Any word on the 50mm with Image Stabilzation?

[e17paul]

Which is just a long way of saying that I think they are going to cull the "Group 1" non-USM primes in this IS update, and then we'll see something else happen to the "Group 2" USM primes (good or bad, I don't know).

+1. Getting rid of AFD motors will improve the perception of Canon's quality to those looking for their first DSLR in a local electronics store. It will also rationalise the component inventory and production lines. That's all part of running a profitable business. The product refreshes of the last couple of years will be completed with the next slew of announcements. I'm looking forward to the news from Photokina, I hope I'm not disappointed.

 

[brad-man]

I don't think the 50 f/x IS will replace anything. Canon will have 4 50mm lenses out in the wild. I think they'll leave the little 50 alone and upgrade the 1.2 and 1.4 as it suits them. I also suspect that the new 50 will be f/2 to keep the size/price down. Isn't guessing fun?

 

[Ruined]

I agree with most that the new 50mm IS will be f/1.8 based on history, and of the available Canon patent which is a 50mm f/1.8 IS. There is no Canon patent of a 50mm f/1.4 with IS.

In terms of which lens it will replace, there is a good argument for both.

First, lets look at why many buy the 50mm f/1.4 over the f/1.8:
* Superior build quality - 50mm f/1.8 II is super plastic, 50mm f/1.4 is more solid (but does have its own issues)
* Superior autofocus - f/1.4 has superior USM over the f/1.8 II's micro motor.
* Better image quality - f/1.4 is sharper with less falloff
* Faster aperture - f/1.4 is faster than f/1.8

HYPOTHETICAL:
Now, lets look at a potential 50mm f/1.8 IS if it follow the trends of the 35mm f/2 IS.
-The 50mm f/1.8 IS will certainly have better build quality than the 50mm f/1.4, which has a history of autofocus reliability issues and simply isn't built to the same standard as the new IS lenses.
-The 50mm f/1.8 IS will likely have faster and quieter autofocus than the 50mm f/1.4 if the 35 IS is any indication.
-The 50mm f/1.8 IS will likely have slightly better image quality than the 50mm f/1.4, with modern touches such as curved aperture blades and newer lens coatings
-Obviously the 50mm f/1.4 can do f/1.4, while the 50mm f/1.8 IS cannot
-However, the 50mm f/1.8 IS can do image stabilized video, while the 50mm f/1.4 cannot
-The 50mm f/1.8 IS will likely stabilize at $549, versus $349 street for the 50mm f/1.4

So, the 50mm f/1.4 I believe will become a much less attractive lens, with price being its main draw. But, those truly fixated on price may be attracted to the cheaper 50mm f/1.8 II or 40mm f/2.8 STM instead. And, those wanting the better build and more modern features & design will be attracted to the 50mm f/1.8 IS. Those wanting the ultimate in aperture will be drawn to the 50mm f/1.2L. Those who do video will easily elect the 50mm f/1.8 IS. Thus, I believe that the 50mm f/1.4 will be stuck as an unpopular middle option if all four lenses are to be sold - I am not sure there is enough market to support four different 50mm prime lenses.

So, I see three possible results of this.
1. The 50mm f/1.8 II is discontinued, and the price of the 50mm f/1.4 is further lowered to $299 street to bridge the price gap somewhat. The 40mm STM f/2.8 is positioned at $149 street to entice what would be former 50mm f/1.8 II buyers.
2. The 50mm f/1.4 is discontinued, and the 50mm f/1.8 II remains as a cheap "gateway lens" to get people into the habit of buying lenses; remember though, the 40mm f/2.8 STM can already serve this same purpose, so this is not a necessity.
3. The 50mm f/1.8 IS is added to the lineup and nothing is discontinued. But wow, that is a lot of similar lenses.

Thus in table form, I could see:

OPTION 1 (more likely):
50mm f/1.2L - $1599
50mm f/1.8 IS - $549
50mm f/1.4 - $299
40mm f/2.8 STM - $149

OPTION 2 (less likely - too much overlap at $100-150, too much gap between $150 and $500)
50mm f/1.2L - $1599
50mm f/1.8 IS - $549
40mm f/2.8 STM - $149
50mm f/1.8 II - $109

OPTION 3 (less likely - too many similar lenses)
50mm f/1.2L - $1599
50mm f/1.8 IS - $549
50mm f/1.4 - $349
40mm f/2.8 STM - $149
50mm f/1.8 II - $109

Of course, all speculation, but that is the fun part!

