Canon EF 50 Prime Ongoing Dire Need Confirmed

[Ah-Keong]

Beter if it's not an L. There needs to be a non-L 50mm other than the super cheap and cheesy STM f/1.8. The 35mm f/2 IS is a great lens and didn't need to be an L, no reason the 50mm f/1.4 IS couldn't also be a regular model. All adding the L would do is put the price up.

Was thinking Canon would continue doing what they did for the 85mm f/1,4L IS.
modern, sharper optics while maintain the legendary double gauss magic of the 85mm f/1,2L.

there is quite a lot of competition in the 50mm. From Yongnuo to Tamron VC to Zeiss....

 

[Ah-Keong]

I like shooting at the 40 to 50 mm focal length.
I don't think that it is unreasonable to expect that there might be more people out there that might like a good 50 mm non-focus-by-wire fast lens, maybe with IS, by Canon. That being said, the Sigma Art 35 f/1.4 is a nice lens. The Sigma Art 50 is a huge lens, but no doubt quite good as well. There still seem to be the portrait photographers out there who don't want the clinically sharp approach and like the Canon 50 f/1.2L.

Hope Canon also update the 50mm f/1,2L . The optics is magical....

 

[stevelee]

I like shooting at the 40 to 50 mm focal length.

And while so far, as I've said, I haven't used my 50mm on the 6D2, I realize that many of the best pictures I've ever made were taken in the 1960s with a fixed 45mm lens on the Yashica rangefinder camera I had before I got my first SLR.

 

[lexaclarke]

Hope Canon also update the 50mm f/1,2L . The optics is magical....

I think the reason they're keeping both the 85mm 1.2 and the 85mm 1.4 IS is because those 1.2 lenses can't really be improved without totally changing how they look. So they make 1.4 IS versions instead. That way the people who just want optical quality can get the 1.4 IS version and the people who want the nice rendering can get the 1.2 version. The way I understand it, the 1.2s have that 'look' because they're not designed for total sharpness and clarity. If you make a lens which is sharper and clearer then it has a less pleasing rendering and vice-versa. That's why Sigma and Tamron lenses are super sharp but have crappier bokeh. At least that's how I understand it.
So I don't think the 50mm f/1.2L could be updated without ruining it's look. Putting IS in would change the optical formula and any attempt to make it sharper or clearer would change the rest of the rendering too. They could probably update the AF but that's about it.

 

[Ah-Keong]

I think the reason they're keeping both the 85mm 1.2 and the 85mm 1.4 IS is because those 1.2 lenses can't really be improved without totally changing how they look. So they make 1.4 IS versions instead. That way the people who just want optical quality can get the 1.4 IS version and the people who want the nice rendering can get the 1.2 version. The way I understand it, the 1.2s have that 'look' because they're not designed for total sharpness and clarity. If you make a lens which is sharper and clearer then it has a less pleasing rendering and vice-versa. That's why Sigma and Tamron lenses are super sharp but have crappier bokeh. At least that's how I understand it.
So I don't think the 50mm f/1.2L could be updated without ruining it's look. Putting IS in would change the optical formula and any attempt to make it sharper or clearer would change the rest of the rendering too. They could probably update the AF but that's about it.

Exactly.

the f/1,2L are based on classical double gauss optical design that provide the signature look with sufficient sharpness and clarity, the new 85mm f/1,4L IS is based on modern retrofocus optical design that provide more sharpness and clarity but sufficient bokeh.

Was thinking Canon may upgrade the AF motor, internal focusing and add in weatherproof feature in a 85mm f/1,2L mark III

for the 50mm f/1,2L, think there is nothing much to improve, other than some new coatings?

