EF 50 1.8 STM

[milkrocks]

I'll definitely consider selling my 40 2.8 and 50 1.8 to buy a 50 1.8 STM. I like the sharpness of the 40 but wish i could get an extra stop out of it. The 50 actually works pretty well on my EOS 3 (yes, film) but is a challenge on the 6D.

 

[FTb-n]

I have both the 24-70 f2.8L II and the 24-105 f4L IS. The former has won me over for sports and events where I prefer to shoot with shutter speeds faster than 1/100 sec. The latter is my preferred choice for landscapes which might include running water, I prefer the 24-105 with IS. This enables me to shoot with controlled motion blur. (To be fair, my landscape shooting is very limited and only when I travel.)

The 2.8 zooms (which includes the 70-200) satisfies the vast majority of my needs. Still, I occasionally run into an event that requires something faster and would like a couple "fast primes" for the occasion. The need isn't high enough to justify the 35L or 50L. I've been quite happy with the 35 f2 IS as one of these lenses and have been waiting for a sibling in the 50mm range.

Now, here's the curious part. My hope has always been for a 50 1.4 with IS, but I was ready to settle for a 50 f 2.0 IS. Now Canon introduces a 50 1.8 STM and I'm not excited about it. For low light candids, I would still use a shutter speed that's fast enough to not need IS, so this new lens, if sharp wide open, should be a great option. But I'm now more inclined to wait and see what Canon does with the 50 1.4.

Part of my thinking is that the 35 IS and a future 50 IS would mitigate my need for the 24-105 by also satisfying the the bulk of my IS needs for wide to normal focal lengths.

I also own the 40 f2.8 which is incredibly sharp corner to corner. I expect the new 50 to be as good. Still, I'll wait for a 50 1.4. (Incidentally, the 40 is EXTREMELY handy on a 5D3 as a grab shot lens. It will definitely stay in my kit for some time to come.)

 

[mrsfotografie]

if its got a metal lens mount and circler iris ill get it stm ok.

I still use the 50 1.8 mk 1 its slow and noisy but built like a tank compared to the mk2 plus it even has a distance scale.

The 50 1.8 mk 1 is my travel '50' and the results still blow me away every time.

 

[Mr_Canuck]

C'mon Canon, just do what Nikon did and update both your 1.8 and 1.4 at the same time with modern designs, but do add IS to at least one of them. (Hear the Pentax folk snicker.)

 

[Marsu42]

I still use the 50 1.8 mk 1 its slow and noisy but built like a tank compared to the mk2 plus it even has a distance scale.

The 50 1.8 mk 1 is my travel '50' and the results still blow me away every time.

The results (sharpness, bokeh) of my 50/1.8 II also blow me away, but probably not like you had in mind ... and that's ignoring the build quality which as you know has decreased on mk1->mk2

The 50 actually works pretty well on my EOS 3 (yes, film) but is a challenge on the 6D.

 

[sagittariansrock]

I agree with Sulla that the new Canon f/2.8 zooms are prime-killers. They have caused me to sell my 50/1.8, 50/1.4 and 40/2.8, all of which are less sharp than the zoom at f/2.8. I have been not felt the need to upgrade to the L version of the 100mm macro.
Having said that, the benefit of weight still remains, for those who care. The 135/2 is a great travel lens in that regard; I used to miss the telephoto FL simply because I couldn't lug the 70-200.
And of course, price. If you can get equal sharpness at 50mm/f-3.5 for $ 300 bucks then why pay another $ 1500 for something you don't need?

 

[mrsfotografie]

I agree with Sulla that the new Canon f/2.8 zooms are prime-killers. They have caused me to sell my 50/1.8, 50/1.4 and 40/2.8, all of which are less sharp than the zoom at f/2.8. I have been not felt the need to upgrade to the L version of the 100mm macro.
Having said that, the benefit of weight still remains, for those who care. The 135/2 is a great travel lens in that regard; I used to miss the telephoto FL simply because I couldn't lug the 70-200.
And of course, price. If you can get equal sharpness at 50mm/f-3.5 for $ 300 bucks then why pay another $ 1500 for something you don't need?

The better high iso performance of today's camera's also makes a difference, making extreme wide apertures only needed if you want very narrow DOF or shoot almost in the dark. I find that I'll often try to stop down to at least f/2.8 to get sufficient DOF in most cases. Still, I tend to carry a prime when I travel because the zooms I use then are at least f/4 and that really is dark when the light gets dim.

Sometimes it's also just 'fun' to shoot with a prime especially if I take just the lens and body because it makes me think hard what focal length I'll need and then stick to it. That's one reason why I have a Canon EF 24mm f/2.8 which is a pretty useless lens to me otherwise, oh and it completes my prim(e)ordial trinity of 24mm f/2.8, 35mm f/2.0 and 50mm f/1.8. FWIW these tiny old primes are really great because I can almost always squeeze one in a corner of my bag if I think I might need/want to use it.

