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

[LOALTD]

Agreed, that uber fragile focus motor in the 50mm f1.4 USM makes them too much money to replace. I can't think of another lens in the current canon lineup that has a built in reason to purchase a replacement on a regular basis.

The one and only reason I never purchased one...

Seriously, I've paid to have mine fixed 3 times now...

 

[lintoni]

Agreed, that uber fragile focus motor in the 50mm f1.4 USM makes them too much money to replace. I can't think of another lens in the current canon lineup that has a built in reason to purchase a replacement on a regular basis.

The one and only reason I never purchased one...

Seriously, I've paid to have mine fixed 3 times now...

Eek! Rather you than me! But seriously, rather it didn't happen to anyone. It's not good for the photographer, it's not good for Canon's reputation that a workhorse lens like a 50mm f/1.4 is so unreliable...

 

[brianleighty]

I've thought about it and decided. It makes sense for Canon to release a 1.8 STM on the cheap. I just don't understand why no IS when their cheapest 18-55 has it, but whatever. And then it will make major sense for them to release a new 50/1.4 IS in the manner of the new 35/2 IS. They would be super smart then. They'd kill it. And they'd be logical.

If you look at size of the glass on the 18-55 and compare to any of the 50's you'll see why. The 18 has a tiny lens in the middle where as pretty much the entire 50 is glass. Not to say it can't be done but it's just more work and thus more expense. Not what you want for the entry level lens.

 

[LonelyBoy]

I think we need to speak more clearly to Canon on that front:

My man, I like the cut of your jib!

I'm starting to wonder if STM will take over all the low-end lenses - the new nifty, the EF-S zooms have all gone that way, and there's the new "non-L, non-DO 70-300", which pretty much has to be an IS USMii... or an IS STM. Specifying that it was not one of those other two lines seemed oddly specific if the goal was just to imply a markII of the IS USM. With the 24-105 IS STM serving as the low-end FF zoom, a telephoto zoom to pair with it makes sense (like the 10-18 IS STM, 18-55(-135) IS STM, 55-250 IS STM trio).

Or maybe I'm crazy.

 

[Ruined]

My money is still on this being the EF 50mm f/1.8 IS as described in the below patent:
http://www.canonrumors.com/2013/07/patent-canon-50-f1-8-is/

50mm STM non-IS just seems to overlap too much with the 40mm f/2.8 STM pancake...

If it does turn out to be the 50mm f/1.8 IS, I would not be surprised if it is paired with a replacement for the 85mm f/1.8, too.

 

[tcmatthews]

I think we need to speak more clearly to Canon on that front:

My man, I like the cut of your jib!

I'm starting to wonder if STM will take over all the low-end lenses - the new nifty, the EF-S zooms have all gone that way, and there's the new "non-L, non-DO 70-300", which pretty much has to be an IS USMii... or an IS STM. Specifying that it was not one of those other two lines seemed oddly specific if the goal was just to imply a markII of the IS USM. With the 24-105 IS STM serving as the low-end FF zoom, a telephoto zoom to pair with it makes sense (like the 10-18 IS STM, 18-55(-135) IS STM, 55-250 IS STM trio).

Or maybe I'm crazy.

I fully expect that all non-USM lenses will be replaced with STM. So if you are crazy so am I. A low cost STM 50mm makes sense.

 

[Ruined]

I fully expect that all non-USM lenses will be replaced with STM. So if you are crazy so am I. A low cost STM 50mm makes sense.

Even with the EF 40mm f/2.8 STM already in the market, often with a street price of $149? How many people who bought the 40mm STM would also want a similar (or lower) quality 50mm STM? Is there really anyone who would reject the 40mm f/2.8 STM but accept the 50mm f/1.8 STM or vice-versa given the similar focal length and budget price? How much cheaper could a 50mm STM be to make? Even if they made it ultra plastic cheapness, wouldn't it be cheaper to market one model in volume (40mm STM) then market and stock both the 40mm and 50mm STM? And there would still be no updated satisfying enthusiast model to replace the 50mm f/1.4 which has straight aperture blades and questionable AF reliability.

