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

[YuengLinger]

Keep it at 1.2, add a floating element, redesigned AF, and, yes, we have a winner. But how much that would cost in $$ and weight, no idea.

Thanks, but I would want to use it at 1.2 - 2.0 often within six feet, but as is, this dog don't hunt. Or when it does, it often brings back pinecones and sticks instead of the birdy.

I don't think Canon secretly upgraded anything in the current 1.2L; more likely, better AF in more recent bodies (and even a little firmware help) have made the lens slightly more useful. But it could also be that those of you who gave the lens another chance after a few years simply developed better techniques generally, while also reading about workarounds.

That said, the current 1.2 has no place in the quiver of a photographer who DEPENDS on accuracy. Except to remain there unused. If only professional photographers who have no other source of income had time to chime in on these forums, we'd know to what extent my assertion is true. Photographers who make a little money to pay for their fun, or are purely hobbyists, or have a trust fund to rely upon obviously don't have the same standards. Which is probably why Canon has gotten away with perpetuating a clunker!

 

[BillB]

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.

Most of Canon's relatively inexpensive prime lens designs go back to an era in which fewer people were shooting in color and zooms were not a serious option. With digital, most people are shooting in color, which makes purple fringing and chromatic aberrations a much bigger deal, and there is the Internet to tell everybody that the Canon 85 f1.8 is a piece of crap because it has purple fringing and that the 50 f1.4 is soft below f2.8. Zooms have improved to the point that they have seriously shrunk the market for primes, particularly moderately priced primes.

In this new era of digital color and quality zooms, the 35-28-24 series lenses are pretty much the only new moderately priced full frame lens designs that Canon has introduced apart from the pancake 40 and the tweak to the plastic fantastic 50mm. Canon is still marketing quite a few of the old designs, and presumably people are still buying them, at least to some degree. However, the experience with the 35-28-24 series shows the price sensitivity of the moderately priced prime lens market, and likely has also shown Canon that the demand for moderately priced primes isn't as big as they hoped when they introduced the 35-28-24 series.

So what does this say about a new Canon 50mm lens design? My take is that the new 50mm design will most likely be an L. and if it isn't an L, the price is going to upset a lot of people. One wildcard is the APS-C market, where the 50mm serves the same role as the 85mm does in full frame. Maybe, that could tip the scales toward a smaller, more moderately priced 50mm. Could there be an EF-S 50mm in our future?

 

[meho1a]

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 think Canon firstly tried to divide their EF lenses into 2 groups.
Budget = 24mm, 28mm, 35 mm IS USM Probably they were planing also new 50, 85, maybe 20
Pro = faster L lenses

But then pro level Sigmas and Tamrons were released in similar price range as their planed "budget" range.
The price of those lenses went down quickly and now I suppose few would prefere budget Canon lens over Sigma or Tamron.
Therefore, Canon has probably concentrated on making two levels of L lenses. Very expensive and a bit less expensive. Probably the L sign is very good marketing material and people are prepared to pay more than for Sigmas just for L level quality.

 

[jeffa4444]

I think it will almost certainly be a EF50mm f1.4L IS USM to follow the just announced EF85 f1.4L IS USM and the previous 35mm & 24mm. They will likely have a 28mm and a 100mm in the road map and then these constant aperture primes will become T1.5 video lenses followed by a new 135mm f2 lens.

I could be barking mad but they will follow the Sigma route with the future being more 4K video they would be crazy to overlook the DSLR videographers wanting a step-up from mix & match constant aperture lenses to one consistent.

 

[ahsanford]

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)

Agree completely -- I don't think five price points makes sense at all. It's just that over time, Canon had a strange and marbled portfolio of different levels of tech throughout their lenses.

Three price points is where Canon should end up on popular prime FLs (50, 85, etc.), and two for the others (24, 35, etc.). But some FLs (14, 20, 28, non-macro 100 come to mind) might only warrant a single offering.

- A

 

[BillB]

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)

Agree completely -- I don't think five price points makes sense at all. It's just that over time, Canon had a strange and marbled portfolio of different levels of tech throughout their lenses.

Three price points is where Canon should end up on popular prime FLs (50, 85, etc.), and two for the others (24, 35, etc.). But some FLs (14, 20, 28, non-macro 100 come to mind) might only warrant a single offering.

