ahsanford said:
Canon Rumors said:
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.