Canon EF 50mm f/1.4 & Others Listed as Production Ended by Canon UK

[Tinky]

I used to use the 50mm f2.5 on my EOS 5 (a2e) never made as much sense when I went digital, I tested it along side a 60mm ef-s and a Sigma 70mm f2.8..

The 50 had terrible chroma wide open on high contrast areas, maybe an artefact of digital as I don't recall it on my film shots, I was onto and still frequently using my EOS 3 by then, which ruled out the 60mm, so I tried the 70mm. A little unusual on ff, but perfect on my 400d, and pretty flawless optically. All 3 were slow at the macro range, but the limiter on the sigma, and the usm on the 60 made them viable for portraiture etc, the 50 was just slow and nasty.

I also owned a 135mm f2.8. Equated to a fast 200mm on my 400d. Fast in terms if light at least, but the old afd motor was grim. Nice images with the sf dialled out, I got rid of it when I noticed a hazy optic one day... yup, you guessed it, the early cersions had a hazy ekement to help with the sf technique, on later productions the element was less obviosly hazy.

Never used the 50 f1.4. Went with the sigma instead, which is about to become a 62mm f0.9, along with my 43mm f0.9 and my 105mm f0.9 thanks to my new panny g7 and metabones speedbooster xl.

 

[Antono Refa]

I wonder how many of Canon's lenses are selling close to zero copies, but are kept officially continued so Canon can make those impressive lines lineup photos with a huge array of lenses, just to make them look bigger and better than the competition?

I've seen more 75-300mm in hands of photographers than all primes longer than 135mm combined.

I would make a rough guess that 80%+ of their lens sales go to less than 20% of their lineup.

I'll bet good money that's true.

 

[bcflood]

The 50 1.4 and the 85 1.8 are the two lenses I'd love to see updated in 2016. I'd love to have IS on each. I'd hope there would still be a 1.4 and a 1.2 50mm to give some middle-ground for the advanced amateurs/prosumer bunch. That way the 1.4 can land around $500-600 or so, and have the $1,500 lens be the 1.2L.

 

[JonAustin]

I bought my 50/2.5CM new 12 years ago, and I still have it and use it, although not as much as I used to. But I won't part with it unless Canon comes out with a USM replacement. I'm on the AHSanford "please release a 50 IS USM lens" bandwagon. If that lens were to include a macro function, it'd just be icing on the cake.

 

[ahsanford]

I'll repost my recent posting on potential pricing of the 50mm f/nooneknows IS USM.

Presuming the next 50mm is non-L and USM, if it actually turns out to be...

...IS + f/1.4 --> You're honestly in the $1,000 territory. Consider: that lens will be 90% as sharp as the Art for half the size and weight with reliable first party autofocus and image stabilization. That's a killer value proposition.

...IS + f/1.8 --> Provided it's clearly optical superior and has all the 24/28/35 lens features we want (i.e it's not the recent nifty fifty with USM and IS and everything else is the same), I'd say you're in the $600-800 range. It's worth $500 but Canon will charge us more.

...No IS + f/1.4 --> Same proviso as before, and though aperture is sexier than IS to most people, $600-800 stills seems about right.

...No IS + f/1.8 --> you could argue 'why make this lens', but for the features I mentioned before, perhaps $300-400. I just don't see them making this lens, though.

Agree, disagree?

- A

 

[privatebydesign]

I'll repost my recent posting on potential pricing of the 50mm f/nooneknows IS USM.

Presuming the next 50mm is non-L and USM, if it actually turns out to be...

...IS + f/1.4 --> You're honestly in the $1,000 territory. Consider: that lens will be 90% as sharp as the Art for half the size and weight with reliable first party autofocus and image stabilization. That's a killer value proposition.

...IS + f/1.8 --> Provided it's clearly optical superior and has all the 24/28/35 lens features we want (i.e it's not the recent nifty fifty with USM and IS and everything else is the same), I'd say you're in the $600-800 range. It's worth $500 but Canon will charge us more.

...No IS + f/1.4 --> Same proviso as before, and though aperture is sexier than IS to most people, $600-800 stills seems about right.