I just think this makes more sense:

Scenario A:
40mm f/2.8 STM (lowest cost walkaround, moderate quality)
50mm f/1.8 IS USM (moderate cost, high quality)
50mm f/1.2L USM (high cost, portrait specialty)

Scenario B:
50mm f/1.8 STM (lowest cost walkaround at 50mm & f/1.8, passable quality)
40mm f/2.8 STM (very low cost walkaround at 40mm & f/2.8, moderate quality)
50mm f/1.4 USM (low-moderate cost, moderate quality & f/1.4 but questionable AF motor reliability)
50mm f/1.2L ISM (high cost, portrait specialty)


Scenario A seems to better address the three main markets - budget minded, enthusiast, and professional.

Scenario B seems to deliver too much in the budget market, and not enough in the enthusiast market.

The only way I see a 50mm STM happening is if it is built like a POS and can be marketed at an even lower price than the 40mm STM when it debuts (i.e. MSRP 129.99). Remember, part of the reason the 50mm f/1.8 II is so cheap is because of its age as R&D was recouped long ago, not just how much it costs to make. So I do not think a 50mm STM would debut at half the price of the 40mm STM.

 

[ahsanford]

I think we need to speak more clearly to Canon on that front:

My man, I like the cut of your jib!

I'm starting to wonder if STM will take over all the low-end lenses - the new nifty, the EF-S zooms have all gone that way, and there's the new "non-L, non-DO 70-300", which pretty much has to be an IS USMii... or an IS STM. Specifying that it was not one of those other two lines seemed oddly specific if the goal was just to imply a markII of the IS USM. With the 24-105 IS STM serving as the low-end FF zoom, a telephoto zoom to pair with it makes sense (like the 10-18 IS STM, 18-55(-135) IS STM, 55-250 IS STM trio).

Or maybe I'm crazy.

I fully expect that all non-USM lenses will be replaced with STM. So if you are crazy so am I. A low cost STM 50mm makes sense.

If every lens that had no AF motor listed in the product line (i.e. the squeaky noisy nasty, like with the original EF-S 18-55 or the current 50 F/1.8 II) was upgraded to STM, we should all be thankful. STM is faster at focusing than those ancient unnamed AF motor lenses. It's an upgrade. Take it.

If mid-level previously USM lenses go STM with their next versions, I will throw an epic tantrum. I do not shoot video, so STM is a categorical waste of my time in comparison to USM. If you are a stills shooter with a cabinet full of USM lenses like I am, STM stands for "Shots Totally Missed".

STM is not bad, mind you -- it's just that USM is better, and that's what I expect when something north of $500 is leaving my pocket.

- A

 

[LonelyBoy]

If every lens that had no AF motor listed in the product line (i.e. the squeaky noisy nasty, like with the original EF-S 18-55 or the current 50 F/1.8 II) was upgraded to STM, we should all be thankful. STM is faster at focusing than those ancient unnamed AF motor lenses. It's an upgrade. Take it.

If mid-level previously USM lenses go STM with their next versions, I will throw an epic tantrum. I do not shoot video, so STM is a categorical waste of my time in comparison to USM. If you are a stills shooter with a cabinet full of USM lenses like I am, STM stands for "Shots Totally Missed".

STM is not bad, mind you -- it's just that USM is better, and that's what I expect when something north of $500 is leaving my pocket.

- A

Do you mean any "USM" or just the ring-type USM? Which is the current 70-300 IS USM? I honestly don't know. The kicker, then, will be what form the rumored "non-DO, non-L" 70-300 takes. Does it replace the IS USM, which currently retails $650, with a new IS USMii? Does it add an IS STM underneath that, for $500? Or does it replace the IS USM, leaving the 70-300 lineup with an IS STM at ~$800 (nominal, and I'd predict a hard, rapid price drop like the 24-105 IS STM) and an L at $1350? I'm a little sad we haven't heard any more chatter about it recently; I'm very curious.

