A New Nifty Fifty Coming [CR1]

[Sporgon]

If this is inexpensive and as good as the pancake lenses, it will be a good addition to the landscape photographer's kit. Let's see: 880 gram Sigma Art 50, vs 200 gram Nifty Fifty III, hauled up 1000 ft elevation, along with tripod, camera, other lenses. If lightweight lens A gives (nearly) as good quality as heavyweight lens B at f/8, lens A is worth a look.

Exactly my thoughts !

Yes, STM is a PITA for manual focusing, which is all I do on landscape shots on-tripod. One can make focus-by-wire (all STM works this way) work, but it takes longer than for a USM or manual focus lens.

Are all STM lenses released so far manual focus by wire ? I presume they must be, but do they have to be ?

If this new lens follows recent STM releases in that it has no distance scale window, then I think I might lose enthusiasm for it. I love the 40mm pancake - except for the fact it has no distance scale. Using BBF I find that this is not normally an issue. However I am unable to see if I have inadvertently focused the lens beyond infinity when trying to shoot at infinity.

 

[Haydn1971]

Thinking about this, my money is on a EF-M 50mm pancake.

Why ? Firstly the tiny filter size, second, the 40mm pancake is already the replacement to the nifty fifty, third, the EOS M3 is launched soon, lastly, I don't believe that Canon would tool up for another cheap prime especially with the 24mm & 40mm pancakes and that the next EF 50mm will be something more akin to the 35mm IS, which notably has a 67mm filter size - rather larger than the one in this rumoured 50mm lens.

 

[LetTheRightLensIn]

Man, what is with keeping the current 50mm 1.4? Maybe the design flaw that makes the AF break non-stop gives them a lot of profit? Are they waiting for a class action lawsuit on that lens or what?

 

[zlatko]

Excited! Love, love, love small lenses. They definitely have their place. When people complain about DSLRs, they often complain about the big lenses, as in "my three f/2.8 zooms are all gathering dust because I got tired of carrying them all". Fortunately, Canon is making some lenses for people who appreciate smaller and lighter. And, of course, they still make the big lenses too. Something for everybody!

 

[zlatko]

I have a hard time seeing this as the most needed lens in the standard prime segment. And that filter size...?

They don't build according to "most needed" because there's no such thing. One person's "most needed" is another person's "least needed" and another person's "might need someday" and another person's "nice to have if the price is right".

 

[zlatko]

49 mm filter thread? Why? Why not keeping the common 52 mm to avoid replacing the filters?

You can easily step down from 52 to 49 with your existing filters. Adapters are available for $2 or less.

Is STM the only advantage?

For me STM is an disadvantage. It's not bad, but I don't like wired Focus and for me it's even noisier (despite what they claim).

No IS? Why not a pancake?

We don't know yeat. But 50mm 1.8 without IS would be a shame, really.

But I think all those complains about a bad bokeh, because of the smaller entry-diameter, are nonsense. A Zeiss 50mm f1.5 or Leica 50mm 1.4 are even smaller and quite good. Let's wait and see what's coming.

Small is good. And Leica makes two 50mm f/2.0 lenses that are among the best ever made. Even without IS, they are pretty fantastic.

 

[lw]

Just to add to the suggestion it could be an EF-M lens, Canon did patent it
http://translate.google.com/translate?sl=auto&tl=en&u=http://egami.blog.so-net.ne.jp/2013-10-25

Canon is 35 mm F1.4 , 50 mm F1.4 , 50 mm F1.8 of patent and, with a accessory shoe mount adapter is pending a patent on. Since the patent application of the optical system corresponding to the APS-C mirrorless, I want to expect the expansion to the EOS-M.

 

[DominoDude]

I have a hard time seeing this as the most needed lens in the standard prime segment. And that filter size...?

They don't build according to "most needed" because there's no such thing. One person's "most needed" is another person's "least needed" and another person's "might need someday" and another person's "nice to have if the price is right".

I wasn't trying to look at it from my point of view of most needed, but from what I imagine the overall market needs. The über-cheap f/1.8 already exists in two versions (Canon's and Yongnou's). It would be easier to comprehend if they tried to gain market shares by releasing a new f/1.2 or f/1.4 with better optics, perhaps IS, sturdier build (than f/1.4), better microcontrast, less focus breathing, faster and more reliable AF (than Sigmas joke) and so on.

 

[rbr]

Like a lot of others I was really hoping for a standard 50mm with IS at least of the quality and speed of the 35 f2 IS. Why doesn't Canon make any lens at all in the standard focal lengths between 35mm and 70mm with IS faster than some f4 zooms? It doesn't make a whole lot of sense.

 

[DJL329]

I'm disappointed!

 

[zlatko]

I have a hard time seeing this as the most needed lens in the standard prime segment. And that filter size...?

They don't build according to "most needed" because there's no such thing. One person's "most needed" is another person's "least needed" and another person's "might need someday" and another person's "nice to have if the price is right".

I wasn't trying to look at it from my point of view of most needed, but from what I imagine the overall market needs. The über-cheap f/1.8 already exists in two versions (Canon's and Yongnou's). It would be easier to comprehend if they tried to gain market shares by releasing a new f/1.2 or f/1.4 with better optics, perhaps IS, sturdier build (than f/1.4), better microcontrast, less focus breathing, faster and more reliable AF (than Sigmas joke) and so on.

There is no overall market. The market is diverse. For some buyers, a new improved f/1.8 is of greater and more immediate interest than a new f/1.2 or 1.4. For some it isn't.

 

[jeffa4444]

The market cap of Canon Inc as of today is $ 35BN it is perfectly within its remit to design & build three new 50mm lenses if it so chooses. However its also a "business" and would carefully weigh up if and when it needs to replace a lens and likely in connection with other factors and not simply technical ones.

