Canon EF 50mm f/1.4 Replacement Ready? [CR1]

[privatebydesign]

Agreed, and the Tamron F1.4's with VC clearly demonstrate there is no technical reason.

Tamron F1.8 VC.

No facts please! ;D

Apologies for the mistype. However the point was "lenses faster than f2.8" then the 35 f2 IS was mooted, and even if I got the stop wrong by a touch I think we can all agree f1.8 is faster still than f2.

 

[privatebydesign]

Whatever people with their charts may say, it is nearly impossible to find a second hand 50mm f/1.2 at a reasonable price anywhere. With all the Otuses and Sigmas around one might think that people would just get rid of their quirky unsharp lenses ASAP without a moment's hesitation. But it is not the case.
The market is wrong...or maybe there is something else to taking photographs than the sharpness of the lens?
I nearly bought one at 850 euros but then I came to my senses. What should I do with it, I am not an artist?

I think Sigma will push the R&D team on a decent 50mm, just like I believe they did for the 35mm.

Sigma will? Sigma 50 Art already exists, and has the best image quality among all 50mm autofocus this planet.
Meanwhile, Canon 50L has the best image quality "from another world". The world of somhos and ghosts.

EDIT:
Excuse the irony. I re-read, and understood that you referred to Sigma push Canon to produce a 50mm high image quality.

I think anybody that believes Sigma "push" Canon to do anything is in serious denial. Canon don't give a damn how good or bad any Sigma lens is, they just don't. Canon will make the lenses they feel best support their business model, some will be average for general use, some will be true pro lenses that are worked to death, some will be showcase 'because we can and you can't' punches to the nose of all other camera companies.

The optics department at Canon isn't pushed by anybody.
50 f1.0.
TS-E 17 f4.
8-15 f4 fisheye zoom.
MP-E 65 f2.8.
200-400 f4 with built in 1.4TC.
11-24 f4.
50 f1.2.
85 f1.2.
200 f1.8.
etc etc.............

 

[infared]

Whatever people with their charts may say, it is nearly impossible to find a second hand 50mm f/1.2 at a reasonable price anywhere. With all the Otuses and Sigmas around one might think that people would just get rid of their quirky unsharp lenses ASAP without a moment's hesitation. But it is not the case.
The market is wrong...or maybe there is something else to taking photographs than the sharpness of the lens?
I nearly bought one at 850 euros but then I came to my senses. What should I do with it, I am not an artist?

I think Sigma will push the R&D team on a decent 50mm, just like I believe they did for the 35mm.

Sigma will? Sigma 50 Art already exists, and has the best image quality among all 50mm autofocus this planet.
Meanwhile, Canon 50L has the best image quality "from another world". The world of somhos and ghosts.

EDIT:
Excuse the irony. I re-read, and understood that you referred to Sigma push Canon to produce a 50mm high image quality.

I think anybody that believes Sigma "push" Canon to do anything is in serious denial. Canon don't give a damn how good or bad any Sigma lens is, they just don't. Canon will make the lenses they feel best support their business model, some will be average for general use, some will be true pro lenses that are worked to death, some will be showcase 'because we can and you can't' punches to the nose of all other camera companies.

The optics department at Canon isn't pushed by anybody.
50 f1.0.
TS-E 17 f4.
8-15 f4 fisheye zoom.
MP-E 65 f2.8.
200-400 f4 with built in 1.4TC.
11-24 f4.
50 f1.2.
85 f1.2.
200 f1.8.
etc etc.............

LOL. Fanbois much? :

 

[chromophore]

I think anybody that believes Sigma "push" Canon to do anything is in serious denial. Canon don't give a damn how good or bad any Sigma lens is, they just don't. Canon will make the lenses they feel best support their business model, some will be average for general use, some will be true pro lenses that are worked to death, some will be showcase 'because we can and you can't' punches to the nose of all other camera companies.

The optics department at Canon isn't pushed by anybody.
50 f1.0.
TS-E 17 f4.
8-15 f4 fisheye zoom.
MP-E 65 f2.8.
200-400 f4 with built in 1.4TC.
11-24 f4.
50 f1.2.
85 f1.2.
200 f1.8.
etc etc.............

LOL. Fanbois much?

Actually, I contend that the claim that Canon isn't pushed by competitors is better supported by the areas in which Canon does not innovate in spite of clear superiority from other brands.

Examples include Sony's EXMOR technology to reduce the read noise in their CMOS sensors. Canon has not developed technology to match this.

The Sigma 50/1.4 Art is another example. Canon lacks a 50/1.4 lens that offers this level of imaging performance.

