Here We Go Again, New 50mm L Coming in 2018 [CR2]

[traveller]

The "We’re told one of the lenses is an EF 50mm f/1.4 IS USM" (plus the thread title) implies it is an L lens, then? That would imply it's not the compact little non-L wonder I'm looking for.

Pity. There's a near zero chance I'd buy a pickle jar Art/Otus-killer, which one would presume is coming if Canon offers a 50 f/1.4L IS.

- A

I can appreciate your position on size, but this is generally a tradeoff with optical performance and aperture (& price). I own the EF 50mm f/1.4 and it is downright soft outside the very centre wide open, better at f/2 and very good at f/2.8 (comparable to the 24-70 f/2.8 L II). I would not be interested in upgrading to a new 50mm f/1.4 lens that simply updated the bodywork and AF motor -I want better optical performance too. Personally, I would be happy with paying Sigma Art money for a Canon 50mm f/2 that was tack sharp wide open, but this isn't going to happen now that they've updated the old 'plastic fantastic' to STM (it would look 'faster and better' than the more expensive lens!).

If they were going to produce the lens that you wanted, I think that it would have come out soon after the 35mm f/2 IS USM and 24/28mm f/2.8 IS USM series were released. The best that we can hope for now is that this is the last lens in the series that produced the 35mm f/1.4L USM II and 85mm f/1.4 IS USM lenses.

 

[grainier]

I don't care any more.

 

[Viggo]

"To be perfectly honest, we don’t like reporting about 50mm lenses, as we’ve been burned a few hundred times in the past."

CR Guy is a hero, IMHO, but 50 prime rumors are like Lucy pulling out the football from Charlie Brown with him. It's his kryptonite.

- A

P.S. Reminds me of an oldie-but-a-goodie below.

Haha! The new 50 follows the 24-70 II and 100-400 II in the number of head bangs on the desk.

Lol, I'll be so bold as to throw the 35 L II in that mix. Think I waited like ten years with spread out rumors. Was worth the wait though

 

[ahsanford]

If they were going to produce the lens that you wanted, I think that it would have come out soon after the 35mm f/2 IS USM and 24/28mm f/2.8 IS USM series were released.

The 24/28/35 refresh was actually to retire three very old lenses that pre-dated the non-L USM primes entirely, I believe. See chart, it's bit dated but you get the idea.

So those three got their own refresh wave while the 20 2.8 / 28 1.8 / 50 1.4 / 85 1.8 / 100 2 USM primes are still plugging away. What's infuriating about those 5 lenses is that the 50 appears to be the only one that was saddled with Micro USM and that horrible length-changing (externally focusing / telescoping nonsense) sort of design. If only the EF 50 f/1.4 USM was like all the others on that list -- especially the 85 f/1.8 -- I'd probably be happy with it as my small 50 prime.

I personally see a non-L USM prime update happening, possibly downgraded to Nano USM instead of ring USM in light of the underwhelming response to the 24/28/35 IS lenses (which are loved but were overpriced out of the gate).

- A

 

[padam]

Whatever it will be, it will increase in size, because it will be a 'true' internal focusing lens (besides the IS).

 

[ahsanford]

Whatever it will be, it will increase in size, because it will be a 'true' internal focusing lens (besides the IS).

Yep, hence my heavily overused graphic (a doctored 35 f/2 IS, btw). The 24/28/35 IS refresh lenses also went to internal focusing, and I've yet to hear anyone complain about their size. I'll gladly take a small bump in size to kill off the dreaded 'protruding inner barrel got bumped' AF motor damage problem.

- A

 

[Perio]

A big question I have is, what's Canon's strategy regarding 50 1.2 and 85 1.2? Will Canon just quietly stop development of 1.2 versions?

 

[gmon750]

I love my 50mm f/1.2. Sure it's a big, heavy lens but I think any lens would have that kind of heft considering the size of the lenses needed for that aperture.

It's a beast of a lens, has a lot of quality built in and can capture the most faintest of light. Simply love it.

I have zero intention of upgrading to a newer version, but if I had my 2-cent opinion on it, a faster focus speed and lighter body would be nice. Nowhere near a deal breaker obviously. It took a long time to learn to use this lens at f/1.2 and regardless of what the haters think, years of use and experience has me loving it.

Properly used, it make flat-out the creamiest of bokehs.

 

[ahsanford]

I have zero intention of upgrading to a newer version, but if I had my 2-cent opinion on it, a faster focus speed and lighter body would be nice. Nowhere near a deal breaker obviously. It took a long time to learn to use this lens at f/1.2 and regardless of what the haters think, years of use and experience has me loving it.

Properly used, it make flat-out the creamiest of bokehs.

To each their own, but of all the things to improve on the 50L, weight doesn't even crack my top five.

