Canon Introduces New EF 50MM F/1.8 STM Lens
- Thread starter Canon Rumors Guy
- Start date
Just received mine. Plan to use it mostly wide open for low light, sometimes for background blur. Initial tests with the M3 are promising. MF with focus peaking works well for DOF control, but the MF-by-wire can be a little clumsy. Doubt I will use it much with the 6D.
Upvote
0
Meerkat said:
No doubt it's just fine in an absolute sense for smaller export sizes, but considering the wisdom of "glass first" one could question the combination of a €140 lens on a €1400 camera body.
I have to admit the longer I read this thread, the stranger it feels that Canon is - of all things - updating their ancient 50/1.8 with a rather similar version with same optical design after decades.
For a full frame camera, an update of their equally ancient micro-usm "hit or miss" 50/1.4 would be what what should have taken place, but obviously Canon marketing vetoed that b/c they want to keep selling their L...
Upvote
0
In fact, it is easy to see that Canon did ...Marsu42 said:
"Engineers, we need to react immediately to YongNuo!"
Yes Boss. ???
We will use the same optical design, improved coatings, rounded aperture blades and keep the price of the old nifty fifty.
"Engineers, we need to react immediately to the Sigma Art!"
We can not, boss. :-[
We need a few years to design a new competitive lens with Sigma. :-X
"Engineers, we need to react immediately to Zeiss Otus!"
We can not boss.
:-\We need many years to design a new lens with extremely precise autofocus, which does not cripple the sharpness of such a lens. And we have to find a way to the great sharpness and contrast not harm the dreamy bokeh.
:'( :'( :'(
Upvote
0
Marsu42 said:
As much as I've been screaming for the 50 f/nooneknows IS USM, I'm not convinced that it would tremendously undercut L sales, even though it will certainly be sharper. That new lens won't open up to f/1.2, generate that magical draw, be weather-sealed or have that fancy red ring.
I think if there's any reason the 50 f/nooneknows IS USM is deliberately delayed, it is because of Sigma -- but not from an 'Oh no, we're Canon and we're shaking in our boots at Sigma's performance!' perspective because we all know Canon doesn't look over it's shoulder like that (at least not for third party products). But I think Sigma undercut the profitability of the non-L refresh lenses, and in turn, Canon may be questioning their strategy to offer more of them in light of that.
Consider: the 24/28/35 non-L IS refresh lenses were a failure from a commercial standpoint -- they were green lit based on an expectation of commanding a $749-849 asking price, which as we all know, they could not maintain. They are currently 549/499/549 at B&H right now. Since that time, the Sigma Art lenses have swooped in with top notch products at mid-level prices.
So if you're Canon executives reviewing business cases of future products, do you roll the dice on a lens that only makes Canon the profit it's gunning for if it can hold a high asking price? (Once bitten, twice shy perhaps?)
Perhaps Canon gives up on the non-L IS refresh business for now and focuses on:
- Inexpensive lenses with proprietary (STM) features -- where volumes are high
- Pricey unique items no one else can reasonable build -- where margins are high (i.e. superteles and tilt-shift)
- Brand specific things only Canon can sell, like L lenses, which command a nice margin on reputation and past history.
Just a thought. I could entirely be wrong. I hope I am because I want that 50 f/nooneknows IS USM.
- A
Upvote
0
ahsanford said:
Bite your tongue! That would be horrible. I'd pay Sigma Art money for a good Canon 50 with reliable AF... but no other Canon 50 (now that I have the STM coming my way). It would seem very odd for Canon to abdicate a significant portion of the lens range to Sigma. Also, what would they do as the Art line increases? Abandon the 85mm market? Then the 135? Seems like a losing proposition, and they have to realize that.
Upvote
0
LonelyBoy said:
You know I agree with you -- I'm just playing Devil's Advocate to make a point about the profits.
Many people on this forum would $899-999 for a smaller-than-50-Art 50mm f/2 IS USM if it was sharp wide open. But would the market at large do the same when the 50 Art is likely to be faster and sharper for about the same money? I'm not so sure.
What I'm saying is that Canon may be giving a re-think to it's value proposition with the non-L IS refresh lenses. Perhaps they need IS + larger max apertures to justify a higher price, or perhaps they settle in at a $599-ish price but try to maximize profits with STM instead of USM to keep production costs down. Now I don't like any of those options, but any way you look at the 24/28/35 non-L IS lenses, their prices plummeted in the first 18 months or so. Canon is probably not so sure they want to go through that again.
