Canon EF 50mm f/1.4 USM Replacement Finally Coming? [CR1]

[Crosswind]

We shall see. Sharp at f/1.4, please.

There is definitely a reason why the Sigma 50 A for example is so big and heavy. I don't know if this same performance wide open is possible with such a small lens design.

I'd rather prefer an "OK to good performance" wide open, if Canon keeps the size/weight about the same as the 35 IS, maybe 100g heavier (because 1.4, but w/o IS).

I believe it was one of the smartest decisions from "stupid Canon" to offer several lightweight and small but still high performing lenses from 24 to 35mm. No other manufacturer has something comparable in their lens portfolio. That's one thing that sets Canon apart from other companies. I'd be glad to see them continuing this path and add a 50, with or without IS. (and hopefully a modern EF 20mm and 100mm someday too)

 

[Crosswind]

Re: Canon EF 50mm f/1.4 Micro USM Finally Coming? [CR1]

• [*]With external focusing, the front element sticks out a varying amount and fairly modest pressure (bumping into something in your bag, for instance) can reposition it and potentially damage the lens.

The same would be true for the 50 STM, because the front element can stick out quite a bit when you set focus. Now if I would store it like that, I can imagine that it is easily possible to damage the focusing motor.

But "stupid Canon" developed a simple and smart solution; everytime I shut off the camera, it will also quickly move the lens tube back inside, so that it doesn't stick out and there won't be any issues at all when storing it in your bag. I believe this should also be possible with nanoUSM. So I wouldn't worry about that in future iterations of the 50 1.4 lens.

So if it will have internal focusing like the 35IS, then good, if not, it won't be that dramatic at all. Agree?

 

[IglooEater]

The optical formula for 50mm lenses has not changed for for over 100 years. The double gauss lens was invented in the 1800's, and has not changed a lot since.

I think you'll find the Sigma 50mm Art is a reverse telephoto design. (Retrofocal)

 

[tron]

OK CR1 -> CR0 for small values of ... 1 and large values of ... 0 ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D

 

[Chaitanya]

So where is replacement for 50mm macro? Also that old not so good 50mm f1.4 has been the reason why Sigma 50mm A has been selling quite nicely amongst Canon shooter who dont want to shell for ok 50mm f1.2 and dont want plastic fantastic 50mm Stm.

 

[drmikeinpdx]

Too bad you didn't post an image of an old, beat to heck, copy of the 50. It would have told the story better than the pristine product photo.

 

[ashmadux]

MOTHER OF MERCY

That said, I hope they do better than the ghost-heavy 35mm f2. Rakish, busy oof/bokeh, and sharp but not too sexy look to the images it makes. It is no L.

However, I have been impressed with the output of my stalwart 50 1.4 for years now (better images than the newer 35 IS), especially on my 5d3. It's my most beloved lens right now, and for all its imperfections, it delivers fantastic images. i have even used my 70-200 wayyyyyyyy less because 2.8 on my 50 is just golden, zooming with my feet.

Lets see what canon does here. Unfortunately, most of their "long overdue" bodies have been a disappointment (7d2, blech)...so fingers are super crossed.

Lord knows how they will hack the 6d2 to not compete with the 5d4....i dont think it will be pretty.

 

[Etienne]

IS on the 24, the 28, and the 35, but no IS on any of the the 50s?
Anyway, by the time this comes out, Sony's A7r iii and A7s iii will be long in the tooth I'll be replacing them with a Sony A9 mark ii ... all of which will have 5-AXIS IBIS and on-sensor phase-detect AF.

 

[ashmadux]

Re: Canon EF 50mm f/1.4 Micro USM Finally Coming? [CR1]

Glad I stopped waiting for this and bought the 35 IS in the refurb sale a couple weeks back. I wonder if this is pointing to IS coming to the 50mm L refresh instead, with the 85mm f/1.4L IS rumors. So a cheaper 50 1.4, and an L that adds IS and weather sealing, like the 100 macros, though the price difference between those is much smaller.

I did the same in October. I was impressed when i rented it for behind the scene, but not so much since. Broken on arrival, canon fixed it up nicely, but the bokeh is pretty crap. The ef-M 22/f2 kind of embarrasses this lens with its rendering, and it's bokeh is better than many EF lenses.

Have you noticed the ghosting at all? it is HORRIBLE. Ive never seen such an effect on another lens.

 

[Etienne]

MOTHER OF MERCY

That said, I hope they do better than the ghost-heavy 35mm f2. Rakish, busy oof/bokeh, and sharp but not too sexy look to the images it makes. It is no L.

However, I have been impressed with the output of my stalwart 50 1.4 for years now (better images than the newer 35 IS), especially on my 5d3. It's my most beloved lens right now, and for all its imperfections, it delivers fantastic images. i have even used my 70-200 wayyyyyyyy less because 2.8 on my 50 is just golden, zooming with my feet.

Lets see what canon does here. Unfortunately, most of their "long overdue" bodies have been a disappointment (7d2, blech)...so fingers are super crossed.

Lord knows how they will hack the 6d2 to not compete with the 5d4....i dont think it will be pretty.