I, and I think a nontrivial number of folks here, would own a 50L if it was useful for things other than wide open or near wide-open shooting. That lens is not fun to shoot large aperture off-center and rely on the AF, and it's not particularly sharp away from the center of the frame. Fix those two things I'm guessing half of this forum would own one today.

- A

 

[BillB]

I have zero intention of upgrading to a newer version, but if I had my 2-cent opinion on it, a faster focus speed and lighter body would be nice. Nowhere near a deal breaker obviously. It took a long time to learn to use this lens at f/1.2 and regardless of what the haters think, years of use and experience has me loving it.

Properly used, it make flat-out the creamiest of bokehs.

To each their own, but of all the things to improve on the 50L, weight doesn't even crack my top five.

I, and I think a nontrivial number of folks here, would own a 50L if it was useful for things other than wide open or near wide-open shooting. That lens is not fun to shoot large aperture off-center and rely on the AF, and it's not particularly sharp away from the center of the frame. Fix those two things I'm guessing half of this forum would own one today.

- A

I doubt that a prime lens could be made in any focal length that half the members of this forum would buy. For many the main lens strategy is based on zooms--an UWA, a normal and a 70-200 or something like that. In this context, the choice of primes is heavily based on personal preferences about focal length and personal tradeoffs among IQ, maximum aperture, stabilization, weight and cost. This would seem to point to a strategy of trying to make a lot of money on each prime you make, since the potential market for any given prime is relatively small.

 

[-1]

The new highres cameras surely needs IS for more normal shutterspeeds at normal ISO on freehand. It, the 50/1.4 IS USM L will probably appear as "kittylense" to the 5Ds2 next year. Happy Babylonian New Year for those that celebrate it, BTW... Ice for them hangover heads are in the freezer! Repent next week! ;-ppp

 

[Ryananthony]

I've almost purchase a 50mm f1.2 so many times. But I can never pull the trigger. I've also owned and sold the sigma 50art, and have come close to purchasing it again too. Hurry up Canon. I would love to see the 50 f1.4is come in at a similar size as the 50 f1.2 rather then the 35ii.

 

[ahsanford]

I doubt that a prime lens could be made in any focal length that half the members of this forum would buy. For many the main lens strategy is based on zooms--an UWA, a normal and a 70-200 or something like that. In this context, the choice of primes is heavily based on personal preferences about focal length and personal tradeoffs among IQ, maximum aperture, stabilization, weight and cost. This would seem to point to a strategy of trying to make a lot of money on each prime you make, since the potential market for any given prime is relatively small.

Fair -- I was referring to the folks that would want to own a 50 prime in general. I should have specified that, my apologies.

Whereas certain primes just seem to delight their owners (135L and 35L II immediately come to mind), the 50 f/1.2L seems to have a number of skeptics for fairly mundane reasons we don't associate with modern L glass. Sure, it can generate magic, but sometimes you just want to nail focus or want to take a sharp picture somewhere other than the center.

Believe it or not, the old 50 f/1.4 USM actually serves my needs better than the 50L -- I am not cost-constrained and I still choose to use the 'lesser' instrument as it's sharper in the apertures I shoot and it's AF (though a little hunt-y) tends to do a better job.

Yet, I don't consider the EF 50mm f/1.4 USM a fine instrument by any means -- it, too, has a litany of deficiencies. It's just the devil I know, and I choose to use it until Canon gives us a proper all-purpose 50mm lens.

- A

 

[padam]

Whatever it will be, it will increase in size, because it will be a 'true' internal focusing lens (besides the IS).

Yep, hence my heavily overused graphic (a doctored 35 f/2 IS, btw). The 24/28/35 IS refresh lenses also went to internal focusing, and I've yet to hear anyone complain about their size. I'll gladly take a small bump in size to kill off the dreaded 'protruding inner barrel got bumped' AF motor damage problem.

- A

If it's an L lens (very likely) then it will probably be closer to the Sigma 50 ART in size but a bit lighter, just like the 85 1.4 IS vs Sigma 85 1.4 ART (or the 35 1.4 L II which is actually even bigger)
But who knows, maybe they invent some new technology to reduce the number of elements.

 

[CANONisOK]

Give us 55 or 58 mm. You will get more potential upgraders.

Why? I'd like to hear your reasoning.

I would guess for the original commenter it's as simple as something filling the "ideal" niche in primes between 35mm and 85mm focal lengths. I have found that I've moved away from my 50mm usage over the years, while 35mm (wide-to-normal) and 85mm (portrait) get used much more frequently. Would a 60mm provide enough differentiation to lure me to buying a new lens? Probably not for me personally - but it might be different enough to appeal to somebody.

 

[YuengLinger]

The current 50mm f/1.2L is poison for photographers who DEPEND on photography for their livelihood. Those of us who are "semi-pro" or enthusiasts can afford the luxury of using a finicky dog of a lens--while declaring it "magic." :

C'mon, Canon, get off your duffs with the 50mm focal length!

