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

[cayenne]

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

It may not be as sharp..but the Sigma Art even now, is significantly slower than the current 50L, much more so than the 1.2 to 1.4 would suggest.

The coatings on the Sigma Art 50, seem to drop it down to a total closer to a whole stop than you'd think.

I did them side by side and this seems to be the case.

I shoot a lot of video with the 5D3, and often in dark, very dim bars, and the current 50L really shines here. If I were ONLY shooting stills, I might go for the Sigma Art, as that it is sharper, but I need that extra low light. And if the new 50L fixes the back focus and gets a bit sharper....I'd have to go for it.

I just hope the new one can keep most of the creamy bokeh the current one has.

I just wish it would come out sooner. I've been close to pulling the trigger on the 50L, but guess I'll hold off and wait a bit, at least till we can find out a more accurate time for release.

Just my $0.02,

cayenne

 

[Maximilian]

...
EF 50mm f/1.8 STM is expected sometime in April
...
a 50L replacement will be in the distant future, likely 2016 at the earliest.

Oh no!!! 2016??? At the earliest???
CR, I really pray you're wrong. Because this would mean, that the 50 1.whatever USM will be even later
Maybe it's really time to consider the 50 A...

 

[rowlandw]

How'bout an update of the venerable 50 f/1.4 starting with making the AF less fragile?

 

[TWI by Dustin Abbott]

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

I hate to add that I also documented some AF inconsistencies in my review of the 50A, too. http://dustinabbott.net/2014/11/sigma-50mm-f1-4-dg-hsm-art-review/

My issues were intermittent, which is part of the whole issue with Sigma's lenses. It is AF reliability that seems to be the issue. Is this issue magnified by perception? Probably, but I've also yet to use a Sigma lenses where I didn't notice it, going back to the 50-150mm (first Sigma I used) for crop (a lens I liked a lot, otherwise).

 

[Haydn1971]

To echo the above, I got rid of my 50 f1.4 in a lens rationalisation about 18 months back, but would love to get another, I'm fudging at the moment with my (lovely, but toy like) Lensbaby Sweet 35 as an artistic alternative, but would love a sharp 50 f1.4 built like the 35 f2.0, I can live without the IS, but hey, IS would be nice too... I fear we are going to end up with a 50mm f1.8 IS like the 35 f2.0 and nothing else, the 40/24mm pancakes have become in my view the new nifty fifty, a view that "could" be shared by Canon, leaving the really fast glass f1.2-1.4 in the expensive L range.

 

[switters]

Jeez. If anyone from Canon reads any of these forums, you'd think they'd take note of the overwhelming demand for an updated 50/1.4? Seems to me they'd sell a boatload of them. But I guess that's not what Canon wants if they're losing potential 50L II customers to an excellent 50/1.4.

 

[lintoni]

Jeez. If anyone from Canon reads any of these forums, you'd think they'd take note of the overwhelming demand for an updated 50/1.4? Seems to me they'd sell a boatload of them. But I guess that's not what Canon wants if they're losing potential 50L II customers to an excellent 50/1.4.

Yeah, but they're losing customers for an excellent 50 f/1.4 to Sigma...

 

[ahsanford]

Jeez. If anyone from Canon reads any of these forums, you'd think they'd take note of the overwhelming demand for an updated 50/1.4? Seems to me they'd sell a boatload of them. But I guess that's not what Canon wants if they're losing potential 50L II customers to an excellent 50/1.4.

I see the non-L 50 1.4 as a 'do everything really well' lens and see the 50L as 'do 2-3 things spectacularly well' sort of lens. As much as people harp on sharpness (and goodness knows, I'm one of them), the draw/bokeh of the 50L is pretty damn great. I see the 50L -- perhaps unfairly -- as a lens you only shoot from 1.2 to 2.8 or you're wasting your money.

So I just don't see a non-L 50 1.4 stealing L dollars. There's a vast, vast gulf in price between the nifty fifty 1.8 and the 50L, and that's a nice price point for a solid lens to come in. Canon won't leave that money on the table much longer, I think.

- A

 

[grainier]

Jeez. If anyone from Canon reads any of these forums, you'd think they'd take note of the overwhelming demand for an updated 50/1.4? Seems to me they'd sell a boatload of them. But I guess that's not what Canon wants if they're losing potential 50L II customers to an excellent 50/1.4.

Well, they didn't blink an eye when the original Sigma 50/1.4 came out, and that, for all the talk about AF issues, is a better lens.

 

[The Bad Duck]

looking forward to the upgrade of the 50 L. But as many, I am more interested in an updated 50 non-L in the same manner as the 35/2 IS. F/1.4 to 2 would make me happy, but more importantly reliable AF.

 

[Maiaibing]

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

It may not be as sharp..but the Sigma Art even now, is significantly slower than the current 50L, much more so than the 1.2 to 1.4 would suggest.

"Significantly slower" is of course a relative term, so I'm not sure what you mean (I trust you are not talking autofocus speed here). Apart from that I would like to see what you build your statement on.

No matter what the 50 ART is a fast lens with a huge light gathering potential. Some people may need f/1.2 instead of f/1.4 for the shutter speed advantage. But it would be this difference that would count. Not any possible variation from the Sigma moving above f/1.4.

DXO thus has light transmission @1.7 for the Sigma and @1.4 for the Canon 50L on the 5DIII. That's pretty close (actually a little less) to the one stop difference between the two you pay for at the counter.

For all the criticism DXO get for their tests this is one number that really works - and counts.

 

[sulla]

Yea, the Sigma with its many more lenses clearly has a disadvantage in this category.

 

[Crosswind]

So where's my canon 50mm f1.2 II ? Hurry up.