...No IS + f/1.8 --> you could argue 'why make this lens', but for the features I mentioned before, perhaps $300-400. I just don't see them making this lens, though.

Agree, disagree?

- A

Don't agree. I don't see a 50 f1.4 IS being much more than $800 at launch and a fairly quick settle back to $650.

Also, the 35 f2 IS is much more than 90% of the 35 f1.4 L MkII let alone the Sigma, I don't see why the 50's would be any different.

 

[mrzero]

They have not ended productionof the EF 100mm f2.8L IS USM the lens listed is the EF 100mm f2.8 USM. However all the main stockists have it in stock and Canon are selling it themselves from the Canon UK web-site at £ 429.00

Actually the list says "EF100mm f/2.8 Macro" - not USM. It refers to the old 100/2.8 macro with AFD focusing, discontinued in approx. 2000 when the 100/2.8 USM was launched.

Actually, the list includes both non-L 100mm Macro lenses. The USM version is line 6, the non-USM predecessor is much lower on the page.

 

[StudentOfLight]

I'll repost my recent posting on potential pricing of the 50mm f/nooneknows IS USM.

Presuming the next 50mm is non-L and USM, if it actually turns out to be...

...IS + f/1.4 --> You're honestly in the $1,000 territory. Consider: that lens will be 90% as sharp as the Art for half the size and weight with reliable first party autofocus and image stabilization. That's a killer value proposition.

...IS + f/1.8 --> Provided it's clearly optical superior and has all the 24/28/35 lens features we want (i.e it's not the recent nifty fifty with USM and IS and everything else is the same), I'd say you're in the $600-800 range. It's worth $500 but Canon will charge us more.

...No IS + f/1.4 --> Same proviso as before, and though aperture is sexier than IS to most people, $600-800 stills seems about right.

...No IS + f/1.8 --> you could argue 'why make this lens', but for the features I mentioned before, perhaps $300-400. I just don't see them making this lens, though.

Agree, disagree?

- A

Don't agree. I don't see a 50 f1.4 IS being much more than $800 at launch and a fairly quick settle back to $650.

Also, the 35 f2 IS is much more than 90% of the 35 f1.4 L MkII let alone the Sigma, I don't see why the 50's would be any different.

I also doubt the $1000 range for a non-L 50 replacement. Here is a list of all non-L lenses I can think of that are priced over $999:
- The non-L TS-E lenses
- The MP-E 65mm f/2.8
- All the DO-branded lenses

Canon appears to place a $700-800 MRSP price cap on non-L designs. If it can't be marketed below that price range then it doesn't get made. So I think it seems unlikely that a 50/1.4 IS USM will be $1000 (or any more) unless it was L branded.

Regarding what I think is most likely replacement for 50/1.4... I'd say 50/1.8 IS USM.

Speculation: I think to allow for IS group movement a 1.4 IS USM will require larger glass elements than a conventional f/1.4 lens so will drive the costs up and engineering complexity up. Such costs would only be justified in for an L or specialty lens (e.g. DO /TS-E/Macro)

Speculation: I think for f/1.8 IS you could just use an f/1.4 or f/1.6 optical design and sacrifice some diffuse light transmission to allow sufficient leeway for the IS group to do its vibration compensation. You'll also get the benefit of improved vignette performance. I suspect this is how Tamron went about their f/1.8 VC lens designs.

P.S. There was a 58mm f/1.4 patent a while back which could be a potential alternative to the 50/1.2, as a direct competitor to the Nikon 58/1.4 lens and also very close to the Otus 1.4/55 in terms of focal length.

 

[Sporgon]

I expect we are going to see a new EF 50/1.4 very soon and it will have an optical formula similar to the Tamron 45/1.8, perhaps a tad more complex but without IS.

 

[pj1974]

I'll repost my recent posting on potential pricing of the 50mm f/nooneknows IS USM.

Presuming the next 50mm is non-L and USM, if it actually turns out to be...

...IS + f/1.4 --> You're honestly in the $1,000 territory. Consider: that lens will be 90% as sharp as the Art for half the size and weight with reliable first party autofocus and image stabilization. That's a killer value proposition.