- A
Upvote
0
ahsanford said:
Or that price drop could have been the plan all along, pushed further by the strengthening dollar vs. the yen. Not everyone wants the giant sigma 1.4 lenses, and not everyone considers them top notch (that is, in terms of AF). I have the L lenses that I need, and really wanted small primes as an addition, so the new 24, 28, 35 non-L IS lenses looked pretty perfect. I bought all three of them, and none of the Sigmas that are swooping in.
Upvote
0
Marsu42 said:
From the cynical perspective, everything is obvious. So we know, obviously, that Canon marketing "vetoed" an improved 50/1.4, just as we know that Canon marketing runs the company and can veto anything. So we know that a new 50/1.4 is not about to happen any time soon. And we know that if it were released, it would hurt sales of the 50L, and that would mean less profit. Because we know that there's more profit in selling a smaller number 50L's vs. a larger number of improved 50/1.4's. Similarly, we know that improving the product line (vs. competitors) with a hot new much-demanded 50/1.4 lens does not help the company as much as selling a few more of the expensive focus-shifting much criticized 50L's. All of this is somehow obvious from the cynical perspective.
Upvote
0
zlatko said:Marsu42 said:
From the cynical perspective, everything is obvious. So we know, obviously, that Canon marketing "vetoed" an improved 50/1.4, just as we know that Canon marketing runs the company and can veto anything. So we know that a new 50/1.4 is not about to happen any time soon. And we know that if it were released, it would hurt sales of the 50L, and that would mean less profit. Because we know that there's more profit in selling a smaller number 50L's vs. a larger number of improved 50/1.4's. Similarly, we know that improving the product line (vs. competitors) with a hot new much-demanded 50/1.4 lens does not help the company as much as selling a few more of the expensive focus-shifting much criticized 50L's. All of this is somehow obvious from the cynical perspective.
I agree that Marsu42 is being a bit cynical. Canon can't change/upgrade everything at once, sure a road plan would be nice bit that would play into the hands of their competitors as much as their customers.
Personally I don't think many people in the 35 f1.4L and 50 f1.2L market even consider the very good 35 f2 IS and the 50 f1.4 (I have a 50 f1.4 and mine is a very good lens), a new 50 f1.4 IS isn't going to steal any 50 f1.2L customers and besides, we don't know the profit margins on these lenses, it wouldn't surprise me at all if Canon made as much profit on a 35 f2 IS at $545 as they do on a 35 f1.4 at $1,329, given economies of scale, manufacturing setups and materials and everything else involved in bringing a lens to market. Even if they don't make as much per lens, I am sure they make more profit from the cheaper models overall sales. Don't forget, for many years the Canon corporate profit cash cow has been entry Rebel kits and the sheer volume of those sales.
Upvote
0
zlatko said:
Well, I'm never stating I know what exact reasons are Canon acts upon - on the contrary, I usually write we'll never know but just can theorize or state opinions. But the 50mm "standard" lens lineup has been a point of debate for a long time with two lenses that are rather outdated and an L offering that has some special purpose appeal.
But continuing the cynical reasoning (I'd rall it accepting that Canon is a business), let's hope once Yongnio actually manages to deliver the 50/1.4 clone we'll see a Canon update of their original lens, too
... that's because I guess Yn is (part of) the reason Canon finally did the 50/1.8 update now.
Upvote
0
Marsu42 said:
Not half as much as one might question the wisdom of that statement.
Lenses such as the 40mm pancake and 50mm f/1.8 are relatively simple but produce stellar results.
Upvote
0
Marsu42 said:zlatko said:
Well, I'm never stating I know what exact reasons are Canon acts upon - on the contrary, I usually write we'll never know but just can theorize or state opinions. But the 50mm "standard" lens lineup has been a point of debate for a long time with two lenses that are rather outdated and an L offering that has some special purpose appeal.
But continuing the cynical reasoning (I'd rall it accepting that Canon is a business), let's hope once Yongnio actually manages to deliver the 50/1.4 clone we'll see a Canon update of their original lens, too
The 50mm 'standard' lenses have been a debate here, meanwhile the 50/1.8 II sold like hotcakes. Canon seems to be updating most of their less expensive lenses to STM versions, this seems a logical extension. I don't think Canon cares all that much about what Yongnuo does.