- A

If the 85's and the 100's are grouped together, I make it a total of 6 lenses including the new 85 f1.4 and the two macros. There may be some people who feel the need for a large aperture 85 and a 100 macro, and the 85 f1.8 is a handy lightweight and inexpensive choice. But still... Maybe it's just that it doesn't cost Canon that much to keep existing designs in the supply chain.

 

[BillB]

It seems like the 35-28-24 IS primes basicly became a development project on the path to the UWA zoom trinity--the two 16-35's and the 11-24. I keep feeling that with the primes Canon was hoping for a market that just isn't there. And the 16-35 f4 IS very quickly took a big wack out of whatever market that did exist for the primes. Nice lenses in search of a niche.

 

[chrysoberyl]

I am surprised that a 50mm L macro has not been mentioned as a possibility. Personally, I would like to see one with 2:1 magnification.

 

[Mt Spokane Photography]

I believe that prototypes are regularly tested by a few Canon staff members, and when they look good and cost of production meets goals, they are given to a few trusted "Explorers of Light" to test for both stills and video. Based on input, there may be multiple iterations before a product is either announced, or the project scrapped.

A prime lens is simpler, but getting one that hits all the right attributes is nearly impossible, so hope that most of them meet hopes and expectations. I suspect that there is a long list of desirable attributes arranged by priority, and the "Must Meet" ones are at the top. Virtually everything is a trade off, so meeting the top goals makes other attributes weaker. This means balancing all the attributes to get the best overall lens, just as it does with a camera.

I'd suspect something like this, but mabe not in that exact order:

[list type=decimal]
[*]Target production cost (ease of production)
[*]R&M (Reliability and Maintainability)
[*]Autofocus - speed noise, smoothness, and accuracy
[*]MTF (target Resolution Center, target Resolution edges and corners)
[*]Target - close focus distance
[*]Target weight
[*]Target distortion
[*]Target abberations (CA's)
[*]Vignetting
[*]Bokeh (LoCAs)
[*]Coma and Astigmatism
[*]Ghosting and Flares
[*]The list probably is much longer.
[/list]

 

[Larsskv]

That said, the current 1.2 has no place in the quiver of a photographer who DEPENDS on accuracy. Except to remain there unused. If only professional photographers who have no other source of income had time to chime in on these forums, we'd know to what extent my assertion is true. Photographers who make a little money to pay for their fun, or are purely hobbyists, or have a trust fund to rely upon obviously don't have the same standards. Which is probably why Canon has gotten away with perpetuating a clunker!

You are wrong.

Accuracy is good. Considerably better than the 50 ART, the 45 f1.8 Tamron, the Canon 50 f1.4 and 50 1.8 STM. So which 50mm lens would you pick in stead?

If you want to take good bokeh-pictures at 50mm, I can assure you that you will get much better results with the 50L used at f2 or f2.8 than you can dream of when using the 24-70 f2.8 L II.

 

[ahsanford]

Accuracy is good. Considerably better than the 50 ART, the 45 f1.8 Tamron, the Canon 50 f1.4 and 50 1.8 STM. So which 50mm lens would you pick in stead?

Pure AF accuracy? I'll take the EF 50 f/1.4 USM ten times out of ten over the 50L. There are apparently terrible copies out there, but I don't seem to have one. It can hunt, but it eventually locks and it's accurate.

I've rented two copies of the 50L for use with my 5D3. I carefully dialed in the focus with AFMA, used careful and deliberate AF technique with it and the AF whiffed routinely when shooting f/2 or wider. Since I was with family + little kids over the holidays just snapping as things happened, there was no opportunity to chimp / verify / reshoot. So to avoid missing moments, anytime I was shooting wider than f/2, I took a number of shots at a time to have a better chance to net a keeper.

My 50 f/1.4 -- for all its flaws -- has a more reliably in-focus hit rate for me and it's the instrument I prefer.

- A

 

[MayaTlab]

I keep feeling that with the primes Canon was hoping for a market that just isn't there. And the 16-35 f4 IS very quickly took a big wack out of whatever market that did exist for the primes. Nice lenses in search of a niche.

If we go by Amazon's ranking, which isn't of course superbly representative, middle of the road primes actually sell pretty well. Except that a significant majority of the ones that seem to pop up in the list are 50s and 85s or equivalents, i.e. exactly where Canon needs to refresh their lenses.

Fuji also changed their original lens lineup plans when they realised how well their line of f2 primes was selling vs the faster ones.