 

[wickidwombat]

im still super keen for this lens even though i have the sigma i would use this lens more on the eos M

 

[ahsanford]

Now we have comparatively insane ISO capabilities. You don't need 1.8 to get a viewable picture. The only reason to have 1.8 is the depth of field and bokeh.

Respectfully disagree -- there is one reason you forgot. Low light with moving subjects requires fast glass -- IS doesn't do a thing for that. Lenses for indoor events like sports and concerts need all the speed they can get. I recognize the 50 F/1.8 is not a sports lens for a boatload of reasons, but you get my point. What my brother (more on the novice end) can't capture at a school concert with his kids with his kit 18-55 crop zoom can be better pulled off with his nifty fifty.

And though we can use high ISOs on DSLRs these days, not everyone likes climbing up to ISO 3200, 6400, and beyond in poor light. It's useable, but it's simply not as good as a shot at a lower ISO.

Seriously, this is Canon. Do you really believe they want to keep offering us a great deal on a cheap lens, when they can offer us a good deal on an affordable lens (the 40) and a rebate/MAP deal on a second (one of the 50s)?

I'm torn on this one. Evil-Big-Corporation Canon (who punishes us often with new lens prices) would do exactly what you've said. But Thoughtful-We-Are-The-World Canon seems to have protected two lenses as mass-produced, cheap, sharp plastic lenses -- the nifty fifty and the kit 18-55 (revised a good 5-6 times by now). Both are marvelously sharp for the dollar.

I think Canon would rather make a III version of that EF 50 F/1.8 lens -- possibly with STM (no chance with IS) and keep it reasonably priced, say $150-175 -- than obsolete the nifty fifty altogether. As much as we're sitting on a gear-obsessed forum, they need a reasonably priced low end to their lens offerings for novices and those on budget. Canon isn't Leica, after all.

- A

 

[ahsanford]

So, I see three possible results of this.
1. The 50mm f/1.8 II is discontinued, and the price of the 50mm f/1.4 is further lowered to $299 street to bridge the price gap somewhat. The 40mm STM f/2.8 is positioned at $149 street to entice what would be former 50mm f/1.8 II buyers.
2. The 50mm f/1.4 is discontinued, and the 50mm f/1.8 II remains as a cheap "gateway lens" to get people into the habit of buying lenses; remember though, the 40mm f/2.8 STM can already serve this same purpose, so this is not a necessity.
3. The 50mm f/1.8 IS is added to the lineup and nothing is discontinued. But wow, that is a lot of similar lenses.

[...]

Of course, all speculation, but that is the fun part!

Good thoughts. Here are a few considerations that come from them:

• The 40mm Pancake is not part of a '50 prime ecosystem' in my mind. That's its own animal. Throw the focal length out for a minute. I just think the pancake is an odd duckbill platypus of a lens experiment -- will people use a focus-by-wire little guy with few common lens creature comforts? I see it like a soft focus or a 1:2 Macro prime -- just a unique little creature. I'd leave it out of a pricing tree discussion, personally.
• You may be underestimating the Canon 50mm F/1.4 user base. That is the sharpest 50 Canon sells. By F/2.8 or so, it outclasses the L. So the L is relegated to portraiture / art / small DOF work, and the 50 F/1.4 is the more-general-use lens that I see in pros hands at events, in photojournalists hands, etc. And I think this is the Canon userbase that is screaming for a better do-everything option in the 50mm segment. This group probably just wants a modern 50mm F/1.4 II more than they want a 50 IS, but if the new 50 IS gets them the IQ improvements, internal focusing, build quality, true USM focusing speed, etc. they will gladly pony up the money on day one. This is the largest pent up demand segment in Canon's prime universe, I believe.
• So my vote is to buck the trend of eliminating the Group 1 lenses in just this focal length. Offer the new 50/(whatever) IS and replace the 20 year old 50 F/1.4 that many folks are stuck with as their best option.
• I think it will be pricey at first as Canon snatches up all the pent up demand from the current 50 F/1.4 user base -- say $750. But then it should walk down like all the other IS refreshes have. $500-600 seems about right.

