A New EF 50 f/1.8 IS? [CR1]

[Chuck Alaimo]

If your referring to the d800, then have fun spending all that you saved buying that body on more CF cards, cause unless you shoot in crop mode the files are huge.

In addition to the Murphy's law you are referring to, you should learn about Moore's law. CPUs, GPUs, hard drives, RAM and about anything computer related including CF cards, tend to double their performance every 18 months. This stands in stark contrast to the Mpix of camera sensors, which increase much more slowly. You can get fast 64 GB CF cards for $150 today. That's more than a 1000 raw files for the d800. File sizes today is a non issue.

If thats your attitude then the $500 price difference shouldn't matter either then. 64 gig cards for $150 --- what is the speed of that card. Quantify that in time ---How much time will it take to transfer 1500 d800 files as opposed to mk3 files? then add in harddrive costs. Yeah, a 2TB drive will run you about $130. But, if you need 2 64 GB cards to do a wedding, how long will that 2 TB last, then your off to buy new drives at a faster pace. Then you get into work flow, and the CPU power needed to work with d800 files.... the one feature that the d800 does not have that is a deal breaker for me is there is no sRAW and mRaw options for files - just crop modes. So if I am doing candid shots at a wedding, the kind of shots no one will want larger than 5x7 print of, I either have to use stupid crop mode or end up with a giant billboard sized file....sorry, that ain't for me.

Back to the point though, and that point is cost - if you don't mind spening at least $400 on CF cards and harddrives then by all means buy the d800, I am not stopping you at all. Just realize that the cost difference between the 2 does go away when you add the other needs you face with a d800...

 

[Chuck Alaimo]

back to the overall point of this whole discussion ----- if one of the reasons you want a fast prime is tyo have the fast prime - IE if you want f1.4, then a 1.8 isn't what you want and I don't think the trade off for IS is a fair trade off...

Just that IS will have no benefit for wa lens when the subject is moving and you are not panning - IS does not stop motion blur.

There are plenty of pros and cons for IS, and usually IS is by far more useful for longer focal lengths. But to say that IS has no benefit for wide angles is too strong of a statement. Apart from slowly moving scenes (with no accessible tripod), sometimes subject motion blur is actually desired. Think, e.g., flowing water or other situations when motion is to be emphasizied by motion blur. Quite effective but requires a very steady hand, tripod, or IS. Whether this is important enough for you to deal with the cons of IS is another and more subjective matter.

For water and blur, I tend to go with ND filters and f22 - depending on time of day I will go with 1-20 second exposures.... IS ain't gonna help there.

 

[briansquibb]

You wouldn't believe how may photos I can get on a 16Gb card with my D30

 

[RLPhoto]

LENS SPEED >>> IMAGE STABILIZATION in 50mms anyway. 8)

 

[RLPhoto]

You wouldn't believe how may photos I can get on a 16Gb card with my D30

My D30 cannot accept cards larger than 4gb 8) Awww, Yeah!

 

[briansquibb]

You wouldn't believe how may photos I can get on a 16Gb card with my D30

My D30 cannot accept cards larger than 4gb 8) Awww, Yeah!

You are right - 16gb card, formatted to 2gb

 

[RLPhoto]

You wouldn't believe how may photos I can get on a 16Gb card with my D30

My D30 cannot accept cards larger than 4gb 8) Awww, Yeah!

You are right - 16gb card, formatted to 2gb

4gb gets me like 3000 Raw's. I could shoot to eternity on 16GB's ;D ;D ;D

 

[epsiloneri]

If thats your attitude then the $500 price difference shouldn't matter either then.

My attitude is that computer power (however you want to measure it) is growing quicker than sensor megapixels, and therefore any complaints you have with sensors producing too big files should go a way at a similar rate. Yes, of course, you can always save money by sticking to yesterday's tech, and that may be the best thing to do in many cases.