 

[sagittariansrock]

I agree with Sulla that the new Canon f/2.8 zooms are prime-killers. They have caused me to sell my 50/1.8, 50/1.4 and 40/2.8, all of which are less sharp than the zoom at f/2.8. I have been not felt the need to upgrade to the L version of the 100mm macro.
Having said that, the benefit of weight still remains, for those who care. The 135/2 is a great travel lens in that regard; I used to miss the telephoto FL simply because I couldn't lug the 70-200.
And of course, price. If you can get equal sharpness at 50mm/f-3.5 for $ 300 bucks then why pay another $ 1500 for something you don't need?

The better high iso performance of today's camera's also makes a difference, making extreme wide apertures only needed if you want very narrow DOF or shoot almost in the dark. I find that I'll often try to stop down to at least f/2.8 to get sufficient DOF in most cases. Still, I tend to carry a prime when I travel because the zooms I use then are at least f/4 and that really is dark when the light gets dim.

Sometimes it's also just 'fun' to shoot with a prime especially if I take just the lens and body because it makes me think hard what focal length I'll need and then stick to it. That's one reason why I have a Canon EF 24mm f/2.8 which is a pretty useless lens to me otherwise, oh and it completes my prim(e)ordial trinity of 24mm f/2.8, 35mm f/2.0 and 50mm f/1.8. FWIW these tiny old primes are really great because I can almost always squeeze one in a corner of my bag if I think I might need/want to use it.

+1.
Right now, I have sent my zooms ahead of me in anticipation of a move, and only have access to my 35/85/135. I find it fun to stick to those focal lengths and push myself.

 

[Arty]

F1.8 is more than a stop faster than F2.8. It lets you shoot in lower light, at the same ISO. F1.8 also gives you sufficient dept of field,
when F1.4 may not work for you.
To say that more than one stop doesn't matter, is like saying that there is no point in going full frame, because it won't give you enough
of an ISO performance advantage over the newer crops.
For me, F2 will often get the shot at better image quality than I can get with an F2.8 lens. My macro lenses are all F2.8, and they
are not low light lenses. For that, I want at least F2. F1.4 may give me too shallow depth of field for my needs, but the option is
always there to stop down.
If Canon made a 50F1.4 IS, I would get one. However, if they produced a good F1.7 lens at this focal length with IS, I would get one
especially if it were sharp wide open.
I use zooms outside, and fast primes inside - and that includes F2 lenses.
If a stop doesn't matter, why would anyone get the Canon 50F1.2 instead of the F1.4 competition? After all, it is less than a stop
faster than an F1.4 lens.

 

[sulla]

Thanks all for your thoughts. They give me good insight in your reasoning.

I too own a few slower primes, 100 Macro, 90 TSE that are both not faster than the zooms, but can do different ticks that the zooms can't. And I own the 40 STM, because I just couldn't resist its size and price.

But I sold the 85 1.8 and the 28 1.8 when I moved from the 5D1 to the 5D3, because the difference to the zooms in terms of light just was not enough, and shallow DOF was not a unique property in both (because the 28 doesn't have a lot DOF to play with anyway and the thin DOF of the 85 1.8 for portraits can nearly be achieved with the 70-200 2.8 at longer focal lengths, too. I just didn't use the 85 1.8 any longer. I liked the 85 1.2 a lot when I borrowed it from a friend for a weekend. The low light diffrence to my zooms was very noticeable).

Size isn't such an issue for me, for if it was, I wouldn't use the DSLR in the first place.

But I do like 50mm in a lens, a lot more than 85mm, actually, and I do miss low light capabilities in the zooms (concerts etc...). The IQ of the 50 1.4 USM just isn't bearable wide open, so I also sold that one...

I really long for a 50 1.0-1.4 with good IQ - AND AF (this rules out the sigma art with the current firmware). I would give an arm and a leg for a newly developed one!!! I'm confident Canon will release such a lens soon, so I'll omit the 1.8 (if it is announced indeed), and will suffer just a little longer.

 

[Crosswind]

EF 50 1.8 STM availability?

I really long for a 50 1.0-1.4 with good IQ - AND AF (this rules out the sigma art with the current firmware). I would give an arm and a leg for a newly developed one!!! I'm confident Canon will release such a lens soon, so I'll omit the 1.8 (if it is announced indeed), and will suffer just a little longer.

I'm on the same train of thought, but I'm not sure when Canon will release a new 50mm 1.4 lens. Could also be in 2016. I'll probably buy the new 1.8 just because I fear that we'll have to wait much longer than expected to get a new Canon 50 1.4...

A new 50 1.8 might also be much cheaper than a 1.4 prime, as I also have to save a little bit of money to buy a Canon EOS 6D II one day

Anyone here who's confident in Canon to release a compact 50 1.4 in 2015?