But the truth is, Canon--like any company--does watch what their competitors do. That is just the nature of business. However, the extent to which the consumer is able to see a company respond to the actions of its competitors is something that depends on factors in addition to what actions a company does in fact make in response to competitors. In other words, we on the consumer side of Canon's business cannot see what they might or might not be doing internally in response to its competitors. There's just no way to know.

 

[privatebydesign]

Whatever people with their charts may say, it is nearly impossible to find a second hand 50mm f/1.2 at a reasonable price anywhere. With all the Otuses and Sigmas around one might think that people would just get rid of their quirky unsharp lenses ASAP without a moment's hesitation. But it is not the case.
The market is wrong...or maybe there is something else to taking photographs than the sharpness of the lens?
I nearly bought one at 850 euros but then I came to my senses. What should I do with it, I am not an artist?

I think Sigma will push the R&D team on a decent 50mm, just like I believe they did for the 35mm.

Sigma will? Sigma 50 Art already exists, and has the best image quality among all 50mm autofocus this planet.
Meanwhile, Canon 50L has the best image quality "from another world". The world of somhos and ghosts.

EDIT:
Excuse the irony. I re-read, and understood that you referred to Sigma push Canon to produce a 50mm high image quality.

I think anybody that believes Sigma "push" Canon to do anything is in serious denial. Canon don't give a damn how good or bad any Sigma lens is, they just don't. Canon will make the lenses they feel best support their business model, some will be average for general use, some will be true pro lenses that are worked to death, some will be showcase 'because we can and you can't' punches to the nose of all other camera companies.

The optics department at Canon isn't pushed by anybody.
50 f1.0.
TS-E 17 f4.
8-15 f4 fisheye zoom.
MP-E 65 f2.8.
200-400 f4 with built in 1.4TC.
11-24 f4.
50 f1.2.
85 f1.2.
200 f1.8.
etc etc.............

LOL. Fanbois much? :

Really? Is that the best you have?

Try the 16-35 f4 IS, the 24-70 f2.8 MkII the 70-200 f2.8 IS MkII, any prime including and over 200mm in white, the 100-400 MkII etc etc.

Last I looked you couldn't take an image, baring pinhole garbage, without a lens, that the lenses in front of Canon sensors regularly return 'better' IQ than others 'better' sensors behind more mediocre lenses makes me think any criticism of the Canon lens stable is pure vitriol.

Canon might well have areas of concern in their business, the lens department being "pushed by Sigma" is not one of them.

 

[ahsanford]

Agree with privatebydesign -- Canon's doing fine with their lenses.

Keep in mind that that the only lens they've 'responded' to Sigma with -- the 35L II -- outperformed it. In other instances where Sigma did well, they picked on older L lens designs and (predictably) outperformed them.

But just because Canon doesn't want to make an f/2 zoom for EF or hasn't ever built a 50mm lens entirely around sharpness instead of bokeh/draw/'magic' does not mean they don't know what they're doing. There is so much more to lenses than sharpness per dollar.

That said, I love this fictitious lens arm race with Sigma. We win as consumers whether it's true or not. I just wish Sigma spent as much time on AF consistency as they did on sharpness.

- A

 

[ishdakuteb]

35mm f/2 has IS, but new coming 50mm f/1.4 will not have IS? I hope this is not the truth...

 

[slclick]

I thought the 50mm macro and 135L would be first to get replaced

The 135L doesn't NEED replacing, some just want it updated. Me, it's my favorite glass.

The 100L and 135L are all but bullet proof optically. Absurdly sharp.

Everyone pines for the next version to be a hair faster, but consider what that might look like.

I think the opportunity for the 135L is to be modernized. Weathersealing and IS come to mind.

- A

The current 135L could be improved dramatically and I expect a new/modern/higher IQ version is in the works.

"...dramatically" I think you don't know what that word means.

 

[infared]

Whatever people with their charts may say, it is nearly impossible to find a second hand 50mm f/1.2 at a reasonable price anywhere. With all the Otuses and Sigmas around one might think that people would just get rid of their quirky unsharp lenses ASAP without a moment's hesitation. But it is not the case.
The market is wrong...or maybe there is something else to taking photographs than the sharpness of the lens?
I nearly bought one at 850 euros but then I came to my senses. What should I do with it, I am not an artist?

I think Sigma will push the R&D team on a decent 50mm, just like I believe they did for the 35mm.

Sigma will? Sigma 50 Art already exists, and has the best image quality among all 50mm autofocus this planet.
Meanwhile, Canon 50L has the best image quality "from another world". The world of somhos and ghosts.