Compare the top-of-the-line harddrive of today (4 TB) with the top-of-the-line at the time when the 5D2 was announced (750GB). If you had no problems in fitting your 5D2 images onto the harddrive then, you should have even less problems in fitting the D800 images onto your hardrive today. Same goes for processing speed etc. Of course, you can do even better by using an even fewer-Mpix sensor on a current computer, but that's a rather trivial and non-interesting argument.

You wouldn't believe how may photos I can get on a 16Gb card with my D30

Exactly

About the CF card, I was thinking about a card I recently purchased, a 400x Transcend 64GB (now $126 at BH). The reason I got a 5D3 instead of a D800 had nothing to do with the number of Mpix.

 

[briansquibb]

You wouldn't believe how may photos I can get on a 16Gb card with my D30

My D30 cannot accept cards larger than 4gb 8) Awww, Yeah!

You are right - 16gb card, formatted to 2gb

4gb gets me like 3000 Raw's. I could shoot to eternity on 16GB's ;D ;D ;D

I wonder which body gives the most images on a CF card.

The new 64gb cards are on high mps bodies, so I wonder if a 16Gb on a low mps body would give more?

2gb format = FAT classic ;D ;D ;D ;D

 

[RLPhoto]

You wouldn't believe how may photos I can get on a 16Gb card with my D30

My D30 cannot accept cards larger than 4gb 8) Awww, Yeah!

You are right - 16gb card, formatted to 2gb

4gb gets me like 3000 Raw's. I could shoot to eternity on 16GB's ;D ;D ;D

I wonder which body gives the most images on a CF card.

The new 64gb cards are on high mps bodies, so I wonder if a 16Gb on a low mps body would give more?

2gb format = FAT classic ;D ;D ;D ;D

Thats FATastic brian. 8) D30 FTW!

 

[epsiloneri]

For water and blur, I tend to go with ND filters and f22 - depending on time of day I will go with 1-20 second exposures.... IS ain't gonna help there.

Of course there are plenty of situations where IS is not going to help, that's obviously true. If those are the only situations you shoot in, then IS is obviously useless for you. About flowing water, it depends on the angular velocity of the water with respect to the camera; e.g. close to a waterfall you can get a lot of motion blur in a small fraction of a second, while you would probably prefer 10s of seconds for braking waves lit by the moon at some distance.

 

[Chuck Alaimo]

If thats your attitude then the $500 price difference shouldn't matter either then.

My attitude is that computer power (however you want to measure it) is growing quicker than sensor megapixels, and therefore any complaints you have with sensors producing too big files should go a way at a similar rate. Yes, of course, you can always save money by sticking to yesterday's tech, and that may be the best thing to do in many cases.

Compare the top-of-the-line harddrive of today (4 TB) with the top-of-the-line at the time when the 5D2 was announced (750GB). If you had no problems in fitting your 5D2 images onto the harddrive then, you should have even less problems in fitting the D800 images onto your hardrive today. Same goes for processing speed etc. Of course, you can do even better by using an even fewer-Mpix sensor on a current computer, but that's a rather trivial and non-interesting argument.

You wouldn't believe how may photos I can get on a 16Gb card with my D30

Exactly

About the CF card, I was thinking about a card I recently purchased, a 400x Transcend 64GB (now $126 at BH). The reason I got a 5D3 instead of a D800 had nothing to do with the number of Mpix.

sigh...i think your missing the point ... MY point was about price and cost. But of course, the $500 diffference between the d800 and mk3 is huge, but hey, lets just drop tons of money on all the periphery stuff...sure, $150 here, $150 there, and another $150 there.... and yeah...ad at least $150 to the cost of this new 50mm lens ---more realistically, add closer to $300 just for the IS, if the IQ is improved too, then the once affordable 1.4 goes becomes an $800 lens. I'd rather just have better AF and IQ and spend $500-600 on it....

