EF 50mm f/1.8 STM Mentioned Again

[ScottyP]

I'd pick one of the upgraded f/1.8 lenses up if:

1.) More than 5 aperture blades, preferably rounded ones (why not?).
2.) At least a little less flimsy.
3.) AF smoother, less jerky and "buzzy".
4.) Under $300.

If they also tweaked the optics to make it a little sharper in some way, preferably when wide open, then I'd run not walk to get one.

I am just not that worked up over IS. I think the other items above are more important.

 

[ajfotofilmagem]

I'd pick one of the upgraded f/1.8 lenses up if:

1.) More than 5 aperture blades, preferably rounded ones (why not?).
2.) At least a little less flimsy.
3.) AF smoother, less jerky and "buzzy".
4.) Under $300.

If they also tweaked the optics to make it a little sharper in some way, preferably when wide open, then I'd run not walk to get one.

I am just not that worked up over IS. I think the other items above are more important.

Your requirements are quite realistic, and every reason to believe that Canon will offer a decent upgrade, below $ 300.

 

[ahsanford]

I'd pick one of the upgraded f/1.8 lenses up if:

1.) More than 5 aperture blades, preferably rounded ones (why not?).
2.) At least a little less flimsy.
3.) AF smoother, less jerky and "buzzy".
4.) Under $300.

If they also tweaked the optics to make it a little sharper in some way, preferably when wide open, then I'd run not walk to get one.

I am just not that worked up over IS. I think the other items above are more important.

Agree. Those are reasonable expectations. That lens is likely to occur.

I, personally, will pass on that one and wait for a few extra nice things for the future 50 f/nooneknows* IS USM:

• Rock solid ring USM that is fast, accurate and consistent
• Internal focusing -- no externally telescoping leading element.
• IS
• *Perhaps a fraction of a stop faster (we've heard many rumors of f/1.4 IS and f/1.8 IS)

But that's just me being a very consistent obsessive. I want a 50mm version of the 35 f/2 IS USM very, very much.

- A

 

[lintoni]

As I understand it, there are no 50mm pancake lenses on the market for SLR cameras. A 50mm lens must have its optical centre 50mm from the focal plane at infinity focus. That's rather a thick pancake. 40mm lenses can be made very flat because 40mm from the focal plane is not far beyond the lens throat. The EFS 24mm pancake lens has its rear element recessed into the lens throat. Wider angle lenses use complex retrofocus design, resulting in an optical centre of the lens beyond the rear element of the lens. Conversely telephoto lenses are designed so that the optical centre of the lens is beyond the outer element of the lens. Both techniques require additional lens elements and complex distortion correction strategies. A pancake lens doesn't have the space or, usually, the budget, to incorporate such technology, so for full frame or cropped sensor SLR cameras, pancake lenses are going to continue to be around the 24-40mm focal length range.

As I understand it, a 50mm lens could (conceivably) be a pancake, if it included a magnifying element in its design.

 

[OMD]

Very disappointed it's not going to have IS. It goes from a must purchase to a probably not. IS is just so useful for video.

 

[richro]

If it's not a pancake, IS, or f/1.4, I'm not interested.

 

[Solar Eagle]

Just face it, Canon will get your money with the 50mm f1.8 STM, and will get your money again with the 50mm f1.4 IS USM. lol Canon has the correct strategy, despite the gripes of forum peeps. I mean who will buy the $200 1.8 if they already bought the $800 1.4 IS?

 

[pj1974]

If there are 2 options, I’m more interested in a f/1.4 – f/2 with USM than a f/1.8 STM, as I expect the USM will also be the ‘superior’ of the 2 (similar to how Canon’s current f/1.4 is overall superior to the f/1.8 – also in build quality).

I have recently been thinking, a f/1.6 could be a great compromise (cf Lensbaby's 55mm f/1.6 possibility)…

What I would like is an EF Canon 50mm prime lens soon, with IS and great image quality (IQ) wide open, please!

Paul

 

[Maximilian]

Sounding more like a 50mm pancake every time it's mentioned...

Hi Haydn!

Although rumors and guessing is nice I can't follow your thought.
As lintoni pointed out, there would have been information on this from this source.

And as far as I understand optical lens design there is a limit for good pancake lenses in focal length and aperture, depending on the sensor size as well. And as This seems to become a FF lens (as EF) it is quite difficult.
Or could you find any (good) 50/1.8 pancake lens (for FF) from other manufacturer?
Me not. But I am willing to learn.

But here I am very sure that they will improve the actual optical design and not make something completely new.

