Would love to know if and when Canon are likely to release an image stabilized 50mm full frame lens ?
Ideally f1.2 or f1.4 ..!
Ideally f1.2 or f1.4 ..!
LonelyBoy said:Cuing ahsanford's "attn Canon, we want this not this" pic in 3... 2... 1...
mrzero said:The announcement has been held up due to problems with the included oxygen mask, needed to revive those of us who have been holding our breath waiting for the lens.
mrzero said: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.
gobucks 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).
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: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.
Hjalmarg1 said: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: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.
gobucks 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".
gobucks said: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.
jd7 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)
LonelyBoy 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.
LOALTD said: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...
KateH said:LonelyBoy 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.
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.
KateH said:LonelyBoy 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.
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.