So I'm fairly certain that there is a good market for reasonable primes. Arguably selling the 28mm IS USM f2.8 for €850 might not have been reasonable .

 

[ahsanford]

If we go by Amazon's ranking, which isn't of course superbly representative, middle of the road primes actually sell pretty well. Except that a significant majority of the ones that seem to pop up in the list are 50s and 85s or equivalents, i.e. exactly where Canon needs to refresh their lenses.

Fuji also changed their original lens lineup plans when they realised how well their line of f2 primes was selling vs the faster ones.

So I'm fairly certain that there is a good market for reasonable primes. Arguably selling the 28mm IS USM f2.8 for €850 might not have been reasonable .

All spot on. As good as they were, Canon really shot themselves in the foot with the $799/849-ish initial asking price for the 24/28/35 IS refresh lenses. The sweet spot for these mid-range lenses is probably more in the $500-600 range, which is where we see the two recent nano USM zooms (18-135 and 70-300) sitting.

I think a refresh principally to the non-L 50 and 85 are no brainers. But to hit $500-600-ish that price point in 2017, I'm guessing that means it can't be an EF 50mm f/1.4 IS USM. More likely, of the following three items:

f/1.4
IS
Ring type USM with mechanical manual override

Canon can only give us the first one. We may just get a focus-by-wire 50 f/1.4 (Nano) USM II, which is a shame. But I'll still get it if it's internally focusing, which I'm hopeful it will be as I believe both the nanos zooms are internally focusing as well.

If they keep external focusing alive and we get just a slightly quicker FBW telescoping plastic thing like the 50 f/1.8 STM, I will likely give up on Canon in this FL and give the Tamron 45mm a look.

- A

 

[MayaTlab]

Personally I'd rather have them give up the f1.4 aperture, since honestly at this price point and size target it's likely to perform poorly anyway and introduce other compromises. I'd rather have Canon give me a very good f2 lens, but usable straight from f2, with overall great rendering, decent sharpness, smooth transitions, etc.
And IS . And internal focusing.
Personally I could live with nano-USM, but it appears to be a sore point for a lot of people.
That being said, because Canon is so obsessed with product differentiation, I guess that it can't be any slower than f1.8 now that the STM has been released.
I use the 50 and 85mm focal lengths for 90% of my photos, I don't need my 50 to be faster than f2 and my 85 than f2.4 or so, I'm not buying heavy L lenses, and I've been waiting for a refresh of these lenses for more than 5 years. With the other points of insatisfaction that I currently have, these middle of road 50, 85 and 100mm lenses are desperately needed as far as I'm concerned if Canon actually want some money from me and better secure me as a customer (right now I probably have less than €1200 worth of EF mount lenses).

 

[rfdesigner]

If we go by Amazon's ranking, which isn't of course superbly representative, middle of the road primes actually sell pretty well. Except that a significant majority of the ones that seem to pop up in the list are 50s and 85s or equivalents, i.e. exactly where Canon needs to refresh their lenses.

Fuji also changed their original lens lineup plans when they realised how well their line of f2 primes was selling vs the faster ones.

So I'm fairly certain that there is a good market for reasonable primes. Arguably selling the 28mm IS USM f2.8 for €850 might not have been reasonable .

All spot on. As good as they were, Canon really shot themselves in the foot with the $799/849-ish initial asking price for the 24/28/35 IS refresh lenses. The sweet spot for these mid-range lenses is probably more in the $500-600 range, which is where we see the two recent nano USM zooms (18-135 and 70-300) sitting.

I think a refresh principally to the non-L 50 and 85 are no brainers. But to hit $500-600-ish that price point in 2017, I'm guessing that means it can't be an EF 50mm f/1.4 IS USM. More likely, of the following three items:

f/1.4
IS
Ring type USM with mechanical manual override

Canon can only give us the first one. We may just get a focus-by-wire 50 f/1.4 (Nano) USM II, which is a shame. But I'll still get it if it's internally focusing, which I'm hopeful it will be as I believe both the nanos zooms are internally focusing as well.

If they keep external focusing alive and we get just a slightly quicker FBW telescoping plastic thing like the 50 f/1.8 STM, I will likely give up on Canon in this FL and give the Tamron 45mm a look.

- A

Dear Canon

I want a 50mm 1.4 internal focus ringUSM for less money than the Sigma.

You do this, you can have my money.