The nifty fifty the 50mm f1.8 likely sells in far greater numbers than the 50mm f1.4 and 1.2 but both of those likely carry better margins, if the Chinese however have "copied" the nifty fifty then Canon must distance itself by improving the IP protection and this is almost certainly part of any decision.

 

[Machaon]

I guess the Yongnuo 50mm f/1.8 presents, or is perceived by Canon to present, too much of a competition to the EF 50mm f/1.8, so Canon decided to upgrade the lens.

Good point.

 

[sagittariansrock]

Not another STM, come on...
I hate the slower focusing speed and focusing by wire of STMs...

I will agree with you on the focus by wire, as I find it very annoying as well. I couldn't imagine doing video with manual focus. However, the focus speeds of the non pancake lenses that I have used have all been very fast to lock focus. Not quite USM speeds, but right there. The EF-M 18-55 and EF-S 18-135, both STM I've used on numerous occasions and focus speed has never been an issue.

Now, I also have the EF 40mm, EF-S 24mm, and EF-M 22mm pancakes, and they leave much to be desired in terms of focus speed. Night and day difference compared to the "full size" STM lenses.

Good to know, thanks.
I have only used the 40mm and 22mm M, and as you noted, they were slow.
However, I'd still want a 'fast' fifty to be literally fast as well ;D

 

[ScottyP]

I gave up waiting on a good 50mm and bought a 35mm on full frame. Glad I did, as I find the 35mm to be a great length. Now, however, I would be hard pressed to justify purchasing an expensive 50mm because it is so close to the 35mm length.

I WOULD however buy a new 50mm f/1.8 to play with if it were only about $200, if it had improved IQ at f/1.8 and a more solid body, better focusing than the old nifty fifty.

And if IQ wide open was better than the f/1.4, I could easily give up the tiny tiny, less than 1/3 of a stop loss in aperture of 1.8 vs. 1.4.

But posters above are probably right and this will be an M lens.

 

[Woody]

Hooray!!! Will be more than happy to replace my 50 f/1.4 micro-USM with the 50 f/1.8 STM version.

 

[zlatko]

I gave up waiting on a good 50mm and bought a 35mm on full frame. Glad I did, as I find the 35mm to be a great length. Now, however, I would be hard pressed to justify purchasing an expensive 50mm because it is so close to the 35mm length.

I WOULD however buy a new 50mm f/1.8 to play with if it were only about $200, if it had improved IQ at f/1.8 and a more solid body, better focusing than the old nifty fifty.

And if IQ wide open was better than the f/1.4, I could easily give up the tiny tiny, less than 1/3 of a stop loss in aperture of 1.8 vs. 1.4.

But posters above are probably right and this will be an M lens.

I agree with you on giving up 1.4 for 1.8 if the IQ is better, but it's a loss of 2/3 of a stop, not a tiny less than 1/3. From 1.4 to 1.6 is 1/3, and from 1.6 to 1.8 is another 1/3.

 

[Hjalmarg1]

<p><a href="http://www.canonrumors.com/2015/02/new-50mm-70-300-coming-soon-cr2/" target="_blank">Yesterday we were told that a new 50mm lens would be coming</a>, along with a new 70-300 non-L, non-DO lens.</p>
<p>Today we’re told the new 50mm will be an f/1.8 with STM and a 49mm filter thread. This seems to be a replacement of the current “Nifty Fifty” and not the 50mm f/1.4.</p>
<p><em>More to come…</em></p>
<p><strong><span style="color: #ff0000;">c</span>r</strong></p>

It could assume that they won't produce a 50/1.4 with IS because it would canibalized the 50/1.2 sales, as long as it produces results similar to the 35/2 IS.
49mm filter thread????? What??? It sounds completely illogical since the 40/2.8 STM has a 52mm thread. It sould be bigger for a 50mm lens if they want to get a f1.8 max aperture and not producing a huuuuge vignetting.

 

[zlatko]

It could assume that they won't produce a 50/1.4 with IS because it would canibalized the 50/1.2 sales, as long as it produces results similar to the 35/2 IS.

The theory of "they won't do x because it would cannibalize y" never makes sense to me because they're constantly building things that cannibalize each other to a significant degree. By that theory, most cameras and lenses wouldn't exist. Just look at all of the overlap in the camera and lens lines. So many bodies can substitute for each other. There are so many lenses that cover 24mm, 35mm, 50mm, 70mm, 85mm, 100mm, etc. So many flashes. I suspect that, rather than cannibalizing, these extra choices simply bring in more buyers -- people with diverse needs and budgets -- who might otherwise not buy anything or buy from a competitor. And many people buy multiple versions of key focal lengths, such as 2 or 3 50mm lenses, or both versions of the 85, or lenses with very similar focal lengths. If you don't give them those multiple choices, they will buy just the one you give them.

 

[Marsu42]

The theory of "they won't do x because it would cannibalize y" never makes sense to me because they're constantly building things that cannibalize each other to a significant degree. By that theory, most cameras and lenses wouldn't exist. Just look at all of the overlap in the camera and lens lines.

"Overlap" and "cannibalize" aren't the same, and I'm 100% sure if there's one thing Canon marketing deliberates a lot about it's their internal lineup. A pure "overlap" is to be expected, but it's about user groups and the balance of a) the danger of them jumping ship or b) luring them into upselling to the next best model.

Don't underestimate this: For example, how much less profit would Canon have made if 50% of the 5d3 customers in the last 1.5 years would have bought at 6d instead because it would "good enough", i.e. not crippled enough, for video and shooting motion? If 2/3rds of the €1300 f1.2 "L" owners would have bought a good €500 f1.4 50mm update?