Canon Introduces New EF 50MM F/1.8 STM Lens

[Marsu42]

Impressive improvement. If this is not a good new against bad old sample comparison I must say I am very surprised to see so much difference.

It's surprising they get so much out of the old optical design, so this puts the lens on my "to be considered" list again! Btw did you ppl notice that the corners have actually *decreased* in sharpness old vs new wide open?

Here's the link for f1.8 (above is f2.0): http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=105&Camera=453&Sample=0&FLI=0&API=0&LensComp=989&CameraComp=453&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=0&APIComp=0

It's weird that this persists even stopped down, maybe the stm lens they tested has an issue? Here's f2.8: http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=105&Camera=453&Sample=0&FLI=0&API=2&LensComp=989&CameraComp=453&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=0&APIComp=2

 

[ajfotofilmagem]

The improved contrast and sharpness in the center seems very impressive. In the image corners, it looks the same.

I would say that the new 50mm STM is a great cost-effective option for APS-C. For full frame, if you want sharpness corner to corner, there is no escape from Sigma 50mm Art.

 

[ajfotofilmagem]

Re: TDP: 50mm 1.8 MkII vs. STM Image Quality

The sharpness and contrast in the center looks so much better than the old plastic fantastic. In the image corners, it looks the same.

I would say that the new 50mm STM is a great cost-effective option for APS-C. For full frame, if you want sharpness corner to corner, there is no escape from Sigma 50mm Art.

 

[ahsanford]

I would say that the new 50mm STM is a great cost-effective option for APS-C. For full frame, if you want sharpness corner to corner, there is no escape from Sigma 50mm Art.

Which is one of many reasons why so many people are holding out for the 50 f/nooneknows IS USM.

I doubt such a lens would outperform the 50 Art, but if it stacks up to the 50 Art as well as the 35 f/2 IS USM did to the 35 Art (nearly as sharp + IS + only half the weight - one stop), it will be a hit.

- A

 

[Zv]

Impressive improvement. If this is not a good new against bad old sample comparison I must say I am very surprised to see so much difference.

It's surprising they get so much out of the old optical design, so this puts the lens on my "to be considered" list again! Btw did you ppl notice that the corners have actually *decreased* in sharpness old vs new wide open?

Here's the link for f1.8 (above is f2.0): http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=105&Camera=453&Sample=0&FLI=0&API=0&LensComp=989&CameraComp=453&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=0&APIComp=0

It's weird that this persists even stopped down, maybe the stm lens they tested has an issue? Here's f2.8: http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=105&Camera=453&Sample=0&FLI=0&API=2&LensComp=989&CameraComp=453&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=0&APIComp=2

Looking at it on my iPad I can see what you mean about the corner performance. It ever so slightly gets blurrier in some places, not all, and most notably at f/1.8 and f/2.8 (I didn't check other apertures though).

Even if that's how they all are I'd take softer corners for sharpness in the center and mid frame as that's where people's faces are likely to be. Might actually make for a nice look with less time in post blurring the edges!

I might just buy this as a throw in the bag lens to always have on hand. I'm missing that.

 

[ahsanford]

I have to compare the new 50 to my current yoda-aged EF 50 f/1.4 USM.

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=115&Camera=453&Sample=0&FLI=0&API=2&LensComp=989&CameraComp=453&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=0&APIComp=0

Using TDP's tool to compare those, I'm seeing something weird:

At f/1.8: Both are pretty wretched -- I wouldn't use either lens there. The new STM lens vignettes a lot more at that aperture.

At f/2 - f/2.8: The older f/1.4 lens is clearly better. (f/2 is the widest I typically shoot that older f/1.4 lens today.)

At f/4: I actually think the newer STM lens outperforms the older f/1.4 lens here. It's a small difference, but it's there.

At f/5.6 - f/11: I'm hard-pressed to see a difference as we might expect.

I'm likely sticking with my EF 50 f/1.4 USM until I see it upgraded. Someone would have to show me that the slow STM focusing without hunting is faster than my micro-crappy-USM with hunting. If the EF 40 pancake is any indicator, crappy/hunty USM trumps slow STM and I'll miss fewer shots with the older lens I own today.

- A

 

[Marsu42]

I have to compare the new 50 to my current yoda-aged EF 50 f/1.4 USM.

Well, for a good giggle look at this: http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=941&Camera=453&Sample=0&FLI=0&API=1&LensComp=989&CameraComp=453&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=0&APIComp=0

 

[Marsu42]

Re: TDP: 50mm 1.8 MkII vs. STM Image Quality

I would say that the new 50mm STM is a great cost-effective option for APS-C.

I dunno, imagining even this center "sharpness" magnified on a 24mp crop sensor doesn't sound too exciting - remember the pixel density of the ff sensor in the tdp is much lower.

Edit: this thread is a dupe, see http://www.canonrumors.com/forum/index.php?topic=26319.msg523631#msg523631

 

[Maximilian]

Impressive improvement. If this is not a good new against bad old sample comparison I must say I am very surprised to see so much difference.

It's surprising they get so much out of the old optical design, so this puts the lens on my "to be considered" list again! Btw did you ppl notice that the corners have actually *decreased* in sharpness old vs new wide open?

Here's the link for f1.8 (above is f2.0): http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=105&Camera=453&Sample=0&FLI=0&API=0&LensComp=989&CameraComp=453&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=0&APIComp=0

It's weird that this persists even stopped down, maybe the stm lens they tested has an issue? Here's f2.8: http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=105&Camera=453&Sample=0&FLI=0&API=2&LensComp=989&CameraComp=453&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=0&APIComp=2

I reconized that, too, but don't see that as an issue, because it is not that much. In RL I think you won't recognize that.
And I don't believe in a lens issue/problem because the midframe of the STM is also still much better than the 50 II.

