Canon EF 50mm f/1.8 STM Coming Next Month? [CR2]

[ahsanford]

Canon, stop teasing us and give us the non-L 50 f/nooneknows IS USM that we want, need, crave and pine for. Give me my IS, internal focusing, reliable fast modern USM, sharp corners and a relatively small size and you can take all of my money.

The nifty fifty is underfeatured. The sharpness per dollar is stellar, but I need the focusing to be quicker than running molasses. Replacing a slow and noisy AF motor with an slightly-less slow STM motor is why this will be a budget lens.

The 50L is finnicky tool for shallow DOF work that delivers corners like cotton balls. If you are shooting anything narrower than f/2.8 with it, you overpaid, as the 20+ year old 50 f/1.4 outresolves it.

I want my autofocusing 50 prime that is a 9/10 at everything and isn't a pickle jar the size and weight of a standard zoom (yeah, Sigma, I said it.).

Boatloads of cash are waiting for you, Canon. You like cash. Get it done.

- A

 

[ajfotofilmagem]

Please Canon, make ef-s 30mm 1.8 stm and ef-s 100mm 2.0 stm with reasonable price.

I spent several years wishing Canon make an EF-S 30mm F1.4 (or F1.8 Image Stabilizer) costing less than $ 500.

However, the launch of the EF-S 24mm seems to indicate that my dreams will not come true.

In the case of 100mm, I bought the Canon 100mm F2 (great lens) because I believe that there will not be a substitute below $700.

 

[ahsanford]

I am very happy to be rid of the 50 f/1.4.

Based on the awesome optical characteristics of Canon's recent releases, I am confident the new 50 f/1.8 STM will easily outperform the ancient 50 f/1.4.

If this is STM + f/1.8, this will be a <$200 replacement for the nifty fifty f/1.8 -- it will not replace the 50 f/1.4.

So swapping your 50 f/1.4 for that would be like trading a comfy old mid-sized sedan with power windows and cruise control for a brand new ultracompact with windows you roll down by hand. It will drive better (it will be a little sharper), but I think you will miss your creature comforts (principally, focus speed). And, personally, I think you'll feel bad when Canon eventually replaces the 50 f/1.4 with the modern non-L 50 f/nooneknows IS USM that we all are expecting.

- A

 

[Haydn1971]

Fully expect this to be a 50mm f1.8 Pancake as a nifty fifty replacement for a similar price to the 40/24mm pancakes. That then leaves room for a 50mm f1.4/1.8 IS for a premium over the current 35mm f2.0 IS

 

[LonelyBoy]

I am very happy to be rid of the 50 f/1.4.

Based on the awesome optical characteristics of Canon's recent releases, I am confident the new 50 f/1.8 STM will easily outperform the ancient 50 f/1.4.

If this is STM + f/1.8, this will be a <$200 replacement for the nifty fifty f/1.8 -- it will not replace the 50 f/1.4.

So swapping your 50 f/1.4 for that would be like trading a comfy old mid-sized sedan with power windows and cruise control for a brand new ultracompact with windows you roll down by hand. It will drive better (it will be a little sharper), but I think you will miss your creature comforts (principally, focus speed). And, personally, I think you'll feel bad when Canon eventually replaces the 50 f/1.4 with the modern non-L 50 f/nooneknows IS USM that we all are expecting.

- A

What if they use that 50 f/1.3 formula that was on this site a couple of weeks ago and make it an L that isn't as expensive as the current one, which would replace BOTH the L and the f/1.4? That would get around the issue of replacing the 1.4 before the L and rendering the latter obsolete. Hopefully it would include IS, as well.

 

[Berowne]

A nifty-fifty with IS for ca 500€ would be much too expensive. The new 200€ Nikon 50/1.8 is the rival. So hopefully we have a not too bad 50mm-prime with a fair AF for less than 300€. I am shure Canon is able to produce a stellar one. But they will not do it.

 

[dadgummit]

This sounds like a decent upgrade to an already good lens in their lineup.

This does not fill the large gaping hole in said lineup though. We need a USM upgrade to the fragile 50 1.4. Personally, I would be very happy with a 50mm F1.4 or 1.8 or 2 with IS and USM. Even better if it is the size and weight of the 35mm f2 IS.

