Any News On Canon 50mm Image Stabilized Lens ?
- Thread starter Nitroman
- Start date
If? ??? For sure will come someday. :
When? :-\ Only Canon know.
Yongnuo was neutralized by the new Canon 50mm F1.8 STM.
On the other hand, the great (optically) Samyang 50mm, and Sigma Art are stealing sales from Canon.
I suppose that a 50mm F1.4 Image Stabilizer will arrive by 2017.
I myself could not stand to wait that and bought the Sigma Art.
When? :-\ Only Canon know.
Yongnuo was neutralized by the new Canon 50mm F1.8 STM.
On the other hand, the great (optically) Samyang 50mm, and Sigma Art are stealing sales from Canon.
I suppose that a 50mm F1.4 Image Stabilizer will arrive by 2017.
I myself could not stand to wait that and bought the Sigma Art.
Upvote
0
I would add that there is nothing to suggest that the 50mm IS will be 1.4 -- except for some commentors' hopes and dreams. The last rumor suggested 1.8. http://www.canonrumors.com/2013/11/is-versions-in-50mm-85mm-135mm-coming-cr1/ The previous IS primes all came in at the same apertures as the non-USM versions they replaced (24mm 2.8, 28mm 2.8, and 35mm 2.0). I could see the 50mm (and 85mm) being 2.0 as well. Although the current 50mm 1.4 is not exactly the same USM as other lenses, I think the 50mm 1.4 remake could likely get bumped up to L status and price.
Upvote
0
mrzero said:
I think it's highly unlikely they release a 50mm 1.8 IS USM; F1.4 is much more likely, for several reasons.
1) product overlap - Canon just refreshed the $125 50mm F1.8 STM, so I doubt IS and USM alone, with no aperture difference, would justify a substantially higher price. Besides, there aren't many of examples of 2 different primes with the same focal length and aperture with different prices - the only example I can think of is the 100mm 2.8 macro and the 100mm 2.8L IS. Generally, Canon's pro lenses are faster than their prosumer ones, which are in turn faster than their entry level consumer ones (if an entry level exists).
2) manufacturing ability - 50mm is pretty much the easiest focal length to make for a wide aperture DSLR lens. It doesn't require a retrofocus design like 35mm or wider lenses, and it doesn't require huge lens elements like longer lenses do. If Canon can easily produce a 50mm 1.4 USM (even though it's not great) for $300ish, then I'm sure they can turn a profit selling an optically upgraded F1.4 with IS for $600ish (the price of the comparable 35mm F2 IS).
3) Sigma - the 50mm F1.4 Art is a phenomenally sharp pro-grade lens that is well regarded, and is "only" around $800, so I think that would make it hard for Canon to throw out a 50mm 1.8 IS unless they really made it cheap (i.e. roughly the same price as the current 1.4, which if that's the case, then why bother?). It worked with the 35mm IS at F2 (after they got the price right, but that's a retrofocus lens that is difficult to make at F1.4, and the lens it was replacing was also F2. On the other hand, a $600 50mm F1.4 IS should be pretty easy to produce, and should really stem Sigma's momentum. And with Canon's new coatings, F1.4 might actually be T1.4 (all canon's new primes have equal F and T stops), which means it would actually be brighter, and way more handholdable, than Sigma.
4) the current 50mm F1.4 is a dog, and I'm sure canon knows it. Crappy non-ring USM motor, and you have to stop it way down for usable photos. For most people, the new F1.8 STM is the better buy, and I suspect sales of the F1.4 have already dropped a lot. It's screaming for a refresh, and I can't think of a reason why they wouldn't change the formula and add IS given what theyve done with the wider primes.
Upvote
0
gobucks said:
It's not all about aperture - I'd take a 50/2 IS USM with a modern lens design over the 50 STM. Give it serious glass, not that ancient double-gauss design, and no one will confuse the two except rank beginners who wouldn't spend for a serious lens anyway.