And my bigger overall point is about what is supposedly a worthwhile price difference ---and I just find it funny that many have no problems paying a lot more for IS on a lens that doesn't need it I ($400 currently, vs probably $800 is the new wide primes are anything to base a price idea on), vs all the whiners about how the mk3 costs more than the d800. If the new 1.8 IS is $400 more than the old version, how can you complain about $500 difference in the cost of a body??????

 

[epsiloneri]

sigh...i think your missing the point ...

Yes, sorry, I now realise I missed your point. You mean that peripheral equipment becomes more expensive for the D800, than the 5D3, to the point of eradicating the $500 price difference advantage. I think you would have to be a very heavy shooter for that to be true, and for most people the cheapest current computer with a couple of external 2 TB drives would be plenty for both configurations.

Cheap hard drives are currently around 5 cents/GB. A D800 requires 63% more space than 5D3. Translating the $500 price difference into pure hard drive space, you would have to shoot (and store) a total of 500000 raw images before the difference in harddrive space requirements between the 5D3 and D800 became worth $500. If you include backup space, that becomes 250000 images. That's a lot of raw images. If you shoot that much, $500 is likely a negligible expense. Using a $150 CF card for the D800 instead of a $100 for the 5D3 is not going to change this conclusion.

Your other point seem to be that it is inconsistent to first complain about expensive bodies and then praise expensive lenses. You may be right, but are you sure those are the same posters?

 

[Chuck Alaimo]

sigh...i think your missing the point ...

Yes, sorry, I now realise I missed your point. You mean that peripheral equipment becomes more expensive for the D800, than the 5D3, to the point of eradicating the $500 price difference advantage. I think you would have to be a very heavy shooter for that to be true, and for most people the cheapest current computer with a couple of external 2 TB drives would be plenty for both configurations.

Cheap hard drives are currently around 5 cents/GB. A D800 requires 63% more space than 5D3. Translating the $500 price difference into pure hard drive space, you would have to shoot (and store) a total of 500000 raw images before the difference in harddrive space requirements between the 5D3 and D800 became worth $500. If you include backup space, that becomes 250000 images. That's a lot of raw images. If you shoot that much, $500 is likely a negligible expense. Using a $150 CF card for the D800 instead of a $100 for the 5D3 is not going to change this conclusion.

Your other point seem to be that it is inconsistent to first complain about expensive bodies and then praise expensive lenses. You may be right, but are you sure those are the same posters?

Praising expensive lenses???? Not quite sure where you got that from? If I was that guy I would have shelled out the extra dough for the IS version of the 70-200 2.8. Do I appreciate L glass? Hells yeah I do? Do I want to spend a $3-500 more for a prime lens that takes in less light but has IS? No, thats a feature I can personally do without. I'd much rather keep it at 1.4, with better optics and better AF and no IS. Make it like the 70-200 line where you have the option of both and that would be the best of both worlds. I'm not at all praising expensive lenses!!!!! We are talking about adding IS to a to a lense which used to be a 1.4 and now making it a 1.8 ----Sorry, I don't want to pay $800 for that (Look at the lineup...the earlier 24mm 2.8 - $359 - on the new IS version $849. And the old 28mm 2.8 runs at $259- the IS version runs at $799. Based on that ---if the 50mm 1.4 was priced at $369, add IS and its easily set to hit the street at $750-850. At that point I start thinking about the 50mm 1.2L.... $369 vs $1600...I am probably opting for the 1.4...but, if the 1.4 becomes a 1.8 with IS and is priced at $800...well then the 1.2 starts looking to be the one for me (find it used for $12-1300, even better!!!)

Long and short of it is....I have been pondering picking up a 1.4, and this news makes me say I should do it soon before they make the 1.4 a 1.8 with features I don't need.