 

[ahsanford]

What if they use that 50 f/1.3 formula that was on this site a couple of weeks ago and make it an L that isn't as expensive as the current one, which would replace BOTH the L and the f/1.4? That would get around the issue of replacing the 1.4 before the L and rendering the latter obsolete. Hopefully it would include IS, as well.

Fair question, but I think that in this very popular focal length, Canon can offer more price points because I think they are aimed at different users with different needs.

50 f/1.8 (with no 'named' AF motor technology) --> will become this thread's new 50 f/1.8 STM
(peg this around $150-200)

• This is a budget FF prime for those growing out of kit zooms, a young student who wants to properly learn photography and delve into manual settings, etc. This also serves nicely as an equiv 80mm first portrait lens for crop users. Finally, it's also a "gateway drug" of a lens, as it offers a much smaller DOF and slightly sharper performance than a kit zoom -- people use this lens, get hooked on primes, and buy more expensive ones later in their 'photographic journey'.

50 f/1.4 USM (note it's micro-USM) --> will be replaced with my future best friend 50 f/nooneknows IS USM
(peg between $350 and $700 depending on features)

• This is your classic 50mm workhorse. Sure, Canon has an even wider aperture tool for bokeh fanatics, but the f/1.4 is the lens that gives you a little bit of everything. It's sharp, it usually focuses quickly and doesn't let you down. Some copies have had focusing problems and the design is a somewhat ancient one. But imagine a 50 prime just like the 24/28/35 non-L IS refreshes -- IS, sharpness on par with the L prime of the same FL, modern/reliable/fast USM, internal focusing, improved build quality, etc. -- and you can see why people would really really really want this lens.

50 f/1.0L --> 50 f/1.2L USM --> will be replaced with a softball-sized globe of shiny silicon that magically transports colors to your sensor
(peg this around the cost of buying Lithuania)

• This is your high-art tool and prestige piece. You get a red ring, weather sealing gasket, a fraction of a stop quicker, and some pretty sweet bokeh. You also (historically) have gotten questionable/finnicky AF in certain copies, but the 50 f/1.4 is guilty there too. And if you are stopping down past f/2.8, you really don't need this lens -- the 50 f/1.4 has shown to be sharper for general use. So many photographers do the math and say either "I don't shoot ultrawide apertures enough to warrant the added spend" or "I occasionally don't want magical glowy blur everywhere other than the center " / "I might shoot landscapes with this" and opt for cheaper and/or sharper options elsewhere.

Canon could make the one 50 to rule them all and eliminate the two higher price points -- but it would be the fancier 50 that costs a ton. Let's assume for a moment they did this, and they made an Otus/Sigma Art killer with IS. It would be comically expensive, long and massive. 100% of existing 50L users would be interested in it, but only 10-20% of the 50 f/1.4 crowd would have the coin and desire to go for such an overpowered tool. In short, I think Canon would be leaving a lot of money on the table with the middle group, who want a solid, reliable prime they can count on.

(And yes, I've left off the 50 macro. There's always one person that brings that up. )

- A

 

[ahsanford]

So if I do not think about canon creating a whole range of STM zooms and primes and what that could mean for video shooters, what the market is, but look at the 50 I would like when my 50/1.4 kicks the bucket like my furst copy did...
- build quality (so not nifty fifty, plastic fantastic)
- IS
- less vignetting wide open but I will accept some
- 1.4 but 1.8 if it is good wide open

In short: I outgrew the 1.8 will keep the 1.4 until it cracks, not sure what I would replace it with, hope this could be it.

And you are not alone. Many many many people want that lens as well. It's 9/10 optically that has all the bells and whistles, but costs a reasonable 6/10 sort of price (when you consider $1500 primes and such). I imagine that lens will be a $750 first offer and $550 before too long sort of lens like the other non-L IS refreshes, but Sigma's Art lens pricing might force a more reasonable starting price.

