Canon: We'll make any nutty lens you want -- unless its a 50 prime [CR9]

[Maximilian]

... Yeah I agree the non-L update shouldn't be a huge issue and should fit nicely with the 35 IS etc. If they do the same to the 85 that would make a nice selection of lighter smaller primes. ...

Exactly my thoughts, exactly my market segment.

Canon has been remarkably good at predicting the commercial success of its products; it seems a safe bet that if Canon hasn't released it, there isn't really enough demand to warrant the R&D and production.

I really don't mean this to be snarky, but maybe there just aren't a lot of folks like you who want this. What is so special about this focal length?

Terrifying logical as well as frightening, but hopefully not true. :'(
I really hope Canon R&D were just too busy making other lenses than those "standard" primes.
Otherwise I'll have to take a closer look at the Tamron offerings here :-\

 

[LDS]

Take the exact same optical formula as 1993 and just put it in a modern ring USM / internal focusing setup and $600 would leave my coffers faster than a speeding bullet.

Maybe Canon can't do IF without a new optical formula. And it looks the lens designers are quite busy churning out the nutty lenses we want...

 

[ahsanford]

Take the exact same optical formula as 1993 and just put it in a modern ring USM / internal focusing setup and $600 would leave my coffers faster than a speeding bullet.

Maybe Canon can't do IF without a new optical formula. And it looks the lens designers are quite busy churning out the nutty lenses we want...

I don't appreciate this aspect of lens design. Aren't the moving external bits around the glass decoupled from the optical formula? Can't Canon simply array the same elements into a larger outer housing so that all the sliding takes place inside of the outer housing?

- A

 

[jeffa4444]

I am torn between admiration for Canon making the TS-E 50mm lens (and a 2.8 and Macro at that) and bewilderment that that has been given a high priority than a modern 50/1.4. That TS lens will have been very involved to design and build, inevitably will not sell that many units but speaks to canon's determination to maintain an ecosystem that nobody else can match with the highest quality glass. All great. But still, yes, the OP makes a fair and funny point - a modern 50mm 1.4 , L or non-L would seem a no brainer.

I suspect some of this is because of Sigma's success in that focal length perhaps having now saturated the market for those wanting a fast sharp modern 50 - if Canon is doing serious market research I think they might find that there just isn't a huge demand. Those who really want a 50mm L lens in many cases already have the 1.2. Those who just want a simple 1.4 can buy the lens sold today which is good if not great. Those obsessed with sharpness can buy the Sigma 50 Art. So while many here - myself included - love the idea of an updated 50/1.4 with L build quality and maybe IS, how many of us would actually be willing to pay the high price Canon would likely charge to recover the development costs?

If the number who really would buy it is low then Canon simply will not be pushing resources that way. I am sure it will come eventually, Canon clearly is determined to maintain a high quality range of glass, but I sort of understand why it would be a lower priority.

For me the strangest thing really though is why they don't make the 50mm 1.0 again. The old lens, impossible to service, soft at wide apertures, terrible bokeh, clumsy auto-focus sells for thousands second hand. If people could buy a brand new one from Canon, hopefully improved especially with modern coatings, and full warranty and ability to service it, I am sure these days there would be more demand than before. I think more and more people today are willing to pay thousands to buy what they consider to be "the best" - see how Zeiss has made a success of the Otus line. If Canon wished to avoid development costs they could simply restart production of the flawed original I think they would still sell plenty - they could price them at $3000 and undercut the second hand price which is rather strange!

They have a EF24mm f1.4L II, they have a EF35mm f1.4L II and now a EF85mm f1.4L. Its simply illogical to believe they will not produce a EF50mm f1.4L, EF28mm f1.4L and even a EF100mm f1.4L. These lenses collectively will give them a really good standard set for video if nothing else after all Sigma have created PL versions of their Art lenses and not everyone wants PL mounts.
To me its more of a question of "why" haven't they done it, constant aperture lenses make sense in shallow depth of field and keeping the lighting relatively the same perfect for video. Yes Canon have the CN lenses but they are expensive and some are based on older stills lenses that are not particularly good by today standards.

 

[YuengLinger]

Very funny approach to this round of moaning! Even my non-photographer wife had a good laugh.

Where the heck is the new 50mm???

 

[ahsanford]

They have a EF24mm f1.4L II, they have a EF35mm f1.4L II and now a EF85mm f1.4L. Its simply illogical to believe they will not produce a EF50mm f1.4L, EF28mm f1.4L and even a EF100mm f1.4L.