...IS + f/1.8 --> Provided it's clearly optical superior and has all the 24/28/35 lens features we want (i.e it's not the recent nifty fifty with USM and IS and everything else is the same), I'd say you're in the $600-800 range. It's worth $500 but Canon will charge us more.

...No IS + f/1.4 --> Same proviso as before, and though aperture is sexier than IS to most people, $600-800 stills seems about right.

...No IS + f/1.8 --> you could argue 'why make this lens', but for the features I mentioned before, perhaps $300-400. I just don't see them making this lens, though.

Agree, disagree?

- A

Ahsanford, I’ve read many of your posts about the 50mm f/nooneknows IS USM… often making me smile! We’re in the same boat, that are very keen for Canon to produce a new non-L EF 50mm USM prime.

Before I get onto your list, I was tempted by the Canon EF 50mm f/1.8 STM, and bought one (got a good deal at my local camera store here in Adelaide, South Australia – where I have bought other gear). I have previously owned 2 versions of the Canon EF 50mm f/1.8 II; however I have sold both mainly due to the AF inconsistency. The STM is a huge step up in terms of AF consistency (almost can’t fault it’s AF reliability) and also a welcome boost in AF speed, and a marginal improvement in IQ (mainly better bokeh, and slightly sharper / more contrast).

For the awesome price, the 50mm STM punches well above its weight. It produces great images from f/2.5 onwards, with f/2.2 being ‘ok’. f/1.8 and f/2 lack contrast and sharpness (especially at the borders). However this lens still does not tick all the boxes I would like to see in ‘my dream’ 50mm. Better IQ wide open, true full ring USM focusing and IS would really make me a happy camper / customer…. But ‘when’ will such a new fast 50mm USM prime be produced, oh Canon? (In the meantime I plan to keep my 50mm f/1.8 STM).

General statements first… I think Canon learned a lesson with initially pricing the 24mm and 28mm f/2.8 USM IS lenses way too high…
IS > ‘sexier’ than a slightly larger aperture, between f/1.4–f/2. Good IQ wide open more important than having larger aperture, but-low-IQ-at-that-setting.
Now to your list, ahsanford… (I’ll use USD$ and RRP to keep things simple… though I acknowledge many of us on this website live elsewhere in the world)

IS + f/1.4 --> although I’d hope it is not in the $1,000 range, but rather around $700 - $850, I expect it’s RRP will be around $900 - $1,000.

IS + f/1.8 --> The difference between f/1.4 and f/1.8 is fairly ‘large’ in terms of Canon’s pricing policy / marketing…. So I would say $650-$800.

No IS + f/1.4 --> $700-$850 would be my guess for this lens.

No IS + f/1.8 --> $450 - $550, but yes, I agree that it would seem to make little sense for Canon to release such a lens.

One of my main points of reference is that current B&HPhotoVideo ‘full’ prices for 24mm, 28mm and 35mm (f/2) are all $550. From what I have read, making a 50mm lens with good IQ is somewhat easier than any of the previously mentioned ‘wider’ lenses.

My other main point of reference is the Tamron SP 45mm f/1.8 Di VC USD lens, recently released. It is currently $599 and includes pretty much everything I (and I expect many others) would want in a Canon 50mm f/nooneknows USM. It has a few AF ‘niggles’ (but not as many reported AF issues as the Sigma 50mm ART) and appears to have higher CA than desired. But apart from that, it appears to be a reasonably good lens, with some lovely features, good IQ, great MFD, smooth MF ring, etc.

You know what I would REALLY like… a f/1.6 mm USM IS at $750! C’mon Canon, you can do it! Why are f/1.6 lenses not commonly manufactured? It hits a sweet spot with me, to make a f/1.6 lens – with good IQ wide open…..

Well, there you have my 2 cents worth, folk. Happy Friday and weekend to you all.

Paul

 

[Quackator]

Actually the list says "EF100mm f/2.8 Macro" - not USM. It refers to the old 100/2.8 macro with AFD focusing, discontinued in approx. 2000 when the 100/2.8 USM was launched.

Actually both AFD and USM 2.8/100 mm Macro lenses before the IS USM L are on the list.

I have the 2.5/50mm compact macro and even the lifesize adapter.
Aside of the noisy and slow AFD motor, the lens itself has good
optical performance.