- A

 

[AcutancePhotography]

Is it pretty much everyone's opinion that a 50mm needs IS?

While I would never refuse IS, I never really thought that a decient 50 needed IS. Especially these days when shooting four digit ISO is becoming more commonplace.

If Canon brings out a new very good 50 but for some reason it does not have IS, would that really affect your buying decision?

 

[ahsanford]

Is it pretty much everyone's opinion that a 50mm needs IS?

While I would never refuse IS, I never really thought that a decient 50 needed IS. Especially these days when shooting four digit ISO is becoming more commonplace.

If Canon brings out a new very good 50 but for some reason it does not have IS, would that really affect your buying decision?

The short answer is that Canon would be fools not to offer IS. You and many other photogs may not need it, but many folks would love it -- video folks, handholding low-light shooters, etc.

For me, yes -- it matters. I am overwhelmingly a natural light shooter of things that don't move much. Each stop of IS in poor light lets me (a) walk the ISO back down to earth or (b) walk the aperture down to a sharper regime with more working DOF.

There are three reasons I am going to buy this thing: improved IQ over my Canon 50 F/1.4, Image Stabilization, and it being smaller and lighter than the Sigma 50 Art. I'm a weirdo who thinks a walkaround prime shouldn't be as big/heavy as a pickle jar.

- A

 

[EOBeav]

Is it pretty much everyone's opinion that a 50mm needs IS?

Nope. Then again, I won't be in the market for this lens. I'm hanging on to my 50 f/1.4 and shooting happy.

 

[mrzero]

Now we have comparatively insane ISO capabilities. You don't need 1.8 to get a viewable picture. The only reason to have 1.8 is the depth of field and bokeh.

Respectfully disagree -- there is one reason you forgot. Low light with moving subjects requires fast glass -- IS doesn't do a thing for that. Lenses for indoor events like sports and concerts need all the speed they can get. I recognize the 50 F/1.8 is not a sports lens for a boatload of reasons, but you get my point. What my brother (more on the novice end) can't capture at a school concert with his kids with his kit 18-55 crop zoom can be better pulled off with his nifty fifty.

And though we can use high ISOs on DSLRs these days, not everyone likes climbing up to ISO 3200, 6400, and beyond in poor light. It's useable, but it's simply not as good as a shot at a lower ISO.

Seriously, this is Canon. Do you really believe they want to keep offering us a great deal on a cheap lens, when they can offer us a good deal on an affordable lens (the 40) and a rebate/MAP deal on a second (one of the 50s)?

I'm torn on this one. Evil-Big-Corporation Canon (who punishes us often with new lens prices) would do exactly what you've said. But Thoughtful-We-Are-The-World Canon seems to have protected two lenses as mass-produced, cheap, sharp plastic lenses -- the nifty fifty and the kit 18-55 (revised a good 5-6 times by now). Both are marvelously sharp for the dollar.

I think Canon would rather make a III version of that EF 50 F/1.8 lens -- possibly with STM (no chance with IS) and keep it reasonably priced, say $150-175 -- than obsolete the nifty fifty altogether. As much as we're sitting on a gear-obsessed forum, they need a reasonably priced low end to their lens offerings for novices and those on budget. Canon isn't Leica, after all.

- A

• The 40mm Pancake is not part of a '50 prime ecosystem' in my mind. That's its own animal. Throw the focal length out for a minute. I just think the pancake is an odd duckbill platypus of a lens experiment -- will people use a focus-by-wire little guy with few common lens creature comforts? I see it like a soft focus or a 1:2 Macro prime -- just a unique little creature. I'd leave it out of a pricing tree discussion, personally.
• You may be underestimating the Canon 50mm F/1.4 user base. That is the sharpest 50 Canon sells. By F/2.8 or so, it outclasses the L. So the L is relegated to portraiture / art / small DOF work, and the 50 F/1.4 is the more-general-use lens that I see in pros hands at events, in photojournalists hands, etc. And I think this is the Canon userbase that is screaming for a better do-everything option in the 50mm segment. This group probably just wants a modern 50mm F/1.4 II more than they want a 50 IS, but if the new 50 IS gets them the IQ improvements, internal focusing, build quality, true USM focusing speed, etc. they will gladly pony up the money on day one. This is the largest pent up demand segment in Canon's prime universe, I believe.
• So my vote is to buck the trend of eliminating the Group 1 lenses in just this focal length. Offer the new 50/(whatever) IS and replace the 20 year old 50 F/1.4 that many folks are stuck with as their best option.
• I think it will be pricey at first as Canon snatches up all the pent up demand from the current 50 F/1.4 user base -- say $750. But then it should walk down like all the other IS refreshes have. $500-600 seems about right.

