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

[Robsenn]

In regards to the price moaning. Consider that you are comparing lenses that are brand new with lenses that are way over 10 years or older. They have already recouped their research and tooling costs and therefore cost has come down over time.

At the time they came out they were the same price as the newly released lenses.

I bet in ten years time the 24-70 II will cost about as much as the 24-70 I and everyone will start moaning about how much its successor is going to cost. I guess most of the forum goers here (me included) have started their interest in photography when the 24-70 was already an old dog and they have no reference points for brand new lenses.

 

[Marsu42]

I bet in ten years time the 24-70 II will cost about as much as the 24-70 I

I'm not so sure about that - quality optics (I suppose, the mk2 isn't reviewed yet )) like on the new Canon are damn expensive to produce, and this will stay this way even if other tech parts like IS (= not on the new 24-70) and r&d costs are left out of the equation.

 

[Random Orbits]

I had never hear of this before, and was sceptical at first, however it does make sense. However, people are clearly overreacting. If you take the time to examine the graphs on the DxO-site, you will see, that by going from f4 to f2.8 on the 7D, you up the gain with about 0.04 eV thus gaining a total of 0.96 eV of light gathering ability instead of 1 eV as expected. This is marginal and of no consequence. Going from f2.8 to f2.0 up the gain by 0.05 eV gaining 0.95 eV in light gathering power, again very little effect. Going from f2.0 to f1.4 ups the gain with 0.25 eV thus gaining only 0.75 eV of light gathering instead of 1 eV. This is worse, but you still get a three fourths of 'what you pay for', not, as indicated, nothing. In going from f1.4 to f1.2 the gain is upped by 0.2 eV giving only 0.13 eV of light gathering power instead of the expected 0.33 (a third of a stop) so this is clearly getting worse.
In total, going from f4 to f1.2 (3.33 stops) you get about 0.6 eV of sensor gain and thus, only get 2.73 eV of light gathering instead of the full 3.33 eV.

Of course the manufactures are still 'cheating', but it is not like you get nothing from using faster glass, you just get (a little) less than you thought you would.

Hope this clears things up a bit

//Morsing

I think the important thing that camera manufacturers do is to preserve the relationship between ISO, f-stop and shutter speed. Digital systems are not always linear over the entire operating range. If the gain has to be increased to preserve the photographic trades that we are familiar with, then it makes our lives easier. But it is good to know that shots wide open with fast lenses might have slightly more noise because of the boosted gain.

 

[Random Orbits]

I stand corrected. :-\

Markd61, I hope you read this and decide to rejoin the forum. Discussions are useful and we learn from them and improve our craft. That's what the forum is for.

 

[Rocky]

We're not talking about vignetting at the edges of an image. We're talking about photosite wells blocking photons arriving at oblique angles, "per photosite vignetting" or shadowing, if you like.

Up until I wrote that post I thought that the cutoff was at f/2, but apparently it's actually f/2.8. That's rather disappointing. It probably changes from camera to camera slightly, depending on the sensor and photosite design (at the very least, it could change or someday be "fixed" in a new design).

I think what Edwin is referring to are these findings from DxO and Luminous Landscapes back in 2010.

http://www.luminous-landscape.com/essays/an_open_letter_to_the_major_camera_manufacturers.shtml
http://www.dxomark.com/index.php/Publications/DxOMark-Insights/F-stop-blues

Thanks for the website. This is really open up a can of worm. Just playing the devils advocate: If the lost of light is due to the angle of incident of light from the edge of the large aperture, then the crop sensor should be less affected. But the data says the opposite. why????. It will be inteersting for someone to do the same study on a 85 f1.8 and a 50 f1.8 on the same camera.

 

[jweu]

It should have an aspherical lens for best image quality at aperutre at f/2.0.
Leica and Sigma are still using this feature.

 

[Etienne]

We're not talking about vignetting at the edges of an image. We're talking about photosite wells blocking photons arriving at oblique angles, "per photosite vignetting" or shadowing, if you like.

