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

[brianleighty]

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.

Not sure why you're dogging the Sigma Art so bad. I would say I don't see the value in the Canon 50 1.2. It's nearly twice the price of Sigma ART and it's not nearly as sharp: http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=403&Camera=453&Sample=0&FLI=0&API=0&LensComp=941&CameraComp=453&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=0&APIComp=0

Perhaps you've tried the ART had issues focussing. If so, I understand but the one I rented worked fine on all three bodies.

 

[ahsanford]

Not sure why you're dogging the Sigma Art so bad. I would say I don't see the value in the Canon 50 1.2. It's nearly twice the price of Sigma ART and it's not nearly as sharp: http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=403&Camera=453&Sample=0&FLI=0&API=0&LensComp=941&CameraComp=453&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=0&APIComp=0

Perhaps you've tried the ART had issues focussing. If so, I understand but the one I rented worked fine on all three bodies.

This is not a new misunderstanding.

It's very simple. Half of the 50 prime lovers revere sharpness across the frame, and half revere magic/memorableness/draw.

The former group prays at the altar of sharpness and uses the Sigma Art lens as it is head and shoulders above the Canon in wider apertures. See attachment. It's not particularly close.

The latter group worships at the shrine of defocused backgrounds and loves the unquantifiable 'magic' that the 50 f/1.2L delivers. "These pictures look dreamy."

The former then replies: "...If your subject is in the center of the frame. Rule of thirds turns your subject into a soft mush of despair."

The latter then replies: "But, but, my lens isn't as big and heavy as a 24-70 zoom!"

The former then replies: "Did you see the other Art lens I got with the 50 Art for the same price as your 50L?"

The latter then replies: "How's that famous Sigma AF working, chief?"

[and we enter a spiral of childishness]

So let's accept a few things -- neither lens is categorically better than the other. What you need, what you value and where your money goes will differ. The 50 prime has always been a battleground for that reason.

For my money, sharpness does matter, but so do many other things. I don't need a Ferrari of a 50 prime that does one impossible thing really well. I want a lens that is a 9 out of 10 at everything -- and that includes 'not be huge' and that includes having IS. So I'm waiting for the third lens on this chart to be redesigned, and you guys can hang on to your pickle jar Art lenses and your overpriced red rings.

- A

 

[ajfotofilmagem]

Not sure why you're dogging the Sigma Art so bad. I would say I don't see the value in the Canon 50 1.2. It's nearly twice the price of Sigma ART and it's not nearly as sharp: http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=403&Camera=453&Sample=0&FLI=0&API=0&LensComp=941&CameraComp=453&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=0&APIComp=0

Perhaps you've tried the ART had issues focussing. If so, I understand but the one I rented worked fine on all three bodies.

This is not a new misunderstanding.

It's very simple. Half of the 50 prime lovers revere sharpness across the frame, and half revere magic/memorableness/draw.

The former group prays at the altar of sharpness and uses the Sigma Art lens as it is head and shoulders above the Canon in wider apertures. See attachment. It's not particularly close.

The latter group worships at the shrine of defocused backgrounds and loves the unquantifiable 'magic' that the 50 f/1.2L delivers. "These pictures look dreamy."

The former then replies: "...If your subject is in the center of the frame. Rule of thirds turns your subject into a soft mush of despair."

The latter then replies: "But, but, my lens isn't as big and heavy as a 24-70 zoom!"

The former then replies: "Did you see the other Art lens I got with the 50 Art for the same price as your 50L?"

The latter then replies: "How's that famous Sigma AF working, chief?"
[and we enter a spiral of childishness]

So let's accept a few things -- neither lens is categorically better than the other. What you need, what you value and where your money goes will differ. The 50 prime has always been a battleground for that reason.

For my money, sharpness does matter, but so do many other things. I don't need a Ferrari of a 50 prime that does one impossible thing really well. I want a lens that is a 9 out of 10 at everything -- and that includes 'not be huge' and that includes having IS. So I'm waiting for the third lens on this chart to be redesigned, and you guys can hang on to your pickle jar Art lenses and your overpriced red rings.

I've had the Canon 50mm F1.4, and now I have the Sigma Art.
I can say that the bokeh Sigma Art is more pleasing to my eyes. Mainly the lack of green / magenta LOCAS, which irritated me in Canon F1.4.

I not had the Canon F1.2 to test side by side, but I know it suffers from longitudinal chromatic aberration and low contrast, when used in F1.2 or F1.4. Honestly, it kills the feeling of magic Bokeh to my eyes.

Below the Photozone test for bokeh and LOCAS of Canon 50mm F1.2L.

