Canon Introduces New EF 50MM F/1.8 STM Lens

[LonelyBoy]

Bah, looks like it's back to waiting for a good Canon 50.

 

[Loswr]

Bah, looks like it's back to waiting for a good Canon 50.

If you are expecting 'good' for $125, you're in for a long wait.

 

[LonelyBoy]

If you are expecting 'good' for $125, you're in for a long wait.

Even $125 is too much for something that dies if it gets bumped. Inexcusable.

 

[zlatko]

That seems like a Bokeh-per-dollar ratio really unbeatable.

Not quite - The Yn clone of the 50/1.8 II is only $55, and if you don't care about the 80s af sound the bare bones iq probably isn't that different for small export sizes: http://www.135shot.com/lens-accessories/standard-medium-telephoto-lens/yongnuo-yn-ef-50mm-f-1-8-af-lens-with-extra-large-aperture-for-canon-slr-cameras.html

Ugh I tried a YN clone, it was R U B B I S H. Noisier than the Mark2 and forward focused so much it would have taken -40 AFMA. You get what you pay for.

So much for the YN clone being a great "value". You get what you pay for is right!

 

[Loswr]

Even $125 is too much for something that dies if it gets bumped. Inexcusable.

I don't know too many people who are clairvoyant like you. STM ≠ micromotor. I've bumped and knocked the extended portion of both my 40/2.8 and M22/2 a few times, they're working fine.

 

[scyrene]

Even $125 is too much for something that dies if it gets bumped. Inexcusable.

I don't know too many people who are clairvoyant like you. STM ≠ micromotor. I've bumped and knocked the extended portion of both my 40/2.8 and M22/2 a few times, they're working fine.

I was gonna say... I used to leave the 85L II with the front bit extended when I stored it. It never did any harm. Not sure whether that's relevant though :/

 

[Marsu42]

This definitely looks like it extends further than the 40mm STM. It's probably as much as the 50 f/1.4 even.0

Thanks for posting the picture, from what I can see it doesn't look as fragile as the 50/1.8 II so there's hope still

 

[LonelyBoy]

I don't know too many people who are clairvoyant like you. STM ≠ micromotor. I've bumped and knocked the extended portion of both my 40/2.8 and M22/2 a few times, they're working fine.

Did I mistake your Cheerios for the toilet this morning? I was replying to a comment that stated the lens appeared to extend more than the 40 STM, and care should be taken to keep it retracted for storage. I don't want to be worrying about that, so if that's the case, I'm out, and waiting for ahsanford's 50/1.4 IS USM. If you have an issue with "clairvoyance" take it up with the person who made the claim I responded to, and get off my jock.

 

[slclick]

I don't know too many people who are clairvoyant like you. STM ≠ micromotor. I've bumped and knocked the extended portion of both my 40/2.8 and M22/2 a few times, they're working fine.

Did I mistake your Cheerios for the toilet this morning? I was replying to a comment that stated the lens appeared to extend more than the 40 STM, and care should be taken to keep it retracted for storage. I don't want to be worrying about that, so if that's the case, I'm out, and waiting for ahsanford's 50/1.4 IS USM. If you have an issue with "clairvoyance" take it up with the person who made the claim I responded to, and get off my jock.

I find the 40 very solid. No wobble when mounted, has taken a beating in the field (due to it being on the body more than other lenses albeit a diminutive size) My most traveled lens by far... sand, sea, dry, humid...you get the picture. Now the Nifty Fifty, that's one fragile POS. I just can't see being so delicate with a pancake lens. Sure it's your choice to buy and then after buying to pamper your purchases but it's not made of rice paper by any means.

 

[Loswr]

I don't know too many people who are clairvoyant like you. STM ≠ micromotor. I've bumped and knocked the extended portion of both my 40/2.8 and M22/2 a few times, they're working fine.

Did I mistake your Cheerios for the toilet this morning? I was replying to a comment that stated the lens appeared to extend more than the 40 STM, and care should be taken to keep it retracted for storage. I don't want to be worrying about that, so if that's the case, I'm out, and waiting for ahsanford's 50/1.4 IS USM. If you have an issue with "clairvoyance" take it up with the person who made the claim I responded to, and get off my jock.

Well, I generally prefer the expression 'did someone piss in your Wheaties' but you're making a judgement about a lens which hasn't been released yet. The reality is that care should be taken with any lens to retract an extending barrel before storage, from the cheap 50/1.8 II to the $2K 85/1.2L II. The problem with the 50/1.8 II is that a hard bump while in use could also cause a problem, something that doesn't seem to be the case for the recent pancake STM lenses - and the new 50/1.8 STM seems more like the newer pancake lenses in design, at least by appearance. The main point is, we just don't know yet – well, most of us don't know, anyway.

 

[LonelyBoy]

Well, I generally prefer the expression 'did someone piss in your Wheaties' but you're making a judgement about a lens which hasn't been released yet. The reality is that care should be taken with any lens to retract an extending barrel before storage, from the cheap 50/1.8 II to the $2K 85/1.2L II. The problem with the 50/1.8 II is that a hard bump while in use could also cause a problem, something that doesn't seem to be the case for the recent pancake STM lenses - and the new 50/1.8 STM seems more like the newer pancake lenses in design, at least by appearance. The main point is, we just don't know yet – well, most of us don't know, anyway.