I have all three of these lenses. The 50 f/1.4 is a dog until it's stopped to 2.8 at least, and not really great until f/5.6.
"Ghost-heavy 35 f/2 IS" ... you must live at Hogwarts.
And the 70-200 f/2.8L IS II easily beats the 50 f/1.4 at f/2.8 in every respect, unless you dropped it on its head when it was a baby.

 

[slclick]

MOTHER OF MERCY

That said, I hope they do better than the ghost-heavy 35mm f2. Rakish, busy oof/bokeh, and sharp but not too sexy look to the images it makes. It is no L.

However, I have been impressed with the output of my stalwart 50 1.4 for years now (better images than the newer 35 IS), especially on my 5d3. It's my most beloved lens right now, and for all its imperfections, it delivers fantastic images. i have even used my 70-200 wayyyyyyyy less because 2.8 on my 50 is just golden, zooming with my feet.

Lets see what canon does here. Unfortunately, most of their "long overdue" bodies have been a disappointment (7d2, blech)...so fingers are super crossed.

Lord knows how they will hack the 6d2 to not compete with the 5d4....i dont think it will be pretty.

I have all three of these lenses. The 50 f/1.4 is a dog until it's stopped to 2.8 at least, and not really great until f/5.6.
"Ghost-heavy 35 f/2 IS" ... you must live at Hogwarts.
And the 70-200 f/2.8L IS II easily beats the 50 f/1.4 at f/2.8 in every respect, unless you dropped it on its head when it was a baby.

He's got to be pulling our leg

 

[ahsanford]

MOTHER OF MERCY

That said, I hope they do better than the ghost-heavy 35mm f2. Rakish, busy oof/bokeh, and sharp but not too sexy look to the images it makes. It is no L.

However, I have been impressed with the output of my stalwart 50 1.4 for years now (better images than the newer 35 IS), especially on my 5d3. It's my most beloved lens right now, and for all its imperfections, it delivers fantastic images. i have even used my 70-200 wayyyyyyyy less because 2.8 on my 50 is just golden, zooming with my feet.

Lets see what canon does here. Unfortunately, most of their "long overdue" bodies have been a disappointment (7d2, blech)...so fingers are super crossed.

Lord knows how they will hack the 6d2 to not compete with the 5d4....i dont think it will be pretty.

I have all three of these lenses. The 50 f/1.4 is a dog until it's stopped to 2.8 at least, and not really great until f/5.6.
"Ghost-heavy 35 f/2 IS" ... you must live at Hogwarts.
And the 70-200 f/2.8L IS II easily beats the 50 f/1.4 at f/2.8 in every respect, unless you dropped it on its head when it was a baby.

He said Ghost-heavy 35 f/2... not the 35 f/2 IS. Perhaps he was (correctly) pooping on the old pre-IS version, which was like the nifty fifty 50 f/1.8 II... minus the charm.

- A

 

[ahsanford]

I updated the post with a correction. I'm sorry for the confusion.

Ok, now we're talking.

Two questions:

1) How fast to focus is Nano USM vs. Micro USM vs. Ring USM? LensTip measures focusing speed, but it doesn't have either of the two nano USM lenses tested. What might we expect here on a 50? Faster than the micro USM? Slower adjustments but less hunting?

2) Does Nano USM mean the lens will be internal focusing? I believe the two Nano USM lenses to date are both internal focusing (the recent 18-135 IS and 70-300 non-L IS lenses), but the two features -- nano USM and internal focusing could be unrelated. Thoughts?

- A

 

[douglaurent]

Who would have thought that World War III is more likely to happen sooner than the 50/1.4 II?
At least World War III will include an element with the initials IS.
One could wonder why japanese decision makers have problems making major obvious decisions after decades, when one american decision maker alone can come up with major decisions (although dumb) on a daily basis.

 

[DJL329]

I updated the post with a correction. I'm sorry for the confusion.

Ok, now we're talking.

Two questions:

1) How fast to focus is Nano USM vs. Micro USM vs. Ring USM? LensTip measures focusing speed, but it doesn't have either of the two nano USM lenses tested. What might we expect here on a 50? Faster than the micro USM? Slower adjustments but less hunting?

2) Does Nano USM mean the lens will be internal focusing? I believe the two Nano USM lenses to date are both internal focusing (the recent 18-135 IS and 70-300 non-L IS lenses), but the two features -- nano USM and internal focusing could be unrelated. Thoughts?

- A

An article from Canon regarding Nano USM:

"AF speed during still-image shooting rivals what users have come to expect from high-end lenses with Canon’s powerful ring-type USMs. It’s brisk and nearly instantaneous — an almost perfect match for the new AF system in the EOS 80D. Most users will doubtless agree that it’s a clear step forward from what we’ve come to expect in affordable lens focus, whether we’re referring to the previous Micro USM focus motors used in many such lenses, or the recent STM versions."

http://learn.usa.canon.com/resources/articles/2016/eos-80D/eos80d-nano-usm.shtml

This Digital Picture page contains a video comparison of the focus speeds of the Nano and STM versions of the EF-S 18-135 IS lens:

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/News/News-Post.aspx?News=17726

 

[jd7]

I updated the post with a correction. I'm sorry for the confusion.