Up until I wrote that post I thought that the cutoff was at f/2, but apparently it's actually f/2.8. That's rather disappointing. It probably changes from camera to camera slightly, depending on the sensor and photosite design (at the very least, it could change or someday be "fixed" in a new design).

I think what Edwin is referring to are these findings from DxO and Luminous Landscapes back in 2010.

http://www.luminous-landscape.com/essays/an_open_letter_to_the_major_camera_manufacturers.shtml
http://www.dxomark.com/index.php/Publications/DxOMark-Insights/F-stop-blues

Thanks for the website. This is really open up a can of worm. Just playing the devils advocate: If the lost of light is due to the angle of incident of light from the edge of the large aperture, then the crop sensor should be less affected. But the data says the opposite. why????. It will be inteersting for someone to do the same study on a 85 f1.8 and a 50 f1.8 on the same camera.

Sensor size is one factor. Pixel pitch is another. Pixels in the 18 MP APS-C are much smaller than in 21 MP FF. The pixels are treated like tubes or wells. A narrower diameter omits more peripheral light than a wider diameter tube.

Focal length shouldn't make much difference. It is primarily an aperture effect.

 

[floex712]

So far, I have not had any need for IS on my Nifty-Fifty. However, any upgrades are ALWAYS welcome, granted they work the way they were intended to do so. The only problems I have with this is;
1. 50mm f/1.8 IS, sounds like a replacement for the Nifty-Fifty, NOT the 50mm f/1.4, and
2. I agree with most of you on here, Canon will more than likely bump up the price significantly.

Now it is true that the Nifty-Fifty has too few aperture blades-which I don't mind as this has never been a problem for bokeh for me. If the 50mm f/1.8 IS included 7 or 8 blades, an upgrade in construction quality and the IS, then I wouldn't mind dishing out a reasonable amount, however, again, Canon would want $600 and not just the $300 - $400 you can currently purchase the 50mm f/1.4 for.

Those are my 2 cents.

 

[Rocky]

We're not talking about vignetting at the edges of an image. We're talking about photosite wells blocking photons arriving at oblique angles, "per photosite vignetting" or shadowing, if you like.

Up until I wrote that post I thought that the cutoff was at f/2, but apparently it's actually f/2.8. That's rather disappointing. It probably changes from camera to camera slightly, depending on the sensor and photosite design (at the very least, it could change or someday be "fixed" in a new design).

I think what Edwin is referring to are these findings from DxO and Luminous Landscapes back in 2010.

http://www.luminous-landscape.com/essays/an_open_letter_to_the_major_camera_manufacturers.shtml
http://www.dxomark.com/index.php/Publications/DxOMark-Insights/F-stop-blues

Thanks for the website. This is really open up a can of worm. Just playing the devils advocate: If the lost of light is due to the angle of incident of light from the edge of the large aperture, then the crop sensor should be less affected. But the data says the opposite. why????. It will be inteersting for someone to do the same study on a 85 f1.8 and a 50 f1.8 on the same camera.

Sensor size is one factor. Pixel pitch is another. Pixels in the 18 MP APS-C are much smaller than in 21 MP FF. The pixels are treated like tubes or wells. A narrower diameter omits more peripheral light than a wider diameter tube.

Focal length shouldn't make much difference. It is primarily an aperture effect.

I was looking at the DXO chart and compare the 'lost light effect" between the APS-C and FF with the same pixel pitch. The APS-C is twice the lost of FF.

 

[Etienne]

We're not talking about vignetting at the edges of an image. We're talking about photosite wells blocking photons arriving at oblique angles, "per photosite vignetting" or shadowing, if you like.

Up until I wrote that post I thought that the cutoff was at f/2, but apparently it's actually f/2.8. That's rather disappointing. It probably changes from camera to camera slightly, depending on the sensor and photosite design (at the very least, it could change or someday be "fixed" in a new design).