 

[Sporgon]

Not sure why you're dogging the Sigma Art so bad. I would say I don't see the value in the Canon 50 1.2. It's nearly twice the price of Sigma ART and it's not nearly as sharp: http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=403&Camera=453&Sample=0&FLI=0&API=0&LensComp=941&CameraComp=453&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=0&APIComp=0

Perhaps you've tried the ART had issues focussing. If so, I understand but the one I rented worked fine on all three bodies.

This is not a new misunderstanding.

It's very simple. Half of the 50 prime lovers revere sharpness across the frame, and half revere magic/memorableness/draw.

The former group prays at the altar of sharpness and uses the Sigma Art lens as it is head and shoulders above the Canon in wider apertures. See attachment. It's not particularly close.

The latter group worships at the shrine of defocused backgrounds and loves the unquantifiable 'magic' that the 50 f/1.2L delivers. "These pictures look dreamy."

The former then replies: "...If your subject is in the center of the frame. Rule of thirds turns your subject into a soft mush of despair."

The latter then replies: "But, but, my lens isn't as big and heavy as a 24-70 zoom!"

The former then replies: "Did you see the other Art lens I got with the 50 Art for the same price as your 50L?"

The latter then replies: "How's that famous Sigma AF working, chief?"

[and we enter a spiral of childishness]

So let's accept a few things -- neither lens is categorically better than the other. What you need, what you value and where your money goes will differ. The 50 prime has always been a battleground for that reason.

For my money, sharpness does matter, but so do many other things. I don't need a Ferrari of a 50 prime that does one impossible thing really well. I want a lens that is a 9 out of 10 at everything -- and that includes 'not be huge' and that includes having IS. So I'm waiting for the third lens on this chart to be redesigned, and you guys can hang on to your pickle jar Art lenses and your overpriced red rings.

- A

Is not part of the 50L's poor mid and edge frame performance shown here ( and on TDP) to do with field curvature, so on the flat, close target the mid / edge of frame just isn't in focus ? In practice field curvature is not nearly as much of a problem as when shooting test charts. Has anyone with both EF1.4 and 1.2 got any comparisons between them at closer to infinity and stopped down a bit ? I would imagine that the 1.4 would be better at infinity due to its flat faced elements in the rear grouping ( the 1.2 is radiused for good 'draw', Oof transition etc, as is lack of FC correction). However I would think that in this situation there isn't anything like the difference mid / edge frame that photozone are showing in these results.

 

[brianleighty]

Not sure why you're dogging the Sigma Art so bad. I would say I don't see the value in the Canon 50 1.2. It's nearly twice the price of Sigma ART and it's not nearly as sharp: http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=403&Camera=453&Sample=0&FLI=0&API=0&LensComp=941&CameraComp=453&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=0&APIComp=0

Perhaps you've tried the ART had issues focussing. If so, I understand but the one I rented worked fine on all three bodies.

This is not a new misunderstanding.

It's very simple. Half of the 50 prime lovers revere sharpness across the frame, and half revere magic/memorableness/draw.

The former group prays at the altar of sharpness and uses the Sigma Art lens as it is head and shoulders above the Canon in wider apertures. See attachment. It's not particularly close.

The latter group worships at the shrine of defocused backgrounds and loves the unquantifiable 'magic' that the 50 f/1.2L delivers. "These pictures look dreamy."

The former then replies: "...If your subject is in the center of the frame. Rule of thirds turns your subject into a soft mush of despair."

The latter then replies: "But, but, my lens isn't as big and heavy as a 24-70 zoom!"

The former then replies: "Did you see the other Art lens I got with the 50 Art for the same price as your 50L?"

The latter then replies: "How's that famous Sigma AF working, chief?"

[and we enter a spiral of childishness]

So let's accept a few things -- neither lens is categorically better than the other. What you need, what you value and where your money goes will differ. The 50 prime has always been a battleground for that reason.

For my money, sharpness does matter, but so do many other things. I don't need a Ferrari of a 50 prime that does one impossible thing really well. I want a lens that is a 9 out of 10 at everything -- and that includes 'not be huge' and that includes having IS. So I'm waiting for the third lens on this chart to be redesigned, and you guys can hang on to your pickle jar Art lenses and your overpriced red rings.

- A

And I get what your saying. When it comes to 85mm lenses. I would definitely agree the Canon 85 1.2 has that look that Sigma can't touch. I've never used the Canon 50 1.2 but I've seen photos with it and I don't see that same difference. The Canon 85 1.2 is a much better performer though too so I kind of has the best of both worlds making it worth it's cost. But then again I fall in the former group

 

[Crosswind]

OT: Please don't quote sooo much text. Take your time to snip out a little bit. Thank you very much.