- A

All good points. I do wonder, though, if entry level users are actually get the nifty fifty and using it in those low-light situations (indoor sports, theater). I was more under the impression that they were just turning on the flash and wondering why things were blurry. I'm not really in those settings now, so I don't know. But the people who buy $100 lenses don't know the difference between 6400 and 12800 ISO. Once they do, they are committed enough to pony up a few more bucks for the "Group 2" lenses that meet their needs. Also, the part in red about wanting a new 50mm 1.4, I agree 200%. I just think that Canon is content to move more slowly on the Group 2's and start with the Group 1's first.

I wish we were voting! We only get to vote with our dollars, euros, yen, which means we only get to vote after the products are released, not before.

 

[Hannes]

To me a likely solution would be to move things about a bit. I doubt they will get rid of a cheap 50mm lens so my expectation would be that they drop the 50/1.4 and replace it with a 1.8 (1.7?) IS USM version and the 50/1.8 would become a 50/2 STM lens to differentiate a bit more. I would also hope they'd update the 50/1.2 to make it a little sharper to be able to compete better with the third party offerings that have now come out. Who knows, maybe they'll move it back into the 85/1.2 shell and work from there.

 

[davidcl0nel]

Group 1: Squeaky Cheapo Simple
...
Group 2: Better But Not Best

I agree to this type of grouping. The new style is also a _silver_ ring on the new IS primes. The Group 2 lenses got the golden one - the L got the red one.
So 50 1.8 IS will be the next choice - but there is no replacement for 85. I know, this isnt the topic here, but I think they might add a new lower f-stop 85 with IS instead of replacing the 85 1.8 one. Maybe 2.0, maybe 2.8...
I am very satisfied with the 35 IS - and I don't need a 50 - its to near to 35. I can crop a little bit and have it... the 35 IS is way "too" sharp, that a little crop is really a problem.
I want a 70mm because 85 i also don't need, because I have the 100 L Macro...
(and then I will be a 17/35/70/100-guy. )

 

[switters]

I've been waiting quite a while for this lens. I was excited when the Sigma 50A came out, but after going through 3 copies of the 35A and still getting inconsistent AF, the reports of similar issues with the 50A kind of turned me off to it. I mostly shoot my young daughter at this point, and since she's always in motion, f/1.8 as a max aperture would be fine.

 

[AlanF]

I have asked in the Review thread of the 35A whether people are still happy with the lens but with no reply. If other people are having problems with the 35A I'll give it a miss.

 

[switters]

I have asked in the Review thread of the 35A whether people are still happy with the lens but with no reply. If other people are having problems with the 35A I'll give it a miss.

It's a fantastic lens in terms of IQ, but the focus is inconsistent (and can't be fixed with AFMA). At least in my case—I know others are happy.

 

[ScottyP]

I have asked in the Review thread of the 35A whether people are still happy with the lens but with no reply. If other people are having problems with the 35A I'll give it a miss.

It's a fantastic lens in terms of IQ, but the focus is inconsistent (and can't be fixed with AFMA). At least in my case—I know others are happy.

I replied to his question in the reviews section that my copy is 7 months old, gets used 90% of the time when I am not shooting telephoto, it is insanely sharp and grabs focus wide open extremely reliably on the targeted eyes and eyelashes.

 

[Sporgon]

As has been pointed out, the other three IS primes that have replaced the old non IS ones have not lost any speed, but then they were slower lenses than a 1.4, and I'm not sure if there are technical issues in featuring IS on such a fast lens.

Agree with the point at top of page; wouldn't surprise me if it was '1.7' as a marketing differentiation, because we all know there is no (real) difference between 1.8 and 1.7.

Or will it be an f2 based upon a modified planar pancake design ( like the 40 pancake) but set deep into the 35 IS body to give room for the IS ?

Either way I wish they'd hurry up 'cos I want the EBP to evaporate before I stick my hand is my very dusty wallet.