I think what Edwin is referring to are these findings from DxO and Luminous Landscapes back in 2010.

http://www.luminous-landscape.com/essays/an_open_letter_to_the_major_camera_manufacturers.shtml
http://www.dxomark.com/index.php/Publications/DxOMark-Insights/F-stop-blues

Thanks for the website. This is really open up a can of worm. Just playing the devils advocate: If the lost of light is due to the angle of incident of light from the edge of the large aperture, then the crop sensor should be less affected. But the data says the opposite. why????. It will be inteersting for someone to do the same study on a 85 f1.8 and a 50 f1.8 on the same camera.

Sensor size is one factor. Pixel pitch is another. Pixels in the 18 MP APS-C are much smaller than in 21 MP FF. The pixels are treated like tubes or wells. A narrower diameter omits more peripheral light than a wider diameter tube.

Focal length shouldn't make much difference. It is primarily an aperture effect.

I was looking at the DXO chart and compare the 'lost light effect" between the APS-C and FF with the same pixel pitch. The APS-C is twice the lost of FF.

Ok.

Yes I see that. The older APS-C sensors seem to perform worse. Might have to do with sensor design. Better microlenses? Different AA filter? There seems to be a lot of factors that affect the final measurement.

 

[Axilrod]

That 50mm f/1.8 has been very popular with APS-C users, and on an APSC sensor 50mm is relatively long and could greatly benefit from IS. So what if the price goes up? You get what you pay for.

 

[blaydese]

How do you brighten the image? Not with DPP. Daniel Browning recommended RawTherapee last year; there is also The GIMP, Lightroom, or Darktable (a Lightroom replacement for Linux boxen).

I'm going to give http://rawtherapee.com/ a try. I'll let you know how it comes out.

Peace! 8)

 

[haring]

<div name="googleone_share_1" style="position:relative;z-index:5;float: right; /*margin: 70px 0 0 0;*/ top:70px; right:120px; width:0;"><glusone size="tall" count="1" href="http://www.canonrumors.com/?p=10594"></glusone></div><div id="fb_share_1" style="float: right; margin: 0 0px 0 10px;"><a name="fb_share" type="box_count" share_url="http://www.canonrumors.com/?p=10594" href="http://www.facebook.com/sharer.php">Share</a></div><div><script src="http://static.ak.fbcdn.net/connect.php/js/FB.Share" type="text/javascript"></script></div><div class="tweetmeme_button" style="float: right; margin-left: 10px; margin-bottom: 70px;"><a class="tm_button" rel="&style=normal&b=2" href="http://www.canonrumors.com/?p=10594"></a></div>
<strong>A new 50?



</strong>A purported replacement to the EF 50 f/1.4 was mentioned today in the form of an EF 50 f/1.8 IS. The lens would be smaller than the current 50 f/1.4. There is no imminent announcement of such a lens, but Canon is working to replace the 50 f/1.4 sometime in the next year. The current 50 f/1.8 would remain in the lineup.</p>
<p><strong>CR’s Take</strong>



There’s no doubt in my mind Canon is working on a couple of new 50mm lenses. With IS added to the new 24 & 28mm primes, IS in a 50 shouldn’t surprise anyone. It would be a welcomed lens if they can make it small enough to work well on a mirrorless platform.</p>
<p>Take this one with a grain of salt….</p>
<p><strong><span style="color: #ff0000;">c</span>r</strong></p>

I am not sure why Canon would build one. The 50mm 1.8 is fast enough and an awesome lens for low light photography. I use it a lot for weddings. No need for IS. I would rather have IS in my 24-70mm L lens. I use it too often for wedding parties and the IS would be awesome for the 24-70mm lens for sure!!!

 

[Videoshooter]

I'd love to have IS for video in this lens.

At the moment I'm about to upgrade to FF with a 5dmkII, one of the main reasons being that my 50mm 1.4 will be easier to handhold, which is sometimes a necessity at weddings when shooting the cake cutting or dancing at the end of the reception. I'll also be adding a 28mm 1.8 for even easier handholding in lowlight.