Upvote
0
I also doubt the new 50mm WITH IS (keep dreaming) will have an aperture wider than f1.8. If I am wrong this lens will be superb.mrzero said:
Upvote
0
Hjalmarg1 said:
I really don't understand what is so far-fetched about the idea of a 50mm 1.4 IS. So far Canon has updated 3 primes with IS, the 24mm 2.8, 28mm 2.8, and 35mm F2 - all three have the same aperture as their predecessors, I have no idea why Canon wouldn't do the same with the 50mm, where 50mm is the easiest focal length for wide aperture lenses. If you were taking the SATs, and had a problem that read "2.8 -> 2.8, 2.8 -> 2.8, 2.0 -> 2.0, 1.4 -> ??", the most logical answer would be "1.4", not "2.0".
One other thing - Canon is extremely conscious about their product positioning. The 6D, for example, had certain features (slow flash sync, 1/4000 max shutter, etc) that seemed clearly intended to make it clear that it was lower end than the 5DIII. They also seem to have avoided making an overly competent EOS-M that might risk cannibalizing their DSLR line. Creating a prosumer $600ish 50mm F1.8 IS would be confusing - pros probably aren't considering it over the 50L, and for the rest of us, I don't think they'd sell many 1.8 IS lenses at $600 when a very good 1.8 lens was just released at $125. If it's F2, then it's REALLY gonna be awkward... do you want slower and pricier but IS, or faster and cheaper but no IS? Sure, Sony/Zeiss has the 55mm 1.8, but that's a $1000 lens that is basically an "L" equivalent, and it's the only normal prime available for Sony right now. It makes no sense in Canon's lineup.
Im not saying there is no way Canon releases a slower version of the 50mm IS, but I really don't see any reason that they would. The fact that some people would be fine with 1.8 isn't really an argument that this is the probable direction that Canon will go.
Upvote
0
gobucks said:
gobucks said:
I understand the point about Canon's prime lens updates have replaced an old lens with a new lens having the same aperture, but the fact is so far Canon hasn't produced any IS lens with an aperture wider than f/2 - and there is only one at f/2 (the 35mm). All other Canon IS lenses are f/2.8 or slower. Perhaps there is some technical issue which makes it fundamentally more difficult to put IS on a wide aperture lens (at least for a FF sensor)?
Regarding Canon not producing a better EOS M because it might cannibalise the DSLR line, I have seen that sort of comment quite a bit but personally I remain unconvinced about that. If Canon cannibalises its DSLR sales through EOS M sales, Canon is still selling cameras so why should it care which type of camera it sold? Obviously there is production cost / profit per camera to consider so it's possible Canon could do better out of DSLR sales than it could have done out of more EOS M sales, but it doesn't seem clear that would be the case.
My personal feeling is that Canon doesn't think mirrorless performance (as an overall/general purpose photographic tool) can match DSLR performance (or at least, not for comparable cost), so they have produced a mirrorless camera (and indeed a mirrorless system) which concentrates on delivering one of the big advantages mirrorless can give over DSLR: a camera which is small and light. I realise the performance of mirrorless cameras from other manufacturers has been continuing to improve all the time, and I think we will see a "better" Canon mirrorless camera when Canon can produce one it thinks performs as well as a DSLR which it can profitably sell at a comparable price. Will be interesting to see what the future holds!