 

[Ruined]

Just like USM, there are also two types of STM by the way, the superior screw type in the 18-135mm STM and the noisier/slower micromotor type in the 40mm STM pancake. Worth noting.

 

[ajfotofilmagem]

Just like USM, there are also two types of STM by the way, the superior screw type in the 18-135mm STM and the noisier/slower micromotor type in the 40mm STM pancake. Worth noting.

The modest Canon 18-55mm STM has very fast and quiet autofocus. In fact, the AF of this lens cheap is better than the EF 28-135mm IS.

 

[LonelyBoy]

Just like USM, there are also two types of STM by the way, the superior screw type in the 18-135mm STM and the noisier/slower micromotor type in the 40mm STM pancake. Worth noting.

Right, but the micromotor is only in the pancakes (it's also in the 24mm EF-S pancake). I don't think they'd use it in a traditional lens; I read it was a space constraint issue.

 

[ahsanford]

Scenario A:
40mm f/2.8 STM (lowest cost walkaround, moderate quality)
50mm f/1.8 IS USM (moderate cost, high quality)
50mm f/1.2L USM (high cost, portrait specialty)

Scenario B:
50mm f/1.8 STM (lowest cost walkaround at 50mm & f/1.8, passable quality)
40mm f/2.8 STM (very low cost walkaround at 40mm & f/2.8, moderate quality)
50mm f/1.4 USM (low-moderate cost, moderate quality & f/1.4 but questionable AF motor reliability)
50mm f/1.2L ISM (high cost, portrait specialty)

Regarding all this, throw out the 40 pancake. It will be Scenario B.

I see the EF 40 f/2.8 pancake and the EF 50 f/2.5 Macro as odd ducks in Canon's lineup that happen to be on or about 50mm FL. I don't see them as part of the Low-Medium-High tiering of options in the 50 market. They are niche lenses for niche needs.

There will be a 50 f/1.8 (something) -- probably STM.

There must be a 50/nooneknows IS USM that will look like the 24/28/35 non-L IS refreshes. The need for that lens is staggering.

There must be a 50L of some sort.

I still see a decent - good - great three-price-point 50 market for Canon in the near, mid, and long-term.

- A

 

[Random Orbits]

Scenario A:
40mm f/2.8 STM (lowest cost walkaround, moderate quality)
50mm f/1.8 IS USM (moderate cost, high quality)
50mm f/1.2L USM (high cost, portrait specialty)

Scenario B:
50mm f/1.8 STM (lowest cost walkaround at 50mm & f/1.8, passable quality)
40mm f/2.8 STM (very low cost walkaround at 40mm & f/2.8, moderate quality)
50mm f/1.4 USM (low-moderate cost, moderate quality & f/1.4 but questionable AF motor reliability)
50mm f/1.2L ISM (high cost, portrait specialty)

Regarding all this, throw out the 40 pancake. It will be Scenario B.

I see the EF 40 f/2.8 pancake and the EF 50 f/2.5 Macro as odd ducks in Canon's lineup that happen to be on or about 50mm FL. I don't see them as part of the Low-Medium-High tiering of options in the 50 market. They are niche lenses for niche needs.

There will be a 50 f/1.8 (something) -- probably STM.

There must be a 50/nooneknows IS USM that will look like the 24/28/35 non-L IS refreshes. The need for that lens is staggering.

There must be a 50L of some sort.

I still see a decent - good - great three-price-point 50 market for Canon in the near, mid, and long-term.

- A

+1. The 40 has a good performance/price ratio, but with a max aperture of f/2.8 it doesn't offer much over a f/2.8 zoom besides price and size. A 50 f/1.8 would give you low light capability compared to the zoom.

 

[zim]

I see the EF 40 f/2.8 pancake and the EF 50 f/2.5 Macro as odd ducks in Canon's lineup that happen to be on or about 50mm FL. I don't see them as part of the Low-Medium-High tiering of options in the 50 market. They are niche lenses for niche needs.

