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

[samueljay]

You missed the Canon EF 50mm Compact Macro f/2.5, I don't know anything about it though, having never used it.

It's discontinued and now rests in well-earned obscurity as outdated tech. Though it is very sharp and rivals or is better than the 50/1.4, it has the horrible 80's-style af motor and is superseded by the ef-s 60 & ef 100 macros with longer working distance.

Sorry about that, my bad, it was still listed on the Canon Australia site in lenses, and still for sale on the web stores for Teds and Digital Rev.

 

[Marsu42]

You missed the Canon EF 50mm Compact Macro f/2.5, I don't know anything about it though, having never used it.

Sorry about that, my bad, it was still listed on the Canon Australia site in lenses, and still for sale on the web stores for Teds and Digital Rev.

If a product is discontinued by the manufacturer, it doesn't mean retailers throw it away or it disappears into thin air ... but unlike the 24-70mk1, the 50mm macro still being available tells something about customers' demand for it.

 

[garyfisher]

Interested if:

- 1.4 not 1.8
- USM ring
- round aperture
- sharp wide open
- IS (sure why not)
- great build quality, weather sealed (new 1.4 50L? not likely)
- reasonable price

Yeah, I know, I'm dreaming.

I would appreciate same thing 50/1.4 L USM (IS not necessary) -sharp, fast AF, weather sealed, than I would pay,
But more likely will come 50/1.4 II, maybe IS and later new line of fast primes will be introduced, similar to super telephoto all 30/1.4, 50/1.2 85/1.2

 

[Gcon]

For the love of Henri Cartier-Bresson Canon - bring out a decent 50mm already!

I'm waiting for an improved 50mm f/1.2L from Canon - and then I might make the jump. I've got the Canon 50mm f/1.4 - shits me to tears (dodgy focus and micro USM just seems nasty).

Anyways - waiting for the 24-70mm f/2.8L II more than anything. It's not like I need the 50mm f/1.2L with the 35mm f/1.4L and 85mm f/1.2L in the bag, and Canon's high-ISO improving with the latest bodies.

 

[Marsu42]

I'm waiting for an improved 50mm f/1.2L from Canon - and then I might make the jump. I've got the Canon 50mm f/1.4 - shits me to tears (dodgy focus and micro USM just seems nasty).

I'm rather sure Canon won't just update the current 50/1.2 to a new version just for the iq, the lens is not that old and replacing it would be like a public admission of failure.

When they replace something, it seems to be either older designs (24-70mk1, now maybe 50/1.4 and 35/1.4) or they add or upgrade actual features like IS (70-200) or add sealing (24/1.4, maybe 35/1.4) or af motor (maybe 50/1.4). On L zooms, they obviously change focal lengths a bit to avoid a direct 1:1 upgrade. But I may be wrong, since I don't have the entire Canon history in mind.

 

[briansquibb]

I must be lucky - 50 f/1.4 has accurate AF and I dont care about the noise.

 

[briansquibb]

I dont think anyone is saying the IS is no use. I have many lens that I use IS with - no problem

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.

 

[Marsu42]

I dont think anyone is saying the IS is no use.

It is no use if it isn't used: In that case, it's a part that you pay for and - worse - that can be broken by moisture or impacts even if lying dormant.

 

[Rocky]

I dont think anyone is saying the IS is no use. I have many lens that I use IS with - no problem

I did not claim that they said, either. The claim seemed to be that lenses with large max aperture did not need IS, seemingly because the large aperture should provide "enough" light in itself. I think that is an odd view.

I commonly use my large aperture primes when light/movement conditions are difficult. Many of those are exactly when I would like to have IS for reduced camera shake and improved AF performance.

Not saying that IS is the only, most important criterion for choice of every kind of lense/usage, or that I am willing to take any kind of price/quality compromise in order to get it. But I have the 17-55 f/2.8 IS USM and the 70-200 f/4.0L IS USM, and I enjoy the IS in both of those, and I don't see any non-IS alternatives that I would rather pay for. I would appreciate IS in my 85mm f/1.8, too.

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.

Hand-held wide-angles can have camera-motion-induced blurring, and if the scene is static, this can be the most significant source of blur. IS can reduce this. So can a flash, a stand, larger aperture or better high-iso performance. Since all of those solutions come with their own set of trade-offs, I see no reason to _not_ want another option if it came for free.

Of course, IS does not come for free (compare prices of 70-200 zooms with/without IS, though they are optically dissimilar). But the "please, no IS" crowd seems to be about more than price/performance arguments. It seems like a fundamentalist "true photographers can take their images without IS. If you request IS, then you should bring a stand or learn how we professionals do it". I find such an attitude snobbish, and I think that analysis of sales figures will show that they are a minority...

-h

Well said. If you are a tourist and you would appreciate the IS with ANY focal length, especially wide angle lenses. As a tourist, you need to travel light. so tripod ids out of the question. Even you have it, you might not be able to bring it into the museum, churches, temples, castles, temples etc. fro interior shorts, you will nned the wide angle, most almost all of these building are pretty dim inside. You will need fast lense high ISO nad SLOW shutter speed. IS will give you 3 to 4 stops extra. That is a BIG help. As for the extra cost, It is a can of worm. a simple question: If Canon can put a decent IS on $120 Kit lenses 18-55 IS and 55-250 IS, why ALL the new lenses (EF and L) that have added IS are $400 to $800 more than the old lenses??

 

[Marsu42]

As for the extra cost, It is a can of worm. a simple question: If Canon can put a decent IS on $120 Kit lenses 18-55 IS and 55-250 IS, why ALL the new lenses (EF and L) that have added IS are $400 to $800 more than the old lenses??