 

[wockawocka]

Just refresh the 1.2. Apart from stopped down focus accuracy it's perfect.

 

[YuengLinger]

Just refresh the 1.2. Apart from stopped down focus accuracy it's perfect.

+1 (And a wonderful shot!)

 

[jolyonralph]

I'm pretty certain currently produced 50mm f/1.2L lenses are generally better than older production
- if only due to vastly improved production and quality control procedures allowing for far less inter-copy variation.

Certainly my relatively recently produced (2015) 1.2 is excellent (even on my 5DSR), and the older one I tried many years ago was a big disappointment, even on lower-quality sensors at the time.

Perhaps they should just update the electronics and the coatings and release a 50mm f/1.2L II alongside the 50mm f/1.4L IS which is pretty much inevitable now after the good reaction to the 85

 

[traveller]

If they were going to produce the lens that you wanted, I think that it would have come out soon after the 35mm f/2 IS USM and 24/28mm f/2.8 IS USM series were released.

The 24/28/35 refresh was actually to retire three very old lenses that pre-dated the non-L USM primes entirely, I believe. See chart, it's bit dated but you get the idea.

So those three got their own refresh wave while the 20 2.8 / 28 1.8 / 50 1.4 / 85 1.8 / 100 2 USM primes are still plugging away. What's infuriating about those 5 lenses is that the 50 appears to be the only one that was saddled with Micro USM and that horrible length-changing (externally focusing / telescoping nonsense) sort of design. If only the EF 50 f/1.4 USM was like all the others on that list -- especially the 85 f/1.8 -- I'd probably be happy with it as my small 50 prime.

I personally see a non-L USM prime update happening, possibly downgraded to Nano USM instead of ring USM in light of the underwhelming response to the 24/28/35 IS lenses (which are loved but were overpriced out of the gate).

- A

I can see your point about the 50mm f/1.4 being upgraded along with the rest of the 'USM series' of non-L primes, trouble is that I'm not convinced that those lenses will be updated any time soon either. Neither do I agree with you five levels of lens classification, I see only three (of different vintages and technology levels) for all primes and zooms:
1) 'L'-series
2) Premium non-L (EF & EF-S)
3) Budget (EF & EF-S)

Canon clearly marks (1), so there is no doubt over which lenses fall into this category. Where the boundaries lie in terms of the others is up for debate and I'm not sure that Canon themselves have hard and fast rules about this, as their thinking seems to shift over time. I would argue that the old 24/28/35 f/2.8 AFD lenses were part of a series that was perhaps intended to be the only line below the 'L's. This would have also included the old 'version 1' of the 50mm f/1.8. This series got overtaken by advances in technology that led to the remaining lenses in the series gaining USM: in chronological order: the 100mm f/2 (1991), 85 f/1.8 (1992), 20mm f/2.8, 50 f/1.4 (1993) and 28 f/1.8 (1995 - and the last non-L, non-macro lens that Canon released until the 40mm STM). The 50mm f/1.8 is a bit of an aberration, as it managed to get downgraded to budget on the release of version II (in 1990) even before the 50 1.4 USM was available -perhaps this signal a shift in Canon's strategy around this time. It may have been Canon's original intention to downgrade all the original series by introducing premium USM variants, but it seems they never completed the set by introducing a 24 f/2 (?) USM or a 35 f/2 USM (until the 35 f/2 IS USM over a decade later).

If Canon were going to update the USM series primes, then the 28mm f/1.8 USM is the lens most in need, as it's easily the worst performer of the bunch, but the 28mm focal length became somewhat unfashionable years ago, when people started to prefer the 24mm. This was also true of the 50mm length, which declined in popularity versus the 35mm, but less so because at least the 50mm lenses were ultra cheap entry points to fast aperture primes. The 85 f1.8 USM is a very good lens (if now a bit behind the class leaders), which would benefit from a refresh, but I don't think we'll see one for a couple of years to give Canon the opportunity to upsell people to the new 85 f/1.4 L IS USM. That leaves the 100 f/2 USM, which was a totally neglected (except for macro) focal length by all manufacturers, right up until Nikon released their new 105 f/1.4. Again, I just can't see Canon updating this lens as most people prefer the 85mm and you are realistically only going to need one of these two. If there is a new 100mm lens, I think Canon will give it the 'L' treatment and a >= f/1.4 aperture.

I can see the advantage to Canon of having a complete non-L lineup as Nikon have a complete set in both f/1.4 and f/1.8 aperture from 24mm up to 85mm. However there is a differentiation danger (from the manufacturer's point of view) as a lot of Nikonians recommend the f/1.8 versions for being as sharp, cheaper and lighter, unless you are desperate for the extra 2/3rds stop.