EDIT:
Excuse the irony. I re-read, and understood that you referred to Sigma push Canon to produce a 50mm high image quality.

I think anybody that believes Sigma "push" Canon to do anything is in serious denial. Canon don't give a damn how good or bad any Sigma lens is, they just don't. Canon will make the lenses they feel best support their business model, some will be average for general use, some will be true pro lenses that are worked to death, some will be showcase 'because we can and you can't' punches to the nose of all other camera companies.

The optics department at Canon isn't pushed by anybody.
50 f1.0.
TS-E 17 f4.
8-15 f4 fisheye zoom.
MP-E 65 f2.8.
200-400 f4 with built in 1.4TC.
11-24 f4.
50 f1.2.
85 f1.2.
200 f1.8.
etc etc.............

LOL. Fanbois much? :

Really? Is that the best you have?

Try the 16-35 f4 IS, the 24-70 f2.8 MkII the 70-200 f2.8 IS MkII, any prime including and over 200mm in white, the 100-400 MkII etc etc.

Last I looked you couldn't take an image, baring pinhole garbage, without a lens, that the lenses in front of Canon sensors regularly return 'better' IQ than others 'better' sensors behind more mediocre lenses makes me think any criticism of the Canon lens stable is pure vitriol.

Canon might well have areas of concern in their business, the lens department being "pushed by Sigma" is not one of them.

The topic here is 50mm. You are "off topic". ( I own many of the lenses that you list above...it's not relevant).
I have the Sigma 50mm Art...which is the BEST AF 50mm for a Canon camera (and VERY reasonably priced as well)..you should try one! 8) [glow=red,2,300[/glow]

 

[Northstar]

it’s about time!! alternating..

 

[ahsanford]

The topic here is 50mm. You are "off topic". ( I own many of the lenses that you list above...it's not relevant).
I have the Sigma 50mm Art...which is the BEST AF 50mm for a Canon camera (and VERY reasonably priced as well)..you should try one! 8) [glow=red,2,300[/glow]

The Sigma Art is not the end-all be-all best 50-ish mm lens for a Canon. It's great for IQ, but it's also great for back pain (it's massive) and headaches from an inconsistent AF system.

The 50L is not the end-all be-all best 50-ish mm lens for a Canon. It generates a wonderful feel that is uniquely suited for small DOF work. But it is famously not that sharp outside of the center.

The 55mm Otus is not the end-all be-all best 50-ish lens for a Canon. Optically, it's the best lens, but for some, the lack of AF (not the price) is the dealbreaker. It's also another pickle jar of a lens.

There is no categorically best 50-ish mm lens for a Canon as all of our needs are different.

The best 50-ish mm lens for me happens to be a 9/10 at sharpness, AF consistency and small size/weight (hence my obsession with this EF 50mm f/nooneknows IS USM). I care less about the best bokeh or having the one true 10/10 optical instrument that weighs as much as the Bismarck.

So please quit this 'my lens is the best' nonsense. It's only the best lens for you and your priorities.

- A

 

[privatebydesign]

Whatever people with their charts may say, it is nearly impossible to find a second hand 50mm f/1.2 at a reasonable price anywhere. With all the Otuses and Sigmas around one might think that people would just get rid of their quirky unsharp lenses ASAP without a moment's hesitation. But it is not the case.
The market is wrong...or maybe there is something else to taking photographs than the sharpness of the lens?
I nearly bought one at 850 euros but then I came to my senses. What should I do with it, I am not an artist?

I think Sigma will push the R&D team on a decent 50mm, just like I believe they did for the 35mm.

Sigma will? Sigma 50 Art already exists, and has the best image quality among all 50mm autofocus this planet.
Meanwhile, Canon 50L has the best image quality "from another world". The world of somhos and ghosts.

EDIT:
Excuse the irony. I re-read, and understood that you referred to Sigma push Canon to produce a 50mm high image quality.

I think anybody that believes Sigma "push" Canon to do anything is in serious denial. Canon don't give a damn how good or bad any Sigma lens is, they just don't. Canon will make the lenses they feel best support their business model, some will be average for general use, some will be true pro lenses that are worked to death, some will be showcase 'because we can and you can't' punches to the nose of all other camera companies.

The optics department at Canon isn't pushed by anybody.
50 f1.0.
TS-E 17 f4.
8-15 f4 fisheye zoom.
MP-E 65 f2.8.
200-400 f4 with built in 1.4TC.
11-24 f4.
50 f1.2.
85 f1.2.
200 f1.8.
etc etc.............