 

[traveller]

If the 85's and the 100's are grouped together, I make it a total of 6 lenses including the new 85 f1.4 and the two macros. There may be some people who feel the need for a large aperture 85 and a 100 macro, and the 85 f1.8 is a handy lightweight and inexpensive choice. But still... Maybe it's just that it doesn't cost Canon that much to keep existing designs in the supply chain.

I think that R&D is a substantial cost element, so the longer the production run the greater number of units over which these costs can be spread. The only counter to that would be if an old lens required Canon to keep an old production process, or use out of date components. I believe that I have read Roger Cicala state that Canon does subtly alter design elements/components over time, either to make a lens more reliable or easier to produce.

 

[Larsskv]

Accuracy is good. Considerably better than the 50 ART, the 45 f1.8 Tamron, the Canon 50 f1.4 and 50 1.8 STM. So which 50mm lens would you pick in stead?

Pure AF accuracy? I'll take the EF 50 f/1.4 USM ten times out of ten over the 50L. There are apparently terrible copies out there, but I don't seem to have one. It can hunt, but it eventually locks and it's accurate.

I've rented two copies of the 50L for use with my 5D3. I carefully dialed in the focus with AFMA, used careful and deliberate AF technique with it and the AF whiffed routinely when shooting f/2 or wider. Since I was with family + little kids over the holidays just snapping as things happened, there was no opportunity to chimp / verify / reshoot. So to avoid missing moments, anytime I was shooting wider than f/2, I took a number of shots at a time to have a better chance to net a keeper.

My 50 f/1.4 -- for all its flaws -- has a more reliably in-focus hit rate for me and it's the instrument I prefer.

- A

I used my 50L exclusively last weekend with my 1DXII, when visiting a friend. I shot almost exclusively at f2, which still gives nice and creamy bokeh. Took a lot of pictures of their kids (2 and 3 years) using different AF points and AF modes. Focus accuracy wasn't an issue. I didn't loose any good moments with the fast moving children due to AF misses. AF wasnt a concern at all.

As far as my experience goes, the 50L is both more accurate and faster than any other 50mm lens with AF, that I have used.

I am not saying it's AF doesn't leave anything to be desired, it isn't as fast or reliable as the 24LII, 35LII, 135L or Canons newer zoom lenses, but it works good at f2 and smaller apertures.

 

[Talys]

If we go by Amazon's ranking, which isn't of course superbly representative, middle of the road primes actually sell pretty well. Except that a significant majority of the ones that seem to pop up in the list are 50s and 85s or equivalents, i.e. exactly where Canon needs to refresh their lenses.

Fuji also changed their original lens lineup plans when they realised how well their line of f2 primes was selling vs the faster ones.

So I'm fairly certain that there is a good market for reasonable primes. Arguably selling the 28mm IS USM f2.8 for €850 might not have been reasonable .

All spot on. As good as they were, Canon really shot themselves in the foot with the $799/849-ish initial asking price for the 24/28/35 IS refresh lenses. The sweet spot for these mid-range lenses is probably more in the $500-600 range, which is where we see the two recent nano USM zooms (18-135 and 70-300) sitting.

I think a refresh principally to the non-L 50 and 85 are no brainers. But to hit $500-600-ish that price point in 2017, I'm guessing that means it can't be an EF 50mm f/1.4 IS USM. More likely, of the following three items:

f/1.4
IS
Ring type USM with mechanical manual override

Canon can only give us the first one. We may just get a focus-by-wire 50 f/1.4 (Nano) USM II, which is a shame. But I'll still get it if it's internally focusing, which I'm hopeful it will be as I believe both the nanos zooms are internally focusing as well.

If they keep external focusing alive and we get just a slightly quicker FBW telescoping plastic thing like the 50 f/1.8 STM, I will likely give up on Canon in this FL and give the Tamron 45mm a look.

- A

I think the telescoping focus on 50/1.8 is just because they wanted to keep it as small as possible. I don't like it either, but the lens is so cheap for the quality of photos it produces that I can't complain.

I think that if it's a 50/1.4 nano, it will be internally focused (like the other two nanos). I don't think I'd buy one, to be honest, as tempting as it may be, though if it's cheap enough, who knows. Most of those nano USM lenses seem really cool, but I never use them -- I just sold both my 18-135 and 70-300. Ironically, I got more for the 18-135 than I paid for it new off of Amazon.