 

[lintoni]

Just face it, Canon will get your money with the 50mm f1.8 STM, and will get your money again with the 50mm f1.4 IS USM. lol Canon has the correct strategy, despite the gripes of forum peeps. I mean who will buy the $200 1.8 if they already bought the $800 1.4 IS?

No they won't. I got fed up of waiting for a decent f/1.4 upgrade, so Sigma received my pennies.

 

[Solar Eagle]

No they won't. I got fed up of waiting for a decent f/1.4 upgrade, so Sigma received my pennies.

An excellent lens, but at what cost? The Sigma (815g) weighs more than the 24-70 f/2.8 (805g), which is a very large lens.

My 24-70 f/4 (600g) feels pretty good on my 6D, but the 35mm f/2 IS (335g) feels perfect to me. I like Sigmas balls-to-the-wall approach but I enjoy a lens that's about half the weight of their 50.

 

[mb66energy]

If that lens has no IS I am NOT interested - the 40mm will be good enough.
Some say "a fast lens doesn't need IS" - not my opinion. Large aperture lenses are ideal for IS because it extends their usage in low light furthermore in situations where a tripod is not allowed or not ideal.

If there are 2 options, I’m more interested in a f/1.4 – f/2 with USM than a f/1.8 STM, as I expect the USM will also be the ‘superior’ of the 2 (similar to how Canon’s current f/1.4 is overall superior to the f/1.8 – also in build quality).

I have recently been thinking, a f/1.6 could be a great compromise (cf Lensbaby's 55mm f/1.6 possibility)…

What I would like is an EF Canon 50mm prime lens soon, with IS and great image quality (IQ) wide open, please!

Paul

100% consensus with you last statement and 1.6 would be sufficient (but I like more the 1.4 because it is easier to calculate exposure with standard aperture values).

If Canon doesn't deliver an EF 50mm/1.x IS USM (ii) lens in the next ~12 months and there is a strong need for 1.4/50mm I think about converting my FD 1.4 50mm S.S.C. which performs great on my EOS M. Just gone full frame with two 5D classic - the FD lens will easily deliver great IQ at f/1.4 on the 5MPix of the 5D classic in its APS-C region if it delivers good IQ on an EOS M ...

But looking at the annountced 5D flavours with 50MPIx sensors I am absolutely shure Canon will deliver a mark ii of at least one of both lenses, the EF 50/1.4 and EF 50/1.2 - to give options beyond Sigma or Zeiss choices.

 

[lintoni]

No they won't. I got fed up of waiting for a decent f/1.4 upgrade, so Sigma received my pennies.

An excellent lens, but at what cost? The Sigma (815g) weighs more than the 24-70 f/2.8 (805g), which is a very large lens.

My 24-70 f/4 (600g) feels pretty good on my 6D, but the 35mm f/2 IS (335g) feels perfect to me. I like Sigmas balls-to-the-wall approach but I enjoy a lens that's about half the weight of their 50.

The size and weight are a compromise that I decided to accept. There are some benefits, in that it shares 77mm filters with most of my other lenses.
At the moment, there is no 50mm lens in Canon's line-up that meets with the compromises that I'd accept. The L is an expensive speciaity portrait lens, the 1.8 is a budget design that is very good for its price, but...
If they'd come out with a decent refresh of their f/1.4 with a ring USM and reliability issues sorted, and IQ slightly improved on their current model, I'd have been a customer for such a lens. IS would be the cherry on that particular cake. But you can't take photos with a nonexistent lens.

 

[pulsiv]

I don't get it... who needs an IS on a 50mm prime lens that is f/1.8 or brighter?
I'd rather drink a beer if my hands tremble.

 

[brianleighty]

I don't get it... who needs an IS on a 50mm prime lens that is f/1.8 or brighter?
I'd rather drink a beer if my hands tremble.

Video is the main market but then again take that 1.8 and and IS and now you can shoot still life in even lower light.

 

[ScottyP]

No they won't. I got fed up of waiting for a decent f/1.4 upgrade, so Sigma received my pennies.

An excellent lens, but at what cost? The Sigma (815g) weighs more than the 24-70 f/2.8 (805g), which is a very large lens.

My 24-70 f/4 (600g) feels pretty good on my 6D, but the 35mm f/2 IS (335g) feels perfect to me. I like Sigmas balls-to-the-wall approach but I enjoy a lens that's about half the weight of their 50.

The size and weight are a compromise that I decided to accept. There are some benefits, in that it shares 77mm filters with most of my other lenses.
At the moment, there is no 50mm lens in Canon's line-up that meets with the compromises that I'd accept. The L is an expensive speciaity portrait lens, the 1.8 is a budget design that is very good for its price, but...
If they'd come out with a decent refresh of their f/1.4 with a ring USM and reliability issues sorted, and IQ slightly improved on their current model, I'd have been a customer for such a lens. IS would be the cherry on that particular cake. But you can't take photos with a nonexistent lens.