LOL. Fanbois much? :

Really? Is that the best you have?

Try the 16-35 f4 IS, the 24-70 f2.8 MkII the 70-200 f2.8 IS MkII, any prime including and over 200mm in white, the 100-400 MkII etc etc.

Last I looked you couldn't take an image, baring pinhole garbage, without a lens, that the lenses in front of Canon sensors regularly return 'better' IQ than others 'better' sensors behind more mediocre lenses makes me think any criticism of the Canon lens stable is pure vitriol.

Canon might well have areas of concern in their business, the lens department being "pushed by Sigma" is not one of them.

The topic here is 50mm. You are "off topic". ( I own many of the lenses that you list above...it's not relevant).
I have the Sigma 50mm Art...which is the BEST AF 50mm for a Canon camera (and VERY reasonably priced as well)..you should try one! 8) [glow=red,2,300[/glow]

Who made you the arbiter of "on topic"? Besides my comment was entirely on topic regarding the post I was replying to.

"I think Sigma will push the R&D team on a decent 50mm, just like I believe they did for the 35mm."

I'll say it again without context if that makes you happy, anybody that believes that comment is delusional.

The Canon lens department is leagues ahead of any other camera lens manufacturer, they have shown they can make pretty much any lens design they choose to and any compromises to IQ are either deliberate, as in the 50 f1.2 L (for enhanced portrait images), or due to price point, as in the 50 f1.4. That none of the five 50mm options Canon already offer fit your needs is irrelevant in the context of the Canon lens department capabilities, and they are certainly not 'pushed by Sigma' to do anything.

 

[Diltiazem]

I am surprised that it took 5 pages before someone mentioned DR. Have we forgotten our priorities?!!! 8)

Sorry, couldn't resist. ;D

On a serious note, I don't think new 50/1.4 would have IS. It would be a STM just like new nifty fifty. Wide open it would have slightly better sharpness at the center and significantly better sharpness at the margins just like new 50/1.8 STM. It will also have better AF and better bokeh. IQ would be slightly lower than Sigma Art, but good enough/excellent for most purposes. It will cost and weigh much less than Sigma and will sell a lot more.

Nifty fifty is the best selling lens anyone has ever made. Canon will add another best seller in that FL just by moderate optical improvement and by keeping the weight and price down.

 

[rfdesigner]

I am surprised that it took 5 pages before someone mentioned DR. Have we forgotten our priorities?!!! 8)

Sorry, couldn't resist. ;D

On a serious note, I don't think new 50/1.4 would have IS. It would be a STM just like new nifty fifty. Wide open it would have slightly better sharpness at the center and significantly better sharpness at the margins just like new 50/1.8 STM. It will also have better AF and better bokeh. IQ would be slightly lower than Sigma Art, but good enough/excellent for most purposes. It will cost and weigh much less than Sigma and will sell a lot more.

Nifty fifty is the best selling lens anyone has ever made. Canon will add another best seller in that FL just by moderate optical improvement and by keeping the weight and price down.

If they put STM on it I'll look elsewhere.

 

[StudentOfLight]

Whatever people with their charts may say, it is nearly impossible to find a second hand 50mm f/1.2 at a reasonable price anywhere. With all the Otuses and Sigmas around one might think that people would just get rid of their quirky unsharp lenses ASAP without a moment's hesitation. But it is not the case.
The market is wrong...or maybe there is something else to taking photographs than the sharpness of the lens?

I nearly bought one at 850 euros but then I came to my senses. What should I do with it, I am not an artist?

Maybe just many of them have been sold.

It is a very hard lens to use wide open because the depth of field is so shallow. Any serious professional will know this and this is a lens aimed at professionals, much more so than a 2.8 zoom that also fits well into an amateurs pack.

How much depth of field do you have with the 16-35mm f/4 L IS USM when you are shooting at 35mm f/4 focused at its minimum focus distance? Isn't it true if starting from infinity that the closer focus towards minimum focus distance the shallower your depth of field becomes?

 

[Sporgon]

Whatever people with their charts may say, it is nearly impossible to find a second hand 50mm f/1.2 at a reasonable price anywhere. With all the Otuses and Sigmas around one might think that people would just get rid of their quirky unsharp lenses ASAP without a moment's hesitation. But it is not the case.
The market is wrong...or maybe there is something else to taking photographs than the sharpness of the lens?

I nearly bought one at 850 euros but then I came to my senses. What should I do with it, I am not an artist?