And I was changing it up. To make it more fun.

And again, you'll note, I was responding to someone else's comment about their expectations for its durability. If you're right, great! However, you don't know either.

And dammit, I really want ahsanford's 50/1.4 IS USM anyway.

 

[ahsanford]

Well, I generally prefer the expression 'did someone piss in your Wheaties' but you're making a judgement about a lens which hasn't been released yet. The reality is that care should be taken with any lens to retract an extending barrel before storage, from the cheap 50/1.8 II to the $2K 85/1.2L II. The problem with the 50/1.8 II is that a hard bump while in use could also cause a problem, something that doesn't seem to be the case for the recent pancake STM lenses - and the new 50/1.8 STM seems more like the newer pancake lenses in design, at least by appearance. The main point is, we just don't know yet – well, most of us don't know, anyway.

And I was changing it up. To make it more fun.

And again, you'll note, I was responding to someone else's comment about their expectations for its durability. If you're right, great! However, you don't know either.

And dammit, I really want ahsanford's 50/1.4 IS USM anyway.

For the record, I do not own this lens.

But I want to.

- A

 

[Solar Eagle]

The spec sheets I saw did say internal focus but I didn't really expect that just because it has the same optics, so how could it not have an extending barrel?

The rest of the build is clearly new so you can't judge the new one by the old in that regard.

For $125 there's really no room to complain. People call the old one the disposable lens, so I guess the disposable lens standards have gone to a new level.

This will be nearly half the (retail)price of the 40, over a stop faster, and just as sharp at equivalent apertures. Is there even a valid complaint? Oh right, its an ounce heavier because of that pesky metal mount......

 

[verysimplejason]

The spec sheets I saw did say internal focus but I didn't really expect that just because it has the same optics, so how could it not have an extending barrel?

The rest of the build is clearly new so you can't judge the new one by the old in that regard.

For $125 there's really no room to complain. People call the old one the disposable lens, so I guess the disposable lens standards have gone to a new level.

This will be nearly half the (retail)price of the 40, over a stop faster, and just as sharp at equivalent apertures. Is there even a valid complaint? Oh right, its an ounce heavier because of that pesky metal mount......

+1. You get what you paid for. In this case, you get more than you paid for. So what's the problem? Now, I'm patiently waiting for the 85mm F1.8 stm version (hopefully with IS). Same bokeh without the CA hopefully and sharper open wide. I've got no need for USM for this kind of lens. STM should be sufficient. Oh and make it smaller, lighter and as cheap. Now that'd be a dream.

 

[jeffa4444]

Of course, Canon's sample images shows all the headshots done with a crop camera (80mm perspective), and the rest with a 6D.

Not intended to start a "50mm isn't a portrait lens" war....

Carry on.


quote]
Just to point out the images from the Canon 6D and the 5DMIII in real world AND technical testing are basically the same (slight variance that benefit one or the other) so whether Canon showed shots on the 6D or the 5DMKIII is a moot point the reason they did that is because they associate 5DMKIII owners with more expensive L lenses, its purely marketing.

 

[slclick]

The spec sheets I saw did say internal focus but I didn't really expect that just because it has the same optics, so how could it not have an extending barrel?

The rest of the build is clearly new so you can't judge the new one by the old in that regard.

For $125 there's really no room to complain. People call the old one the disposable lens, so I guess the disposable lens standards have gone to a new level.

This will be nearly half the (retail)price of the 40, over a stop faster, and just as sharp at equivalent apertures. Is there even a valid complaint? Oh right, its an ounce heavier because of that pesky metal mount......

+1. You get what you paid for. In this case, you get more than you paid for. So what's the problem? Now, I'm patiently waiting for the 85mm F1.8 stm version (hopefully with IS). Same bokeh without the CA hopefully and sharper open wide. I've got no need for USM for this kind of lens. STM should be sufficient. Oh and make it smaller, lighter and as cheap. Now that'd be a dream.

Something that doesn't get talked about very often...an 85 1.? STM IS or some other similar variant. I think it would be a very good idea. Along the lines of the 24/28/35 IS group, same build, very well controlled CA and tack sharp for portraits. I'd be all over it.

 

[Marsu42]

I think it would be a very good idea.

A good idea for you as a customer getting max "iq bang for the buck", or a good idea for Canon as a commercial enterprise aiming to maximize profits ?

 

[slclick]

I think it would be a very good idea.

A good idea for you as a customer getting max "iq bang for the buck", or a good idea for Canon as a commercial enterprise aiming to maximize profits ?

Should my consumerism desires always match the manufacturers business model? That is just so cold and non human.

 

[Loswr]

I think it would be a very good idea.

A good idea for you as a customer getting max "iq bang for the buck", or a good idea for Canon as a commercial enterprise aiming to maximize profits ?

The merits of the idea itself aside, it'll only happen if Canon believes the latter is true.

 

[slclick]

I think it would be a very good idea.

A good idea for you as a customer getting max "iq bang for the buck", or a good idea for Canon as a commercial enterprise aiming to maximize profits ?

The merits of the idea itself aside, it'll only happen if Canon believes the latter is true.

Well no shinola Sherlock!

I inserted a winky so NA knows I love him.