Everyone is different, but personally I really don't mind, or even notice, a couple hundred grams difference in lens weight, and size doesn't bother me either until things get to a size that makes the Canon worker gnomes reach for the white paint instead of the black. .
Good IQ and a competitive price matter a lot more to me, and I actually like a lens that feels solid rather than one that is feather light and too little to grip and work with easily.

 

[ahsanford]

I don't get it... who needs an IS on a 50mm prime lens that is f/1.8 or brighter?
I'd rather drink a beer if my hands tremble.

Here's an old passage on why I'd rather have an f/2.8 IS over an f/1.4 lens (from another thread about another lens). The same is true even when comparing f/1.8 to f/1.8 IS per your question.

I would love IS. I'm a handheld, available light shooter who often ends up in the ISO 3200 - 6400 range on my 5D3. I'd take IS on everything if I could.

In low light / non-moving subject scenes, IS simply buys you speed and options. IS lets you either bring the ISO down to something more reasonable or lets you stop the lens down to gain more DOF and sharpness.

Remember, a huge aperture lens like an F/1.4 might seem a creative opportunity, but lack of IS on it will make that F/1.4 a light-driven necessity that punishes you when you don't want a small DOF.

Put differently, an F/1.4 lens might seem better than (say) an F/2.8 IS lens, but if you always have to slam the F/1.4 wide open to net a long enough shutter, your shots will be soft and have a limited DOF. Stopping the F/2.8 down to F/4 will net sharper shots with more working DOF, so in low light, and for what I shoot, I'd choose the F/2.8 IS over the F/1.4 every time.

- A

 

[Deleted member 7828]

I completely agree. In fact, for that very reason I've found myself using the 24-105 at events where I'd normally use the 24-70 2.8 for that very reason. F2.8 is awesome...until it is time for that group shot or still portrait, then you get hosed having to stop down and no IS. I find I actually take more high-ISO shots with the 2.8 then with the 4 due to the lack of IS (but the shots with the 2.8 have a look that you just can't get with the 4, so...)

Anyway I think there is a place for both types of lenses. Until Canon finally comes out with a 24-70 2.8 IS anyway.

 

[ahsanford]

I completely agree. In fact, for that very reason I've found myself using the 24-105 at events where I'd normally use the 24-70 2.8 for that very reason. F2.8 is awesome...until it is time for that group shot or still portrait, then you get hosed having to stop down and no IS. I find I actually take more high-ISO shots with the 2.8 then with the 4 due to the lack of IS (but the shots with the 2.8 have a look that you just can't get with the 4, so...)

Anyway I think there is a place for both types of lenses. Until Canon finally comes out with a 24-70 2.8 IS anyway.

Yep.

Weird anecdote along those lines. I was in a restaurant some time ago and had my rig with me. I wanted a snap of the four of us at our table, and it was an old cocktail lounge semi-circular booth. It was dark as all get out in there and a flash was not an option, but I handed my 5D3 and 28 f/2.8 IS to another restaurant patron to take the shot.

Since we were in a weird booth where we couldn't pile on to one side of the table, I stopped down to f/5 or so and needed ISO 10,000 to cover for that. (Yeah. 10,000.)

But the guy I gave the camera to owned an SLR as well, and his eyes exploded when he saw ISO 10,000. He politely implied wasn't on top of it settings-wise, dropped the ISO down to 3200, slammed it open to f/2.8 and took the shot. He was very proud of himself.

I was in focus, which was great. My friends? Not so much.

That scenario goes from difficult to outright impossible with an f/1.4 non-IS lens. To get everyone in field with that, you'd still need to stop down, and the ISO would have been stratospheric without IS.

- A

 

[bholliman]

I've been in the market for a new 50mm prime for some time, but am holding off waiting to see what Canon is going to do. If they don't announce a new 50 IS prime, I'll probably buy a Sigma Art 50. I rented a Sigma over the Christmas holidays and loved everything about it other than its size and weight. I'm OK with a lens that size (similar to my standard zoom), but would love to have a small/light lens similar to my 35/2 IS with image stabilization.

I agree with the comments from Ahsanford and Act444 about advantages of IS lenses. IS just provides more options and allows hand held shots in really low light without razor thin DOF. I can get sharp pictures using my 35/2 IS at shutter speeds under 1/8 of a second that would require a 3-4x faster shutter speed with my 24-70 2.8 at higher ISO.