 

[LonelyBoy]

OT: Please don't quote sooo much text. Take your time to snip out a little bit. Thank you very much.

Every which kind of agreed. I wish this forum, like most others I frequent, would remove quotes from a quoted post by default, so we don't get a dozen nested quote boxes.

 

[zlatko]

Below the Photozone test for bokeh and LOCAS of Canon 50mm F1.2L.

I haven't tried the Sigma 50 Art, but I love the look of the Canon 50L. Protozone's test of the 50L makes it appear to be a crap lens, but it isn't. Interestingly, the $11,000 Leica 50mm Noctilux looks like a crap lens on Photozone too, about the same as the Canon 50L. But that's not a crap lens either. There is something about those MTF test charts that doesn't capture the sweet look that a lens can give. There's an element of image quality that isn't reflected in MTF charts. Obviously the lens designers know this. They design for the image, not for the MTF chart.

 

[JohanCruyff]

We’re told production of the Canon EF 50mm f/1.8 STM has commenced and we can expect an announcement in late March or early April with availability coming soon after. No word on the rumored EF 70-300 f/4-5.6 IS replacement.

Late March has come. Early April is about to come...

 

[StenR]

Ebrahim, a really good analysis.

I see this camera as the rumored XC10, a successor to XA10 but with 4K, a DSLR grip and a detachable loupe. Not bad if you want a semi-pro/C-cam camcorder. Still, it really must be a lot better than the Sony X70 to compete.

I *wish* it also had been the C50, that is a half-price C100 with a fixed lens (1.8-2.8 to compete), but I'm sure it isn't.If it was, they would have pushed the superior sensor/high ISO and color science, but they didn't. Too bad.

 

[LonelyBoy]

We’re told production of the Canon EF 50mm f/1.8 STM has commenced and we can expect an announcement in late March or early April with availability coming soon after. No word on the rumored EF 70-300 f/4-5.6 IS replacement.

Late March has come. Early April is about to come...

NAB could juuuuuust make the cutoff for "early April". I wouldn't start worrying until after that.

I really want to see what happens with the new 70-300, too.

 

[Ripley]

...
It's very simple. Half of the 50 prime lovers revere sharpness across the frame, and half revere magic/memorableness/draw.

Half the 50 prime lovers admit the Sigma is better, half of them refuse to believe that Canon's product is inferior...

Nice one Dilbert!

 

[JohanCruyff]

We’re told production of the Canon EF 50mm f/1.8 STM has commenced and we can expect an announcement in late March or early April with availability coming soon after. No word on the rumored EF 70-300 f/4-5.6 IS replacement.

Late March has come. Early April is about to come...

Please, Canon, take note that today I ordered an EF-S 24mm (pancake) prime, I already own an EF 100mm (macro IS L) prime, so a new 50mm prime has become necessary and urgent. :'( :'( :'(
Do English-speaking people refer to this as a "basic need"? :-\

 

[dolina]

It's April 15 already... So where is it?

 

[joejohnbear]

It's April 15 already... So where is it?

Need. Want. Don't want to shell out for a 50mm f/1.2. Tried the Sigma Art, the 50mm f/1.2, the 50mm f/1.4, the 50mm f/1.8. None of them come close the 40mm f/2.8 or 70-200 IS II or 16-35mm f/4L IS or 135mm f/2 in optical or focusing (barring the 40mm) perfection.

 

[LonelyBoy]

It's April 15 already... So where is it?

Yeah, it's past "early April". Tomorrow that will be unquestionable. Bah. At least give us an announcement!

 

[burb72]

its waiting for me to get off my butt and sell my 50mm 1.8 mark 1

 

[TapioR]

Any updates on this rumor? I actually returned a nifty fifty which I had ordered to replace a broken one, just because of this rumor.
Looks like the prices for the old nifty fifty have come down by a few Euros in Finland, so maybe this new fifty is coming soon, or then it's just normal price fluctuation.

 

[Canon Rumors]

I know the lens is coming, nailing down announcement dates on lenses has always been hard. They seem to be a moving target.

 

[Maximilian]

I know the lens is coming, nailing down announcement dates on lenses has always been hard. They seem to be a moving target.

And rumors are still just rumors. I'd never make a decission based just on a rumor.
If I'd need gear now I'd buy it now.
If I'd have time to wait, I can wait and see if the rumor comes true.

Thank you Craig, keeping us entertained and provided with stuff to discuss