I really loved my 50/1.4 USM, and I would have bought a refresh without thinking twice about it for years, but now, I have gotten used to using the 50/1.8 STM. It would have to be significantly better than both for me to buy it, and couldn't be too lavishly expensive. Once you get close to $1000, I'd be looking at a 1.2, if I were serious about a 50mm prime upgrade -- in fact, Canon would have a better chance at my money with a refresh on that. But then of course, it's another expensive, heavy prime that I have to lug around if I'm going to make use of it

 

[BillB]

If we go by Amazon's ranking, which isn't of course superbly representative, middle of the road primes actually sell pretty well. Except that a significant majority of the ones that seem to pop up in the list are 50s and 85s or equivalents, i.e. exactly where Canon needs to refresh their lenses.

Fuji also changed their original lens lineup plans when they realised how well their line of f2 primes was selling vs the faster ones.

So I'm fairly certain that there is a good market for reasonable primes. Arguably selling the 28mm IS USM f2.8 for €850 might not have been reasonable .

All spot on. As good as they were, Canon really shot themselves in the foot with the $799/849-ish initial asking price for the 24/28/35 IS refresh lenses. The sweet spot for these mid-range lenses is probably more in the $500-600 range, which is where we see the two recent nano USM zooms (18-135 and 70-300) sitting.

I think a refresh principally to the non-L 50 and 85 are no brainers. But to hit $500-600-ish that price point in 2017, I'm guessing that means it can't be an EF 50mm f/1.4 IS USM. More likely, of the following three items:

f/1.4
IS
Ring type USM with mechanical manual override

Canon can only give us the first one. We may just get a focus-by-wire 50 f/1.4 (Nano) USM II, which is a shame. But I'll still get it if it's internally focusing, which I'm hopeful it will be as I believe both the nanos zooms are internally focusing as well.

If they keep external focusing alive and we get just a slightly quicker FBW telescoping plastic thing like the 50 f/1.8 STM, I will likely give up on Canon in this FL and give the Tamron 45mm a look.

- A

Your guess about what Canon might put in a 50mm that it could sell for $600 seems about right to me. My guess is there is going to be a lot of resistance if they leave out IS, so it might have to be a choice between f1.4 and IS, and that could be a no win choice for Canon.

We know that there is resistance to second tier primes that cost more than $600, but how much do we really know about what features it will take to get a lot of people to buy a $600 lens? Can Canon make money selling lenses that people will buy for $600? We shall see. I don't think the the 35-28-24 have ever sold like hot cakes at ther lower price points, and they are pretty good lenses.

I have always wondered why the original prices of the 35-28-24 lenses were so high. Maybe it was partly the exchange rate. Canon may have been greedy. Or maybe that was the price level that reflected design and production costs while meeting return on investment targets. In any case, it was not a succesful strategy

Why did Canon "shoot itself in the foot".

 

[ahsanford]

I have always wondered why the original prices of the 35-28-24 lenses were so high. Maybe it was partly the exchange rate. Canon may have been greedy. Or maybe that was the price level that reflected design and production costs while meeting return on investment targets. In any case, it was not a succesful strategy

Why did Canon "shoot itself in the foot".

You answered your own question in the paragraph before. (The shooting of said feet was the original asking price of the 24/28/35 lenses.)

But pricing here depends on what they put in the new 50. Depending on feature set and build, price could vary on that wildly depending on [Max aperture] + [Type of AF] + [IS / no IS] + [Weathersealing]:

f/1.4 + Ring USM + IS + Sealing = you're talking the next L lens with sealing, so probably $1500 or so. You can look at this vs. other options below and deduce 'oh, this guy thinks sealing alone is worth $600-700?' That's not what I mean -- if it's a sealed L lens, it will be a simply higher class of everything and the price will reflect that.

f/1.4 + Ring USM + IS + No Sealing = a very high end non-L lens, perhaps $899-999 due to the cache of f/1.4 and IS. (Many have said such a lens can't happen in non-L as it would threaten 50L sales.)

f/1.4 + Nano USM + IS + No Sealing = a reasonable mid-level lens. f/1.4 and IS should still command a good price, say $799.

f/1.4 + Ring USM + No IS + No Sealing = $599

f/1.4 + Nano USM + No IS + No Sealing = $499

f/1.8 or f/2 + (any combination above) = what, 60-70% of the price of the f/1.4 combination?

- A