I just think that there is enough pent up demand for a sharp-in-the-corners 50 prime with fast and reliable AF that isn't a 1.5-2 pound paperweight that people will come out of the woodwork for it. Sigma made one, but (a) it's big, (b) it lacks IS, and (c) it's AF is good but not bulletproof. The 24/28/35 refreshes are 90% as sharp as that 50 Art but have none of the three aforementioned drawbacks. So give me that in a 50 and I'm in on day one.

- A

 

[rbr]

If Canon comes out with a 50 prime in the same series or quality as the 24/28/35 IS lenses they'll have my money too. That seems to be be the lens that everyone is hoping for right now.

 

[ahsanford]

I'm fascinated folks think that this F/1.8 STM might be a pancake. Pancakes are great, but smaller non=pancake primes with some small barrel to them give a little something to hold onto and generally have better focus rings. Further, pursuant to my 'nifty fifties are gateway primes to buying pricier primes' comment, shouldn't the user experience of gripping and holding the camera + lens be similar between the budget and pricier primes? (I honestly don't have a pancake / not pancake preference for such an entry lens and was just curious.)

Also, I know Canon sells non-pancake zooms with STM, but have they ever sold a non-pancake STM prime before? (Is the EF-M 22mm considered a pancake or just a tiny lens?)

- A

 

[Crosswind]

If Canon comes out with a 50 prime in the same series or quality as the 24/28/35 IS lenses they'll have my money too. That seems to be be the lens that everyone is hoping for right now.

yea I'd love to see the new fifty in about the same size as the 35 IS. Not bigger not smaller. And with a distance scale. I'm so excited

 

[LonelyBoy]

Canon could make the one 50 to rule them all and eliminate the two higher price points -- but it would be the fancier 50 that costs a ton. Let's assume for a moment they did this, and they made an Otus/Sigma Art killer with IS. It would be comically expensive, long and massive. 100% of existing 50L users would be interested in it, but only 10-20% of the 50 f/1.4 crowd would have the coin and desire to go for such an overpowered tool. In short, I think Canon would be leaving a lot of money on the table with the middle group, who want a solid, reliable prime they can count on.

(And yes, I've left off the 50 macro. There's always one person that brings that up. )

- A

You may be right, but I hope you're wrong. If that's the case, the 1.2L will be replaced before the mid-range, and we don't even really have any rumors about that. I want the same lens you talk about in a later post (50mm version of my 35/2 IS) so bad that I'm hesitant to upgrade to full-frame without a compelling 50mm with reliable AF. I was hopeful that this lens would have IS and be good enough for that purpose, but it doesn't seem like it now.

Bah.

 

[Ripley]

For all of you with the Sigma 50 Art, does the autofocus not work properly on a regular basis or are the posts on the topic greatly exaggerated? I like the sharpness from the lens, but I can't buy it if it doesn't nail focus almost every time I fire off a shot. I would be using it for shooting weddings on my 5DIII. Thanks.

I couldn't honestly answer, as I only received the lens yesterday. However, I shared the same concerns as you (though I don't have to rely on it for a paying gig) and started a thread at dpreview asking for people's experiences with the 5D3/50 Art combo:
http://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/55307468

I've had my 50A since the holidays and it always nails focus. For reference, I use it almost exclusively for portraiture. Many times, at close proximity with very thin DOF.

 

[The Bad Duck]

Interesting. It does not sound exciting at all but it is great news that there is at least some movement in the 50mm segment.

I hope it can beat the 50 /1.4 in terms of AF hit rate, sharpness @1.8-2 and hopefully more pleasing bokeh. IS would be lovely but to me it is not a must have. USM would be sweet but just keep the AF hit the target all the time and I will be happy. Not thrilled, but happy. It´s a tool. Performance over emotions.

But then again... a 50 /1.4 IS USM sounds much better

 

[ajfotofilmagem]

Canon needs to update its 3 50mm lens (50 Macro does not make sense exist today).

The Canon 50mm F1.4 is not as good as Sigma Art, is not as cheap as the YONGNUO. If the Canon substitute take a long time, will lose both consumers who want quality, and those who want cheaper price.

The Canon 50mm F1.8 is also losing sales to YONGNUO, at least in Asia, and should arrive any day with STM engine.