 

[exquisitor]

I have to compare the new 50 to my current yoda-aged EF 50 f/1.4 USM.

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=115&Camera=453&Sample=0&FLI=0&API=2&LensComp=989&CameraComp=453&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=0&APIComp=0

Using TDP's tool to compare those, I'm seeing something weird:

At f/1.8: Both are pretty wretched -- I wouldn't use either lens there. The new STM lens vignettes a lot more at that aperture.

At f/2 - f/2.8: The older f/1.4 lens is clearly better. (f/2 is the widest I typically shoot that older f/1.4 lens today.)

At f/4: I actually think the newer STM lens outperforms the older f/1.4 lens here. It's a small difference, but it's there.

At f/5.6 - f/11: I'm hard-pressed to see a difference as we might expect.

I'm likely sticking with my EF 50 f/1.4 USM until I see it upgraded. Someone would have to show me that the slow STM focusing without hunting is faster than my micro-crappy-USM with hunting. If the EF 40 pancake is any indicator, crappy/hunty USM trumps slow STM and I'll miss fewer shots with the older lens I own today.

- A

I've also made the same comparison out of curiosity as I have 50 f/1.4 too. Actually even at f/2.8 the new 50 STM looks better in the very center. But as you mentioned the difference is so small, it wouldn't be visible in the real life.

However it looks intriguing what can be achieved through the simple optimizing of the design. I would be curious to see how the 50 f/1.4 would perform with an optimized design and new coatings. If it would be at the same price point as the old one, I would grab it immediately.

About f/1.4 with the actual 50 f/1.4: what is a point of the f/1.4 lens if it is not used at that aperture? Here is one example of the performance at f/1.4:
https://500px.com/photo/64874145/at-the-lake-by-erwin-nedel?from=user_library

 

[exquisitor]

I have to compare the new 50 to my current yoda-aged EF 50 f/1.4 USM.

Well, for a good giggle look at this: http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=941&Camera=453&Sample=0&FLI=0&API=1&LensComp=989&CameraComp=453&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=0&APIComp=0

Well, if I consider the weight and size of the 50 STM and the 50 ART, then it's not so funny anymore.

 

[ahsanford]

Photozone just posted their results:
http://www.photozone.de/canon_eos_ff/905-canon_50_18stm?start=1

It would appear the same optical formula (as others have said) isn't telling the whole story. It's a shade sharper wide open and slightly better in the corners throughout.

Not bad at all for such a cheap lens.

- A

 

[Mt Spokane Photography]

Re: TDP: 50mm 1.8 MkII vs. STM Image Quality

Since Chuck Westfall of Canon has already said that the lenses use the same optical formula, and difference is likely to be sample related.

 

[exquisitor]

Re: TDP: 50mm 1.8 MkII vs. STM Image Quality

Since Chuck Westfall of Canon has already said that the lenses use the same optical formula, and difference is likely to be sample related.

And what about new coatings? That would definitely make difference, what we also see.

 

[ajperk]

Re: TDP: 50mm 1.8 MkII vs. STM Image Quality

Since Chuck Westfall of Canon has already said that the lenses use the same optical formula, and difference is likely to be sample related.

It's potentially just sample variation, but The Digital Picture shows about the same results when you compare the STM to the MkII. They both may have gotten their hands on copies on the high quality side, but I think it's evidence that there is some measurable difference between the two. The same optical formula doesnt necessarily rule out improvements in manufacturing tolerances, materials, coatings, etc... Time will tell as more reviews come out and people go out and take pictures. Certainly the difference isn't large if there is one.

 

[Zv]

I did a quick test in store with both the MkII and STM on a 70D. From the very brief time looking at the preview (no memory card in it) I could clearly see the STM was sharper and had much better contrast in the center when shot wide open.

It's the same optical formula but the results are different. How many years has it been since the MkII? Surely Canon has figured something out in regards to improving IQ using the same formula in that time?

 

[ahsanford]

I did a quick test in store with both the MkII and STM on a 70D. From the very brief time looking at the preview (no memory card in it) I could clearly see the STM was sharper and had much better contrast in the center when shot wide open.

It's the same optical formula but the results are different. How many years has it been since the MkII? Surely Canon has figured something out in regards to improving IQ using the same formula in that time?

We'd expect to see less copy to copy variation with (presumably) a 20 year newer manufacturing process, but it's possible Canon's been updating the 50 f/1.8 II process (for cost reasons) all along it's history.

- A

 

[Marsu42]

It's the same optical formula but the results are different. How many years has it been since the MkII? Surely Canon has figured something out in regards to improving IQ using the same formula in that time?

I expect so - and that's not very hard to do considering the 50/1.8 II was intended to be a cheap low-iq lens even back then, plastic mount at all. So a relative improvement is all nice and such, but not necessarily something to get excited about in the year 2015 a.d. unless this is just what you're looking for. A decent usm 50/1.4 update, anyone?

 

[wsmith96]

A decent usm 50/1.4 update, anyone?

I'm up for a 50/1.4 update.

 

[Zv]

It's the same optical formula but the results are different. How many years has it been since the MkII? Surely Canon has figured something out in regards to improving IQ using the same formula in that time?

I expect so - and that's not very hard to do considering the 50/1.8 II was intended to be a cheap low-iq lens even back then, plastic mount at all. So a relative improvement is all nice and such, but not necessarily something to get excited about in the year 2015 a.d. unless this is just what you're looking for. A decent usm 50/1.4 update, anyone?

Plastic fantastic was my first prime and I loved it and yes a slightly better version for cheap is exactly what I'm looking for! Placed my order today!