That's optimistic. 28 f/1.4 and 100 f/1.4 are niche instruments between existing FL primes that few folks are screaming for. The standard battery of 24 / 35 / 50 / 85 / 135, however, are staple instruments.

I just don't understand why we've got A (L lens) and B+ (non-L lens) quality instruments at 24mm, 35mm, etc. and 50mm and 85mm (relatively) go begging.

That said, the similarly venerable 85 f/1.8 USM is a far better instrument than the 50 f/1.4 USM:

• Ring USM, not micro USM -- faster, night and day different w.r.t. hunting for lock
  
  
• Internal focusing -- no more damaged lens by bumping a protruding front element, no extended barrel for stuff to get inside in the lens, etc.
  
  
• More useable wide open -- sharper corners, less 'cloudy' low contrast output than the 50

- A

 

[ahsanford]

Canon has been remarkably good at predicting the commercial success of its products; it seems a safe bet that if Canon hasn't released it, there isn't really enough demand to warrant the R&D and production.

I really don't mean this to be snarky, but maybe there just aren't a lot of folks like you who want this. What is so special about this focal length?

Far be it from me to say that Canon doesn't know what it is doing. I almost always see the wisdom in their moves, or trust to the fact that their data/marketing/insight is much more robust than (we) the unwashed masses of the internet.

But as to why such insistence for a better non-L 50 prime, it's a combination of the utility of the focal length and my disappointment of the 50L sitting above it:

• Short of a 35mm prime, it's arguably the most versatile prime focal length in that it could passably jump to a dozen different photography needs. It doesn't distort faces and it's not too long, so other than macro/product, sports/wildlife, there's little you can't try with it.
  
  
• Canon's L offering at 50mm is not for me, and not for price -- I'd get one if it addressed my needs, and it doesn't. I don't use a 50 prime to make dreamy portraits or live in the f/1.2 - f/1.8 range. The 50L lacks the flat plane of focus I desire, is cotton balls non-sharp away from the center (even stopped down!) and I've found it very hard to consistently nail focus wider than f/2 when aiming off-center. It's a sexy tool for a specific use-case that I don't use. Pass.
  
  
• It's the unique focal length where double gauss designs defy physics -- 50s uniquely can be very fast and still stay small/discreet and relatively inexpensive. Longer f/1.4 lenses are bigger. Wider f/1.4 lenses are bigger. 50mm sits in this 'you can keep it small' little valley. I love that weird quirk of the lens universe.
  
  
• It's often the first prime you use, so many photographers' training wheels period with primes revolve around this lens.
  
  

And surely I'm not the only one with that perspective. I'm not going to go all AvTvM and declare millions of people are like me, but this lens (or perhaps a better 50 prime in general) is surely the #1 recurrent ask here at CR now that the 35L II and 100-400L II have been released.

- A

 

[LDS]

I don't appreciate this aspect of lens design. Aren't the moving external bits around the glass decoupled from the optical formula? Can't Canon simply array the same elements into a larger outer housing so that all the sliding takes place inside of the outer housing?

No, IF is more complex than that, usually it means internal groups move while others don't, and/or some elements may change relative position.

in most compact double Gauss designs AFAIK the whole optical part moves. Simply housing it in an external barrel would just make it bulkier. As long as the front element doesn't rotate, I don't care if small lenses are not IF.

 

[ahsanford]

No, IF is more complex than that, usually it means internal groups move while others don't, and/or some elements may change relative position.

in most compact double Gauss designs AFAIK the whole optical part moves. Simply housing it in an external barrel would just make it bulkier. As long as the front element doesn't rotate, I don't care if small lenses are not IF.

Right right, thanks. Now we're getting down into the weeds of "Is a 16-35 f/4L IS, 16-35 f/2.8L III, 50L, etc. an internal zooming / focusing lens?"

• The technical answer to that question is no because there isn't a closed off vessel/cylinder that encloses all the moving bits. (Go to TDP and play with the zooming/focusing mouseovers and those lenses' front elements do shuttle front to back in use.)
  
  
• The practical answer to that question is yes: though the front element moves front to back in those lenses, neither lens allows that front element to ever clear the outer barrel. So neither lens will ever have something sticking out in advance of the barrel that can get knocked, pushed, etc.

So let's get in the weeds for a second on what I'd personally like to see in the new 50: internal focusing should be either an unqualified textbook yes (front element is static) or the qualified yes of the lenses I listed above.