After buying the Sigma ART 50, my interest in any new
Canon 50mm is rather academical in nature.

 

[aceflibble]

Canon has listed other lenses as out of production recently, only for them to begin turning up again. The 24-105 f/4, 70-200 f/4, etc. It seems really 50/50 whether or not Canon saying a lens is out of production actually means it's gone for good/being replaced, or merely just temporarily not being assembled

 

[Bennymiata]

Only very popular lenses like the kit lenses are manufactured constantly.
Most other lenses are made in batches. The size of the batches vary from lens to lens, so it's not uncommon for a lens to be out of production when the manufacturer is still holding good stocks, and can then go back in production when their stocks go down, so I wouldn't be too concerned if your wanted lens is "currently" out of production.

Canon will always have some f1.2 lenses available, because they can, and Nikon can't because their throats are too narrow.
Why do you think so many top portraiters use Canon. That extra .2 makes a difference.

 

[George D.]

For me it seems certain that the new 50/1.4 will appear the closer we reach to the appearance of the 1DX2 (and 5D4). It's a flagship lens. Not in the way of the "L" series but that of the standard bearer. There's no better publicity for Canon to introduce the 1DX2 with the next generation 50/1.4.

 

[apersson850]

I actually do have a friend who owns a 135 mm softfocus lens. But he's the only one I've ever met.

 

[Steve Balcombe]

They have not ended productionof the EF 100mm f2.8L IS USM the lens listed is the EF 100mm f2.8 USM. However all the main stockists have it in stock and Canon are selling it themselves from the Canon UK web-site at £ 429.00

Actually the list says "EF100mm f/2.8 Macro" - not USM. It refers to the old 100/2.8 macro with AFD focusing, discontinued in approx. 2000 when the 100/2.8 USM was launched.

Actually, the list includes both non-L 100mm Macro lenses. The USM version is line 6, the non-USM predecessor is much lower on the page.

So it does, my apologies.

 

[rfdesigner]

I'm still betting on three new 50mm lenses

1: a new 50L, probably f1.2.. utterly awesome lens.. Would get well over 40Mpix on DxOs lens ratings with gorgeous Boke and a price tag to go with it.
2: a new 50f1.4 ringUSM, better coatings, fettled optics so it's "within range" of the sigma. Doesn't need to be better, leave that to the L, just good enough that it's seriously considered, and like the 50STM did for the 1.8 fixes EVERYTHING that's wrong with the previous version.
3: a new F2.8 IS MACRO, at a similar price point to the 28f2.8 IS and it's siblings

 

[JonAustin]

I actually do have a friend who owns a 135 mm softfocus lens. But he's the only one I've ever met.

A colleague of mine had one back when we worked together, some 15 years ago. Of course, that was when the vast majority of us were still shooting film. I don't know if she still has hers or not, but she always insisted that the SF lens be used when photographing her!

I'm still betting on three new 50mm lenses

1: a new 50L, probably f1.2.. utterly awesome lens.. Would get well over 40Mpix on DxOs lens ratings with gorgeous Boke and a price tag to go with it.
2: a new 50f1.4 ringUSM, better coatings, fettled optics so it's "within range" of the sigma. Doesn't need to be better, leave that to the L, just good enough that it's seriously considered, and like the 50STM did for the 1.8 fixes EVERYTHING that's wrong with the previous version.
3: a new F2.8 IS MACRO, at a similar price point to the 28f2.8 IS and it's siblings

Seems logical, and if you're correct, I'll probably be buying a #2 and a #3 ...

 

[sanj]

I hope they do not dump the 50 1.2. It is an important lens.

 

[ahsanford]

I hope they do not dump the 50 1.2. It is an important lens.

They won't. But they have to decide if the next f/1.2L will remain the specialty wide-aperture art / magic / draw tool it is today and don't mind getting pasted by the Sigma Arts and Otuses of the world for overall sharpness in reviews, or if they want to join them and offer a beastly super-resolving pickle jar of a tool.

Remember, with the 35L II, they went with the latter. With the next 50L and 85L however, one could certainly argue that the magic/bokeh/feel of those focal lengths is more important than how sharp it is. We shall see what Canon chooses to do there.

- A