 

[Viggo]

I think the reason they're keeping both the 85mm 1.2 and the 85mm 1.4 IS is because those 1.2 lenses can't really be improved without totally changing how they look. So they make 1.4 IS versions instead. That way the people who just want optical quality can get the 1.4 IS version and the people who want the nice rendering can get the 1.2 version. The way I understand it, the 1.2s have that 'look' because they're not designed for total sharpness and clarity. If you make a lens which is sharper and clearer then it has a less pleasing rendering and vice-versa. That's why Sigma and Tamron lenses are super sharp but have crappier bokeh. At least that's how I understand it.
So I don't think the 50mm f/1.2L could be updated without ruining it's look. Putting IS in would change the optical formula and any attempt to make it sharper or clearer would change the rest of the rendering too. They could probably update the AF but that's about it.

for the 50mm f/1,2L, think there is nothing much to improve, other than some new coatings?

Nothing to improve on the 50 L ?? I’d say absolutely everything except handling, build and lenshood.

 

[jolyonralph]

Nothing to improve on the 50 L ?? I’d say absolutely everything except handling, build and lenshood.

The 50 f/1.2L is a lens you either love or you hate.

I'm pretty sure we'll eventually see a 50mm f/1.4L IS added to the lineup and, as with the 85L lenses the 1.2 won't be discontinued - it's a different product for a more specific type of photography.

If all you care about is absolute sharpness you'll get the 1.4L IS version. If you want photos with the quality that only the 50 1.2 lens can give, you'll get that.

 

[Viggo]

Nothing to improve on the 50 L ?? I’d say absolutely everything except handling, build and lenshood.

The 50 f/1.2L is a lens you either love or you hate.

I'm pretty sure we'll eventually see a 50mm f/1.4L IS added to the lineup and, as with the 85L lenses the 1.2 won't be discontinued - it's a different product for a more specific type of photography.

If all you care about is absolute sharpness you'll get the 1.4L IS version. If you want photos with the quality that only the 50 1.2 lens can give, you'll get that.

Agree with that, but the 85 L IS shows that one can have a reasonably sharp lens, yet nice rendering and pop.

I've had 5 copies of the 50 L, an for center composition it's useable, but off center is pretty useless... It's nice for something, but I still feel it can be much sharper and better corrected without looking flat and lose all it's "magic"

 

[michi]

I don't have a huge need for a 50mm. I have the ancient 50/1.8. And the 50/1.4. The 1.4 actually produces nice portraits when space is tight. I do think however Canon could really stand to come up with a high quality 50/1.4 IS to match its other new fantastic lenses. Would I buy it? Not sure. I think the new rumored 135 might be first on my list.

 

[Ah-Keong]

I think the reason they're keeping both the 85mm 1.2 and the 85mm 1.4 IS is because those 1.2 lenses can't really be improved without totally changing how they look. So they make 1.4 IS versions instead. That way the people who just want optical quality can get the 1.4 IS version and the people who want the nice rendering can get the 1.2 version. The way I understand it, the 1.2s have that 'look' because they're not designed for total sharpness and clarity. If you make a lens which is sharper and clearer then it has a less pleasing rendering and vice-versa. That's why Sigma and Tamron lenses are super sharp but have crappier bokeh. At least that's how I understand it.
So I don't think the 50mm f/1.2L could be updated without ruining it's look. Putting IS in would change the optical formula and any attempt to make it sharper or clearer would change the rest of the rendering too. They could probably update the AF but that's about it.

for the 50mm f/1,2L, think there is nothing much to improve, other than some new coatings?

Nothing to improve on the 50 L ?? I’d say absolutely everything except handling, build and lenshood.

that would be addressed by a "EF 50mm f/1,4L" with a modern retrofocus design which may look like the Sigma 50mm f/1,4 Art and the result may affect the handling
:

 

[Ah-Keong]

The 50 f/1.2L is a lens you either love or you hate.

I'm pretty sure we'll eventually see a 50mm f/1.4L IS added to the lineup and, as with the 85L lenses the 1.2 won't be discontinued - it's a different product for a more specific type of photography.

If all you care about is absolute sharpness you'll get the 1.4L IS version. If you want photos with the quality that only the 50 1.2 lens can give, you'll get that.