Upvote
0
jd7 said:
I think it is incorrect to look at the narrower aperture IS primes and extrapolate that to mean that IS and an F1.4 aperture are incompatible, for a simple reason - the difficulty of making a 1.4 lens is not uniform among all focal lengths. A huge lens cost is grinding the front element, and costs to up exponentially with size. Wide lenses require wide, fat, retrofocus designs so it doesnt hit the mirror, which increases front element size. conversely, in telephoto lenses, the longer the focal length, the larger the front element for a given aperture. the normal range (say 40-60mm) is the sweet spot, where a comparably small element can be used. My 35mm F2 IS has a larger element than my 50mm 1.8 STM, and my 100mm F2 is way larger. Canon's L lineup is similarly helpful in understanding manufacturing difficulty - their 14mm lens is the slowest and priciest (f2.8, 2k+). 24mm is cheaper and faster (1.4, 1550), the 35mm is cheaper still (1.4, 1480), but then the 50mm gets even faster and cheaper (1.2, 1449). the 85mm stays 1.2, but the price is 2k. beyond that, no lenses are faster than f2. clearly the sweet spot is at 50mm. I think the reason that all IS primes have kept the same aperture, and will likely continue to do so, is that canon's lens lineup is a pretty accurate reflection of what focal point/aperture combo they can deliver profitably given cost, size, and technical constraints.
Upvote
0
LonelyBoy said:
Eh? It's pretty difficult to escape double-gauss derived formulas with 50mm lenses, and Double-Gauss doesn't have to mean "outdated"- there are plenty of modernized variants out there. All of Canon's 50's (including the 50 1.2L and legendary 50 1.0L) are double-gauss derivatives. All of Leica's 50s (including the Noctiluxes) are double-gauss derivatives. Olympus made some fantastic modernized 50's in the 1980s and 1990s. Even the well-regarded Planar & Sonnar-type designs (which are themselves around 100 years old) are essentially gauss-type.
The only recent "normal" SLR lens I'm aware of that's not a Gauss or Gauss-derivative is the new Zeiss 55mm f/1.4- which uses a retrofocus Distagon formula and as a result contains 12 elements, is nearly 4 times the weight of Canon's 50mm 1.4, and costs 4000$. The Zeiss is a work of art and has it's purpose, but surely you don't want Canon to emulate Zeiss' exotic retrofocus design and have a 50mm f/2 that's as large as the 35mm f/1.4L? If no, then the answer is a modified double-gauss formula.
If you're referring specifically to the "traditional" 6/5 formula the 50mm STM uses, I imagine that was a choice by Canon to balance IQ, BOM cost, R&D cost, and size/mass. I'm sure that for the 600$ price point that keeps coming up, Canon could make a 7 or 8-element 50mm f/2.0 that has better wide-open performance than the 50 STM, but at that point why not just make a better 50mm f/1.4 with added IS? It wouldn't be the fault of "rank beginners" that a 600$ 50mm f/2 wouldn't sell; that would just be an awful business choice to have two competing lenses that are identical except one gains IS and slightly better performance at f/2.0- for an additional 450$ over the existing lens. And it would really just be better performance at f/2.0, maybe a vanishingly-small difference at f/2.8. That "ancient double gauss" design in all of Canon's 50mm 1.8 lenses can match even the 50mm 1.2L at 5.6 and smaller, that's why such an old design is still used. It works and doesn't come with a preposterous cost or complexity.
Upvote
0
You can now just throw your favorite 50mm on a Sony A7 II or A7R II and instantly gain 5-axis IS!
Seriously though...I wish Canon would give us a new mid-range 50mm with IS...
Seriously though...I wish Canon would give us a new mid-range 50mm with IS...
Upvote
0
gregorywood
Always in learning mode
KateH said:
I just learned quite a bit. Thanks for taking the time to explain that.
Upvote
0
KateH said:
Thanks for the explanation (truly), but I note you didn't mention the Sigma 50 Art. I thought it was retrofocal as well, and certainly cheaper than the Zeiss? Large, yes, but affordable (at least, relatively).
And, if I'm wrong and that level of quality can be achieved with a DG formula, great! I take that comment back. But I'd like better optics than the current 50/1.4, especially if the price is going to approach or exceed that of the 50A.
Also, "legendary" it may be, but isn't the 50/1.0 not known for great image quality?
Upvote
0
Similar threads
- Contains 1 staff post(s)