What is critical for me is no protruding front elements that can be bumped/damaged or external sliding tubes that can let junk into the lens -- I could care less if there is the 50L / 16-35 phenomenon of a sliding internal barrel that is externally shielded as I front-filter all my lenses and that ingress pathway is blocked off.

Also, a rare and nutty need, but shaped bokeh stencils you drape over a larger aperture lens generally go to hell with sliding bits -- they work much better without any telescoping. I've tried to use these on my 50 f/1.4 and it's a hot mess to manage. Admittedly, this is a niche need, but if the non-L IS refreshes can offer this, why not at 50mm?

But yes, to LDS's point, I'd actually take the bulk of the added external barrel in this case. It's value is worth a modest size delta. (It's not like the 50 f/1.4 will become a Sigma 50 Art if they did that.)

- A

 

[ajfotofilmagem]

Samyang managed to make a modern 50mm F1.4 weighing only 535 grams. You just need to put an AF in it. It seems to me a middle ground between the old Canon and the gigantic Sigma Art.

 

[Jopa]

Tokyo [AP] -- Touting company plans to offer new diffractive optics lenses, Canon imaging exec Richard Trickle continues to put his money down on offering new glass.

"Lenses continue to drive business, and we'll design as many as can to help the photography community thrive, unless it's in a staple focal length prime lens like a 50mm f/1.4" he said in an interview Wednesday.

Trickle, continuing with excitement: "We'll refresh anything the field wants. Other than an exceptionally handy, small and fast prime lens in high demand like a new EF 50mm f/1.4 USM, of course."

"There really is no end to what we'll do to satisfy our customers. Illuminated crop macro lenses to shoot your restaurant order from short distances for Instagram? Done. Tilt-shift 1:2 macro lenses? You're welcome. Compact DO superteles? You betcha. Resurrect nutty old nonsense? I don't want to spoil anything, but can you imagine Softfocus II? I sure can."

"But I honestly can't think of a reason why we'd waste time and offer a staple professional tool like a workhorse 50 prime that has a flat plane of focus, is sharp somewhere other than dead center and has AF that can lock without hunting until next Tuesday. Who the hell needs one of those?"

That was fun to read Exactly what I feel after reading the supertelephoto DO rumor. It seems like no one actually cares about 50mm gap because all Canon users are beefy birders and carrying in their pockets a 600/4 or so.

 

[SkynetTX]

Ok, Canon. I'd like to have a nutty 250mm f5.6 IS USM Macro lens with 1:1 reprodutcion ratio and about 75 cm Minimum Object Distance since sometimes I'm phisically unable to get closer to the subjects. Thank you!

 

[stevelee]

lol. hehe!

i have a 1 yr young ED 50/1.4 in my closet. dont think i have taken more than 50 shots with it yet. will not buy any other 50 prime any time soon. f/1.4 or 1.0 or whatever and IS or not. "art" or not. south or north of 1k ... no, thanks.

waiting for delivery of my personal copy of canon EF-M 85/2.4 IS STM.

The 50mm f/1.4 is more useful on a crop-sensor camera. It functions a lot like an 85mm on FF (80mm equivalent, after all), and that's how I use mine. If/when I buy a FF camera, I will probably use it as rarely as you do. Probably the 100mm macro I already have will take that place for a while, a long with its other uses.

 

[Act444]

lol. hehe!

i have a 1 yr young ED 50/1.4 in my closet. dont think i have taken more than 50 shots with it yet. will not buy any other 50 prime any time soon. f/1.4 or 1.0 or whatever and IS or not. "art" or not. south or north of 1k ... no, thanks.

waiting for delivery of my personal copy of canon EF-M 85/2.4 IS STM.

The 50mm f/1.4 is more useful on a crop-sensor camera. It functions a lot like an 85mm on FF (80mm equivalent, after all), and that's how I use mine. If/when I buy a FF camera, I will probably use it as rarely as you do. Probably the 100mm macro I already have will take that place for a while, a long with its other uses.

True, most of my use of the 50 1.8 STM has been on my M6 (via adapter) rather than on my 5D. Since there's no current EF-M equivalent, it's really the only compact way I know of to get a portrait-friendly FOV with that camera.

I have used the 50 (1.2 version) on the 5D as well, but lately I've been favoring more the 35mm FOV for wide shots - plus, I find the 35 1.4 II to be a FAR better lens than the 50 1.2 (sorry 50L fans). An improved 50mm lens from Canon is quite high on my wishlist (although if the new 85 1.4 is decent enough, the 35/85 1.4 combo may be more favored by me).