Upvote
0
Sporgon said:
Depends on what "stellar" is - in absolute terms or in relative terms of how a better lens could perform with a current 20mp ff sensor. Yes, a 50/1.8+6d performs stellar when stopped down, but then again so it really should for €1550.
Though the idea of "glass first" is coupled to the fact that it's a better long-term investment.
neuroanatomist said:
Just out of curiosity, I'd like to learn how it really is (but we'll never know)... we'll see how Canon fares with the Yn competition in the rt flash segment and the upcoming 50/1.4 clone - though the latter doesn't seem to be as "budget" as their 50/1.8.
You might be correct, with the flood of clones and cheap flashes Canon might have decided not to enter the competition at all, but then again it might affect their mid-term policy (like working on an ettl3 protocol).
Upvote
0
ahsanford said:
I actually wouldn't mind STM for normal primes - I'm not using them for sports, just shots of mostly-stationary targets (and the non-pancake STM is pretty quick!).
If you're right, it also makes Sigma's strategy of hitting Canon where they're not (a great mid-range 50) look even better, and makes me wonder again why they bothered with the 24-105A (a market that was already served by a cheaper (in the practical sense (nested parentheticals FTW)) lens that's also weather-sealed and almost as good) instead of something else that isn't offered - the rumored 24-70/2, or a stabilized 24-70/2.8 (to be hopefully better than Tamron's), or an 85A (which I believe is coming anyway). Just seems weird to spend resources on a lens without a whole lot of pent-up demand.
Upvote
0
I have been looking to replace the Canon 50mm 1.8 II for some time but have not been able to decide on a suitable alternative. They've either been a little bit pricey or not different enough optically (like the Canon 50mm 1.4 imo) to justify the increased price. I've also been looking at other focal lengths so 50mm has also not been a priority. Whilst this new 50mm 1.8 doesn't seem to be too different optically according to the MFT, the 7 blade aperture is a deal breaker as the 5 blade aperture and crappy bokeh of the 50mm 1.8 II always bugged me. The autofocus on the 1.8 II is slow and hunts in low light so looking forward to the STM motor. Having a metal bayonet mount is another plus!
The main downside is Canon decided to give this lens a 49mm filter diameter. I own a Sigma 52mm polariser which wasn't cheap so will need to purchase a step up ring for it. It's a good job I replaced, and kept, thank goodness, the crappy lens cap on the 1.8 II which means I should be able to use the better one with the 52mm polariser, hopefully.
The main downside is Canon decided to give this lens a 49mm filter diameter. I own a Sigma 52mm polariser which wasn't cheap so will need to purchase a step up ring for it. It's a good job I replaced, and kept, thank goodness, the crappy lens cap on the 1.8 II which means I should be able to use the better one with the 52mm polariser, hopefully.
Upvote
0
Most on this forum are less likely to purchase the Yonguo 50mm f1.8 lens which whilst cheap looks and feels it also. Ive just bought the Canon 50mm f1.8 STM its only arrived today so will put it through its paces over the coming weekend but at its price point its hardly expensive and moves on from the "nifty fifty". For me its only ever going to be an occational lens I live mainly on the EF 24-105 f4L or on the EF 16-35mm f4L.neuroanatomist said:Marsu42 said:zlatko said:
Well, I'm never stating I know what exact reasons are Canon acts upon - on the contrary, I usually write we'll never know but just can theorize or state opinions. But the 50mm "standard" lens lineup has been a point of debate for a long time with two lenses that are rather outdated and an L offering that has some special purpose appeal.
But continuing the cynical reasoning (I'd rall it accepting that Canon is a business), let's hope once Yongnio actually manages to deliver the 50/1.4 clone we'll see a Canon update of their original lens, too
The 50mm 'standard' lenses have been a debate here, meanwhile the 50/1.8 II sold like hotcakes. Canon seems to be updating most of their less expensive lenses to STM versions, this seems a logical extension. I don't think Canon cares all that much about what Yongnuo does.
Upvote
0
Similar threads
- Contains 3 staff post(s)
- Contains 1 staff post(s)
- Contains 1 staff post(s)