Exactly.
the 85mm lines cater to both the modern (sharpness) audience and the classic (signature) audience.

the 50mm may also follow along this path.
:

 

[Ah-Keong]

I don't have a huge need for a 50mm. I have the ancient 50/1.8. And the 50/1.4. The 1.4 actually produces nice portraits when space is tight. I do think however Canon could really stand to come up with a high quality 50/1.4 IS to match its other new fantastic lenses. Would I buy it? Not sure. I think the new rumored 135 might be first on my list.

Canon!
where is the "EF 50mm f/1,4L IS USM "?

 

[Maximilian]

Just for the records:
Put me on the list for a new non-L 50 f/1.4 USM (withorwithout IS).

 

[ahsanford]

Just for the records:
Put me on the list for a new non-L 50 f/1.4 USM (withorwithout IS).

To me (and this has evolved over time), here are my 50 prime priorities:

• Top priority: Hammerlock AF consistency at wide apertures, fast AF speed, not being a huge heavy pickle jar, internal focusing, faster than f/2
• High priority: IS, flat plane of focus, sharpness in general, particularly better IQ than the 50 f/1.4 USM when shooting wider than f/2.8
• Medium priority: f/1.4 vs. f/1.8 (really don't care), more/better/rounded blades
• Low priority: Weather sealing, if it kicks butt on a 50 MP sensor, modern bayonet hood attachment (surely, we'll get this)

Roll those all of those priorities up, and a smaller non-L 50 f/nooneknows IS (ring) USM remains the dream for me. But if the rumors are true, we'll get nano USM -- aka fancy focus by wire -- on the next non-L 50, and it won't have IS.

So if there's a future [small 50 f/1.4 (nano) USM II] and [large 50 f/1.4L IS (ring) USM], which would I get? Both have key elements of what I want, but not all. I'd effectively be balancing my desire of a smaller modern 50 prime vs. one with top AF and IS.

For all my posting on this, you might think the former would get my vote. But I just rented an 85 f/1.4L IS last Christmas, and the flawless AF experience I enjoyed at f/1.4 is something I very much want in a new 50. I'm not sure nano USM can deliver that.

- A

 

[Maximilian]

Just for the records:
Put me on the list for a new non-L 50 f/1.4 USM (withorwithout IS).

To me (and this has evolved over time), here are my 50 prime priorities:
[snip]

But I just rented an 85 f/1.4L IS last Christmas, and the flawless AF experience I enjoyed at f/1.4 is something I very much want in a new 50. I'm not sure nano USM can deliver that.

As several times before I can second all your lists and priorities. Maybe some changed a little bit in order.
And same as you nano USM or focus by wire (I have the two STM pancakes) to me could be the deal breaker for that type of lens if I invest 500+ €/$ for a lens, I don't want to get that type of AF any more.
But I also look for small primes for a decent price.
And although I'd surely enjoy that 50L IS the size and the price are deal breakers here for me.
Because I know I wouldn't use it that often and intensively to justify the invest.

 

[bergstrom]

Canon need to make a 50 1.4 ii to try and compete with sigma's 50mm 1.4, which I've read has focusing issues.

 

[j-nord]

I haven't really been on here in the last year. Literally just popping in to see if there is any news on said 50 1.4 IS (sharp, fast, weather sealed). Really frustrating Canon...

I'm glad to see ahsanford is keeping the torch lit!

 

[slclick]

Maybe Canon should make a 50 1.4 IS (Ring or Nano USM)


Just an idea.

 

[Loswr]

Maybe Canon should make a 50 1.4 IS (Ring or Nano USM)


Just an idea.

I don't know that anyone would even want one.

Just a thought.

 

[slclick]

Maybe Canon should make a 50 1.4 IS (Ring or Nano USM)


Just an idea.

I don't know that anyone would even want one.

Just a thought.

I might if someone could come up with some graphics and charts to compel me.