And as to the memory ---I did preface that by saying I am an event and wedding shooter ---that means I shoot a lot - so yes...I am a very heavy shooter as you say. That makes the memory issue a big thing for me, as well as the time in post. I personally dislike the idea of using 64 gig cards (thats too many eggs in one basket for me). I use 8 and 16 gig cards. I also try to go for 400x or higher. And I find sRAW file sizes to be perfectly fine for most applications. if I know I am shooting just for the web, or simple candid's which for weddings I do a lot of candid shots which don't require the flexibility of full sized RAW for post work, and print just fine up to 16x24, even 20x30 in a pinch. For the important shots, I switch to full RAW ---and thats mostly because there is more flexibility if post. For portrait sessions, its RAW all the way. But then again, for a portrait shoot I'm not taking 2,000 or more shots.

 

[japhoto]

I know its a little off topic, but, I find it interesting how many of you are willing to shell out more $$$$ for IS on lenses below 100MM in focal length, but also balk at the cost of the 5dmk3 and say its not worth it, marginal upgrade, no DR...etc etc etc. Just saying...

My observation is that reactions were not very enthusiastic about the new 24mm & 28mm IS versions considering the price!

I think the usefulness of these lenses is a bigger issue than the added cost for IS. What I mean by that is both of these are f/2.8 lenses and the focal lengths are more often than not covered already. They just aren't interesting as they are primes but not fast aperture. I'd be interested if it were for example a 24mm 1.4 L IS.

 

[wickidwombat]

oh my god if this is true i'm gonna be all over this like a fat chick on a smarty

 

[Stuart]

Remember the vast majority of cameras Canon now sells are APS-C, so 50mm is the new 80mm and IS is definitely helpful under some situations at that focal length.

And if a smaller sensor is in a future mirrorless camera then that 80mm could be 105mm??
Canon have only recently been building lenses for video and mirrorless that also fit on EF mounts.

 

[robbinzo]

Personally I think Canon are hedging and going for the video market as well as fast prime market with this lens. Are Canon trying to put some daylight between the f/1.2 L lens and the next 50 mm prime in the line up? So now you will have the choice of plastic toy f/1.8, solidly built IS f/1.8 or f/1.2 bokeh porn.
But then if this f/1.8 IS lens turns out to be similar in price to the 24 & 28 mm IS models, the f/1.2 L starts to be less of a jump in price and you can end up justifying that cost to yourself all too quickly.

I agree with other comments that f/1.8 is not a replacement for f/1.4 and I also think that it's creeping towards the slower end of "fast."
I like the current f/1.4 50 mm lens. I think that it is in need of a refresh but a lot of us like the fact that it is light, relatively cheap and has the f/1.4 aperture.

This lens doesn't immediately appeal to me.

 

[Edwin Herdman]

With current Canon cameras (up to the 7D at least), reports put the fastest aperture that increases light to the sensor at f/2. If you shoot at f/1.4, the ISO is "invisibly" bumped (it still reports as say ISO 100 but the files are noisier than they should be). For a f/1.4 lens, this will effectively limit you to say ISO 200 if you wish to stick with "whole" (un-pushed, un-pulled) ISOs. For the f/1.8 lens, that's a third of a stop and might prove more challenging to get a "whole" ISO out of. Stopping down to f/2 is possible but I couldn't guess how good the OOF highlights will still be.

I'd much rather see another f/1.4 lens to replace the 50mm. This cost cutting nonsense is not helpful. Still, IS and STM or USM would be nice improvements.

 

[markd61]

With current Canon cameras (up to the 7D at least), reports put the fastest aperture that increases light to the sensor at f/2. If you shoot at f/1.4, the ISO is "invisibly" bumped (it still reports as say ISO 100 but the files are noisier than they should be).

I'm sorry but this is simply not true in any way shape or form. The f stop is a ratio that describes the light transmission (I know T-stops are the real deal but we are working in the vernacular here) of the lens. Saying that an f1.4 lens doesn't pass any more light than an f2 lens is nonsense. To suggest that a camera would "know" that an f1.4 lens or faster was mounted and would choose to "throw a way the extra light is also ludicrous.

Any increase in noise could very easily be attributed to the whack technique or conspiracy agenda employed by some fool and a blog.