Canon did not only improve the IS on most updated lenses, but the iq in general. But I'm not sure about the IS versions: is the IS on the 18-55 the same type as on my 70-300L? If not, there is bound to be a price difference, even if I'm usually the first one to state that Canon's current price policy is bordering on greedy.

 

[Dylan777]

1.4 or faster, don't need IS....smaller + sharper wide open is a PLUS.

Can't wait...

Just like saying that "iso6400 is enough, no need for anything more".

Well, history shows that there are no limits to how bad/difficult conditions people want to try to use their cameras in , once it is possible. So I, for one, would want (if price/weight was not an issue):
1. Excellent high-ISO performance in my house
2. Large aperture primes/zooms
3. IS in every lense
4. Excellent flash

Then I could combine 1-4 in whatever combination I found artistically pleasing in any one scene. Claiming that some aperture is large enough that IS has no use is contrary to my experience and the good and bad images stored on my hard-drive.

-h

I don't think IS would be much benefit if you shoot above 1/60 indoor. I would rather have FASTER PRIME than, slower with IS.

 

[priyadi]

I don't think it makes sense business wise for Canon to have three 50mm lenses covering f/1.2 to f/1.8. I think the 40mm f/2.8 pancake is the replacement for 50mm f/1.8 and this rumored 50mm f/1.8 IS would be the replacement for 50mm f/1.4. And the 50mm f/1.2L is still the king of 50mm. This way they also avoid competing directly against Nikon offerings.

Personally, I'd love something like Zeiss 50mm f/2 Makro-planar, but with AF and IS. Perfect for available light food photography. If this rumored 50mm f/1.8 IS has at least 1:2 magnification, then I'm all for it!

 

[Chuck Alaimo]

I have been considering snagging me a 1.4 50mm, so, this to me kind of means i might want to buy it sooner than later. Like many here, I'd much rather have the 1.4 remain a 1.4. There already is a 1.8, if there is to be a new 1.8 upgrade, then just upgrade the 1.8, then give us a real new 1.4.

And yeah, like many others here, I'd much rather have improved optics, and more reliable AF over IS. The 50 1.4 is so light already that I really don't the need or desire for IS.

So it goes, the current 1.4 is $400, which is pretty reasonable for a little lens with good IQ for the price. Upgrade it with IS even with a reduction in aperture - that sweet affordability goes away! Have fun, cause add IS and it will become a $600-800 lens. With the way canon is pricing all their upgrades, without IS the 1.4 would still go up in price I bet, but probably to a more reasonable $550. My bet though is with IS added it will lurk around the same price as the other new primes. Have fun with that!

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...

 

[briansquibb]

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...

Interesting point that is to the point.

 

[Marsu42]

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!

As for more $$$ in general: Simple, lenses keep their value longer than camera bodies - esp. with the 5d3, which is of course an excellent camera, but bound to be replaced sooner or later with an upgraded sensor considering the market pressure and the fact that Canon is able to do better (like on the 1dx).

 

[priyadi]

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...

different stroke for different folks!

sometimes I find my 24-105 much more useful than my 24mm f/1.4 despite 3 stop disadvantage, because with the 24mm I would need to stop down anyway.

 

[Chuck Alaimo]

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...

Simple. If I am to buy a lense for my 7D, IS can give me better images. Is it worth it? That depends.

If I was to buy a new camera, there is a camera out there that is cheaper than the 5Dmk3, while having a better image sensor. Is it worth it to buy a 5D to me? Only if I am very heavily invested in the system.

-h

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.

Comparing the d800 to the mk3 is kind of like comparing a UWA lens to a super telephoto ---they are only comparable in price, not in usage. If i did the kind of work that required that kind of file size then the d800 would be my choice. But as a wedding/event/portrait shooter, I'd have to invest in a lot of memory to make things work with 60-80mb files. Or, do as other nikon shooters I know are doing (many of them not too happy about having to do it either) - and that is this --- they go to a wedding and shoot with their d or d700 90% of the time, and use the d800 for a few key shots (or not at all).

Back to the point. If your used to using IS, then I guess I can get the desire/want/need for it. But if you are used to shooting without it, then its kind of like fluff that you don't need. I am shooting with a 24-70 (no IS) and a 70-200 (no IS). And I am perfectly fine with that - with one exception ---mounted to my 7d I wouldn't mind IS on the long end of the 70-200 (basically between 150-200). I have held the 70-200 with IS though, and it is much heavier than the non IS version. Honestly, to me at least the benefit isn't that huge considering the weight (IE, the NEED for IS on the IS version is greater because the extra weight makes it much harder to steady it).

Back to the 50mm...I personally feel that there is absolutely no need for IS on it. If i am shooting on any lens, on a shoot which requires the quality of ISO 100 ---and need to be in the f8-16 range I am either using off cam lighting (so my SS is between 1/100-1/200th, or, not shooting people which means i am mounting to tripod and quite probably bracketing my shots too.

And on another level ---- I always go with murphey's Law in terms of what I bring with me ---If i bring it, i may not need or use it, but if i don't, you can count on a scenario arrising that you do absolutely need it!!!! My tripod is always in my trunk for just that reason. And on the rare times I don't, I find other ways to steady the cam (a fence pole, a flash, etc etc etc....

 

[epsiloneri]

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.

 

[epsiloneri]

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.

 

[epsiloneri]

Speculation:
It might be cheaper to put IS into a medium-quality, small aperture kit-lense, than a 70-200 f/2.8 L-lense. Stricter requirements, heavier glass to move.

That's true for sure. In particular, large apertures seem especially difficult. That's the reason there are no fast primes with IS, the fastest being the immensely expensive EF 200/2.0L (AFAIK).