 

[switters]

Sorry if I missed this somewhere, but has Canon actually announced the 50mm f/1.8 STM, or is it still a rumor? This thread makes it sound like a done deal (and maybe it is), but is it possible that we might see a 50/1.4?

Seems to me that Canon would not update the 50/1.8 unless they can improve upon it significantly. If not, then why bother?

Although I'd rather have a stellar 50/1.4, if the 50/1.8 is very high quality I'll buy it. I use my "prime killer" 24-70/2.8 II and 70-200/2.8 IS 80% of the time, but a compact and lightweight 50mm would complement my 35 IS for the times when I don't want to lug around the zooms, or when I want the "creative limitation" of primes.

 

[ajfotofilmagem]

Sorry if I missed this somewhere, but has Canon actually announced the 50mm f/1.8 STM, or is it still a rumor? This thread makes it sound like a done deal (and maybe it is), but is it possible that we might see a 50/1.4?

For now there are only rumors about a Canon 50mm F1.8 STM. Some patents have been published about 50mm F1.4 and 50mm F1.3 lens, but not all patents result in real products.

 

[Deleted member 7828]

For anyone planning to get one of the new 5Ds - one option that opens up is that the 35 f2 IS can be turned into a 46mm f2 IS in the 1.3x crop mode (30 MP). That's pretty close to 50. And you keep USM. Also, you get rid of the corners which can appear hazy at 2.8 and below.

But for the rest of us, it would be nice to have newer 50mm options.

 

[Sporgon]

Some of the best 50mm lenses ever made have been f/2.0 —

So true. The favourite 50mm lens of my career is the Nikkor 50mm f/2. It was sold as a 'budget' alternative to the f/1.8 and ( in those days ) very expensive f/1.4.

Well like you do, I thought the four times more expensive f/1.4 Nikkor must be better, so I saved up for one. For years I was completely baffled as to why it wasn't as good as the f/2 lens ! Fortunately I hadn't traded the f/2 one in. I ended up trading the faster lens for something else.

So if we got an f/2 50mm STM lens that was as good at f/2 as the 40 pancake is at f/2.8 I'd be in there.

Well all this talk of a possible new 50mm lens of f/1.8 to f/2 got me thinking about one of my few Nikkor lenses that I have left; the 50mm f/2 Ai-s.

As I said in the quote above, I remember this lens as being the best 50 I ever used. I remember spending ages puzzling over why my nice new, shiny and expensive Nikkor f/1.4 wasn't as good.

So true to my word I bought a Nikon : EOS adapter and gave it a go, having first had to cut the rear peg off before it took the mirror out of my camera. Well I wasn't looking back at the past with rose tinted glasses, this lens is superb from f/2.8 onwards, easily matching the potential resolution of the 5DII sensor. It is slightly sharper than the Canon 1.4 lens at these apertures, but much more so to the edge of the frame. At f/2 it is 'dreamy', but in a very attractive way, and I think the bokeh is quite interesting.

When making a lens that is really stellar at mid apertures it is much easier to achieve this with a lens that is slower to start with. This Nikkor f/2 and other lenses such as the 40mm pancake are examples of this. So if Canon were to produce a new 50mm f/2 lens it could well be stunning for a very reasonable price. I'm really hoping that we get a 2015 version of this Nikkor f/2. IS as well if they can keep it this good.

I've attached two pictures. The first is at f/2 + a little fill, softened with tissue, though of course this lens doesn't give any information to the flash, so accurate fill was a little erratic. I like what the lens has done here.

The second is a hand held snap at f5.6 and this picture gives an idea of the contrast the lens help to give. This is pretty well straight off the camera, tweaked in levels and the only sharpening is USM : 100% @ 0.4 pixel. The third picture is a 100% crop.

The only time I have used this lens on FF digital before was when I tried the Nikon D800. I now realise that one of the pluses of that camera wasn't actually the camera at all !

So the moral of the story is if you want a reasonably priced lens that is razor sharp after one or two stops in don't make it too fast in the first place.

 

[jeffa4444]

Ive yet to purchase a 50mm but I will when Canon replace the current line-up of the 50mm f1.8 MKII and the 50mm f1.4. Im not concerned about STM as I dont shoot video (I use dedicated video cameras for video) but IS is a real pluse. If a replacement for the f1.8 lens was f2 but significantly better wide-open then I would prefer that first and foremost IQ matters the most. Secondly build quality has always stopped me purchasing the EF 50mm f1.8 MKII it maybe respectable optically for the price but plastic lens mounts dont do it for me after having one badly marked by grit.

 

[JohanCruyff]

I've yet to purchase a 50mm but I will when Canon replace the current line-up of the 50mm f1.8 MKII and the 50mm f1.4.

+1
So please, Canon, hurry up!

 

[Crosswind]

I've yet to purchase a 50mm but I will when Canon replace the current line-up of the 50mm f1.8 MKII and the 50mm f1.4.

+1
So please, Canon, hurry up!

++ Go, go Canon Give us the non-L 50mm @ NAB this year