The Canon 50mm F1.2 sells fewer units, and perhaps never a substitute to compete with the Sigma Art.

 

[dolina]

My guess is it'll cost $150-200 and be optically superior to the current 50/1.8.

And yet people are gonna whine about the doubling in price despite the overall improvement of the lens.

Those who dislike have alternatives like Yongnuo.

 

[zim]

What if they use that 50 f/1.3 formula that was on this site a couple of weeks ago and make it an L that isn't as expensive as the current one, which would replace BOTH the L and the f/1.4? That would get around the issue of replacing the 1.4 before the L and rendering the latter obsolete. Hopefully it would include IS, as well.

That would be too good to be true, so no chance ;D :'(

 

[meywd]

I guess there is no need to wait, better save for the sigma

DO IT! It is a bigger lens than most 50's but worth it.

I love my Art 1.4 50 and am looking forward to getting the Art 1.4 24 in a couple of weeks. ;D

I am waiting for the 24 1.4 art as well, if the coma is as good as the samyang/rokinon then i will get the 24 and postpone the 50

 

[TW]

What if they use that 50 f/1.3 formula that was on this site a couple of weeks ago and make it an L that isn't as expensive as the current one, which would replace BOTH the L and the f/1.4? That would get around the issue of replacing the 1.4 before the L and rendering the latter obsolete. Hopefully it would include IS, as well.

Fair question, but I think that in this very popular focal length, Canon can offer more price points because I think they are aimed at different users with different needs.

50 f/1.8 (with no 'named' AF motor technology) --> will become this thread's new 50 f/1.8 STM
(peg this around $150-200)

• This is a budget FF prime for those growing out of kit zooms, a young student who wants to properly learn photography and delve into manual settings, etc. This also serves nicely as an equiv 80mm first portrait lens for crop users. Finally, it's also a "gateway drug" of a lens, as it offers a much smaller DOF and slightly sharper performance than a kit zoom -- people use this lens, get hooked on primes, and buy more expensive ones later in their 'photographic journey'.

50 f/1.4 USM (note it's micro-USM) --> will be replaced with my future best friend 50 f/nooneknows IS USM
(peg between $350 and $700 depending on features)

• This is your classic 50mm workhorse. Sure, Canon has an even wider aperture tool for bokeh fanatics, but the f/1.4 is the lens that gives you a little bit of everything. It's sharp, it usually focuses quickly and doesn't let you down. Some copies have had focusing problems and the design is a somewhat ancient one. But imagine a 50 prime just like the 24/28/35 non-L IS refreshes -- IS, sharpness on par with the L prime of the same FL, modern/reliable/fast USM, internal focusing, improved build quality, etc. -- and you can see why people would really really really want this lens.

50 f/1.0L --> 50 f/1.2L USM --> will be replaced with a softball-sized globe of shiny silicon that magically transports colors to your sensor
(peg this around the cost of buying Lithuania)

• This is your high-art tool and prestige piece. You get a red ring, weather sealing gasket, a fraction of a stop quicker, and some pretty sweet bokeh. You also (historically) have gotten questionable/finnicky AF in certain copies, but the 50 f/1.4 is guilty there too. And if you are stopping down past f/2.8, you really don't need this lens -- the 50 f/1.4 has shown to be sharper for general use. So many photographers do the math and say either "I don't shoot ultrawide apertures enough to warrant the added spend" or "I occasionally don't want magical glowy blur everywhere other than the center " / "I might shoot landscapes with this" and opt for cheaper and/or sharper options elsewhere.

Canon could make the one 50 to rule them all and eliminate the two higher price points -- but it would be the fancier 50 that costs a ton. Let's assume for a moment they did this, and they made an Otus/Sigma Art killer with IS. It would be comically expensive, long and massive. 100% of existing 50L users would be interested in it, but only 10-20% of the 50 f/1.4 crowd would have the coin and desire to go for such an overpowered tool. In short, I think Canon would be leaving a lot of money on the table with the middle group, who want a solid, reliable prime they can count on.

(And yes, I've left off the 50 macro. There's always one person that brings that up. )

- A

Well said. I agree completely. But you left out the 50 Macro. ;D