Ok, now we're talking.

Two questions:

1) How fast to focus is Nano USM vs. Micro USM vs. Ring USM? LensTip measures focusing speed, but it doesn't have either of the two nano USM lenses tested. What might we expect here on a 50? Faster than the micro USM? Slower adjustments but less hunting?

2) Does Nano USM mean the lens will be internal focusing? I believe the two Nano USM lenses to date are both internal focusing (the recent 18-135 IS and 70-300 non-L IS lenses), but the two features -- nano USM and internal focusing could be unrelated. Thoughts?

- A

I briefly played with a 70-300 IS II the other day. I was just in a shop so I wasn't able to give it a real work out, but for what it is worth the AF seemed pretty snappy to me, even when going from close to far focus distance or vice versa. I'm not saying it matches the 70-200 2.8L II, but it was quick enough I don't think I'd notice it for most purposes. It was far faster than my old 40 STM pancake (although I think maybe the 40 pancake is slow even compared to other STM lenses?).

I don't know the answer to your second question, but in this day and age I would be surprised to see Canon release a 50 1.4 which didn't focus internally.

If the rumour is correct, maybe we're looking at 50 1.8 STM -> 50 1.4 nano USM (50 1.4 II?) -> 50 1.4L IS (if the 50L goes the same was as the anticipated 85L IS). If so, I reckon that would allow the new 50 1.4 to stay around the same price as the current 50 1.4, which would give Canon three distinct price points. They would have nothing competing directly with the 50 1.4 Art (I'm assuming a nano USM lens would have size and optics closer to the current Canon 50 1.4 than to the Art), but nothing unusual about that. And I wonder if that would point to the 85 1.8 being replaced with an 85 1.8 nano-USM too?? (Yes, I know, not much basis for any of this - just speculating.)

If the above turned out to be correct, interesting that at the wider focal lengths Canon would have mid-range with IS (eg 35 2 IS) and L without IS (35L II), but at normal/longer focal lengths it would have mid-range without IS and L with IS.

On a side note, I have to say I liked the feel of the 70-300 IS II when I used it. Not built like an L of course, but I thought it felt good in use. Just a shame the optics don't seem to be so fantastic, although I'm waiting for more reviews before I completely give up on it.

 

[Antono Refa]

The optical formula for 50mm lenses has not changed for for over 100 years. The double gauss lens was invented in the 1800's, and has not changed a lot since.

I think you'll find the Sigma 50mm Art is a reverse telephoto design. (Retrofocal)

And at the same price bracket as the EF 35mm f/2 IS USM.

 

[pj1974]

I updated the post with a correction. I'm sorry for the confusion.

Ok, now we're talking.

Two questions:

1) How fast to focus is Nano USM vs. Micro USM vs. Ring USM? LensTip measures focusing speed, but it doesn't have either of the two nano USM lenses tested. What might we expect here on a 50? Faster than the micro USM? Slower adjustments but less hunting?

2) Does Nano USM mean the lens will be internal focusing? I believe the two Nano USM lenses to date are both internal focusing (the recent 18-135 IS and 70-300 non-L IS lenses), but the two features -- nano USM and internal focusing could be unrelated. Thoughts?

- A

Fairly soon after the 80D and 18-135mm nanoUSM were available here in Australia, I went to a few local photography stores to 'test' / get a feel for them. I must say I was very impressed with the AF speed of the 18-135mm nanoUSM. It really snapped into focus quickly, both in 'medium level' (interior shop) light, and (more understandably) in brighter outdoors conditions.

In fact, one of the Canon reps / sales persons noticed I was testing the AF speed and he said 'It focuses really fast, doesn't it?'. I agreed, saying I was impressed with that. He indicated that there was an optimisation between the new 18-135mm nanoUSM and the 80D (in terms of algorithm). Some weeks later I read something similar (it was a statement from Canon somewhere, and not an opinion piece / guess). 8)

In one store I also compared the AF speed of the 18-135mm nanoUSM on a 80D vs a 35mm f/1.4 II. The 18-135mm was noticeably quicker and also felt more confident.

While I have held and briefly used a 70-300mm nanoUSM, I have not 'tested' its AF speed in the same way as I have tested the 18-135mm nanoUSM.

I do not have a strong opinion of the optical quality of either of these nanoUSM lenses yet... but a number of reviews (pro and uses) indicate the 18-135mm STM is actually sharper than the nanoUSM version.

For the record, I would LOVE Canon to produce a 50mm f/1.6 IS USM (or nanoUSM), with a 58mm filter, weighing about 250gr. One can... "dream" :

Kind regards

PJ

 

[ahsanford]

One could wonder why japanese decision makers have problems making major obvious decisions after decades, when one american decision maker alone can come up with major decisions (although dumb) on a daily basis.

I'd so love to go there... but we shouldn't go there.

I cherish this place as a sanctuary from what everyone else is talking about on social media right now, so let's please stick to this lens rumor, thanks.

- A

 

[Quackator]

Surpass the Sigma ART, or I'll keep my money.

Absence of CA wide open is nothing Canon's 50mm lenses are famous for.