There will be a 50 f/1.8 (something) -- probably STM.

There must be a 50/nooneknows IS USM that will look like the 24/28/35 non-L IS refreshes. The need for that lens is staggering.

There must be a 50L of some sort.

I still see a decent - good - great three-price-point 50 market for Canon in the near, mid, and long-term.

- A

+2
I think you've got that spot on

with regard to the 50 f/1.8 (something) -- probably STM I think it will be simply as originally reported a 50 f/1.8 (nothing) STM

 

[ahsanford]

+2
I think you've got that spot on

with regard to the 50 f/1.8 (something) -- probably STM I think it will be simply as originally reported a 50 f/1.8 (nothing) STM

That's what I meant - sorry for the weird term. The (something) means I don't think that the next nifty fifty will be another nameless AF technology. I agree with the rumor that it will be STM.

One could argue that nameless AF motor tech is dead or soon to be dead. Every lens Canon sells will soon only be STM or USM, with the exception of the MF lenses like T/S, MP-E 65 macro, etc.

- A

 

[LOALTD]

Still... I wonder when they're intending to release the 1.4.

I think we need to speak more clearly to Canon on that front:

This, this, this, 1000X: this.


YOU for President in 2016!

 

[zim]

+2
I think you've got that spot on

with regard to the 50 f/1.8 (something) -- probably STM I think it will be simply as originally reported a 50 f/1.8 (nothing) STM

That's what I meant - sorry for the weird term. The (something) means I don't think that the next nifty fifty will be another nameless AF technology. I agree with the rumor that it will be STM.

One could argue that nameless AF motor tech is dead or soon to be dead. Every lens Canon sells will soon only be STM or USM, with the exception of the MF lenses like T/S, MP-E 65 macro, etc.

- A

Ah! Thought you meant IS, so we agree to agree ;D

 

[pj1974]

Just like USM, there are also two types of STM by the way, the superior screw type in the 18-135mm STM and the noisier/slower micromotor type in the 40mm STM pancake. Worth noting.

The modest Canon 18-55mm STM has very fast and quiet autofocus. In fact, the AF of this lens cheap is better than the EF 28-135mm IS.

I have been impressed with STM AF when I’ve used it… relatively fast and seemingly accurate. (I don’t use video, so it’s functionality there is not of use to me).

Not that I own an STM lens, but have used a few versions of the ‘faster’ STM focus mechanisms, in eg the 18-135mm STM, 55-250 STM and 18-55 STM, etc.

I do wish that there would be some more clarity in labelling AF… particularly the difference between ‘micro motor USM’ and ‘ring type USM’.

I used to own the 28-135mm USM lens, and my copy’s USM was certainly fast – about as fast as my ‘old’ 100-300 USM – both of which were looked after well. My 70-300mm L USM and my 15-85mm may be a tad faster (but we’re splitting hairs). I have yet to see a STM lens be quite as fast as any ‘true ring USM’ (but STM is definitely not far off in speed with the newer DSLR bodies).

Paul 8)

 

[K]

With the 40mm STM, what exactly is the point of a 50mm STM?

The current 50mm hasn't been out that long. Not sure what would need upgrading on it. It is supposed to be a $100 entry level lens.

What Canon really needs is an intermediate 50.

The 1.2 is a champion. Not much else to say there. The 50 1.4 is lacking. It takes a beating in every online review for being too soft at 1.4. It is true. While nothing is perfect wide open, it is too soft compared to the competition. And it is quite old too.

In my opinion, Canon does not need to match the sharpness of the Sigma, nor its ridiculous high price for a 50. But if they can significantly improve optics without raising the price much - I think that will be a successful lens.

$350 - $500 max isn't a bad range for a SHARP 50mm 1.4. I think anymore than that, and a person might as well save for the incredible 1.2. You can probably guess I don't see the value in the Sigma Art.