses most frequently requiring repairs. I can't imagine how that is a good thing regardless of how good the output is.

Also, the Sigma 50 Art seems to have severe AF issues - I recall the owners thread here the people who had one that autofocused properly were in the minority. The Sigma also has a slower aperture and thus less DOF isolation. Finally, sharpness is not the only criteria to judge a lens with; if it were, the Canon 24-70 II wins everything!

 

[ahsanford]

Also, the Sigma 50 Art seems to have severe AF issues - I recall the owners thread here the people who had one that autofocused properly were in the minority.

I've heard some of this. Besides various internet forum anecdotes :, the example I cite is Bryan Carnathan's finding on the 50 Art:
http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/Sigma-50mm-f-1.4-DG-HSM-Art-Lens.aspx

Go halfway down through his review and find the Butterfly graphic. Then read the three paragraphs above it, and then mouseover the 1-10 under the graphic and watch what happens. That -- that single example -- is likely to be considered somewhat troubling to a person that is considering picking up their first 3rd party lens.

But one-off examples are not a trend. This is something we need more data on. I'd love to see a large equipment house (say Roger Cicala at LR) play the AF game with a large population of different camera bodies. We may find out Sigmas work best with later camera bodies, more recent camera body firmware, etc. or we might find out it excels with certain AF points but not all of them.

I'm not trying to protect Sigma here so much as bound where any AF problems might be. Hate to see a company that is offering such IQ per dollar get blacklisted unnecessarily.

- A

 

[JonAustin]

I just want a sharp, great focusing 50 prime that fits in roughly the same housing as the 35 f/2 IS USM. I want a competent little 50. I don't need a pickle jar with record-breaking resolution or a specialist arty lens that can't resolve in the corners.

Honestly, I'd plunk $500 down right now for an existing EF 50 f/1.4 with proper/real/fast/consistent ring-USM focusing and internal focusing (no more extending the front element to focus). That's all I need. The IS is gravy.

- A

I'm almost reluctant to chime in here, since ahsanford "owns" this thread, but I could not agree more with his above post, except that for me, IS would be part of the meat, and not gravy. +100. My recently acquired 35/2 IS needs some company in the 50mm department, but looks down his nose at my humble 50/2.5 CM ...