Maybe just many of them have been sold.

It is a very hard lens to use wide open because the depth of field is so shallow.

Any serious professional will know this and this is a lens aimed at professionals, much more so than a 2.8 zoom that also fits well into an amateurs pack.

Dilbert, you are funny. I don't know any professional photographers who at this moment have the 50/1.2 and any who dont have a 2.8 standard zoom of some ilk.

 

[Bernd Stuht]

Not only professional Photographers are able to handle shallow DOF @ 50/85mm for Example 8) .

The 50 f1.2 L is an specialized Lens - my Opinion.

An 50mm @ 1.4 should be an real Standard lens, an Workaround of the old 1.4 USM .

Sharper, better Bokeh - not that much expensive, IS ? possible - not real necessary for me.

An updated 50mm would be nice for me - f1.2 L too - we will see what will happen.

Greetings

Bernd

 

[infared]

"I think Sigma will push the R&D team on a decent 50mm, just like I believe they did for the 35mm."

I'll say it again without context if that makes you happy, anybody that believes that comment is delusional.

The Canon lens department is leagues ahead of any other camera lens manufacturer, they have shown they can make pretty much any lens design they choose to and any compromises to IQ are either deliberate, as in the 50 f1.2 L (for enhanced portrait images), or due to price point, as in the 50 f1.4. That none of the five 50mm options Canon already offer fit your needs is irrelevant in the context of the Canon lens department capabilities, and they are certainly not 'pushed by Sigma' to do anything.

Defendants exhibit one:
http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=115&Camera=453&Sample=0&FLI=0&API=0&LensComp=941&CameraComp=0&FLIComp=0&APIComp=0

Defendants exhibit two:
http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=403&Camera=453&Sample=0&FLI=0&API=1&LensComp=941&CameraComp=453&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=0&APIComp=0

Can we please look at the facts?
We are talking about sloppy..sloppy...sloppy disregard for the "normal view" prime for FF cameras from the biggest manufacturer of said cameras. It's embarrassing and lazy.(same with the 35mm). Yes...Canon makes a LOT of 50mm lenses...but none of them are very good.
Sigma has called this to Canon's attention..with improved products and, more importantly SALES in a shrinking market.

 

[martti]

Whatever people with their charts may say, it is nearly impossible to find a second hand 50mm f/1.2 at a reasonable price anywhere. With all the Otuses and Sigmas around one might think that people would just get rid of their quirky unsharp lenses ASAP without a moment's hesitation. But it is not the case.
The market is wrong...or maybe there is something else to taking photographs than the sharpness of the lens?

I nearly bought one at 850 euros but then I came to my senses. What should I do with it, I am not an artist?

Maybe just many of them have been sold.

It is a very hard lens to use wide open because the depth of field is so shallow. Any serious professional will know this and this is a lens aimed at professionals, much more so than a 2.8 zoom that also fits well into an amateurs pack.

Somebody wants these lenses pretty badly, otherwise their price would go down. I am pretty sure that some of them have landed in the hands of amateurs. They might not have been properly informed of the shortcomings of the wide aperture. Of course, in extreme cases, this lense can be stopped down to reduce the risks of missed focus.
I am pretty sure that it is mentioned on the operation manual.
Where do you want me to send the potato?

 

[privatebydesign]

Whatever people with their charts may say, it is nearly impossible to find a second hand 50mm f/1.2 at a reasonable price anywhere. With all the Otuses and Sigmas around one might think that people would just get rid of their quirky unsharp lenses ASAP without a moment's hesitation. But it is not the case.
The market is wrong...or maybe there is something else to taking photographs than the sharpness of the lens?

I nearly bought one at 850 euros but then I came to my senses. What should I do with it, I am not an artist?

Maybe just many of them have been sold.

It is a very hard lens to use wide open because the depth of field is so shallow. Any serious professional will know this and this is a lens aimed at professionals, much more so than a 2.8 zoom that also fits well into an amateurs pack.

Somebody wants these lenses pretty badly, otherwise their price would go down.
...

They don't have to be wanted pretty badly, only the supply needs to meet demand - or that there just aren't a lot of them out there. When prices go down it means that more lenses are being supplied than there is demand for at the current price.

Many of them were sold new at over $1,500, now they can be had for $1,200 new, people trying to sell L lenses were used to the retail price going up so their depreciation cost was very low.

People who own a lens they paid $1,600 and more for are reluctant to accept their 'perfect copy' is worth less than $1,000. I'd rather pay $1,200 for a new one with 12 months warranty than $1,000 for a perfect secondhand one.