New 50mm Compact Macro on the Way? [CR1]

[chrysoberyl]

Interesting...if f/2, very sharp, with a nice long throw. I have been eyeing the 60mm for my 80D, but I'd rather have a 50mm for my 6D and 80D, even if half-macro. The current 50mm macro is out of stock whereas the 180 is still in stock; that lends a bit of credence to the notion an update coming.

Has Canon ever offered an f/2 macro? I thought they all ran f/2.5 to f/3.5.

- A

To my knowledge, there have been no f/2 Canon macros. I'm just being optimistic, or maybe just greedy. What I want is something like a Zeiss Makro at a better price, good AF, blue goo and at a reasonable price. Otherwise I will have to kill it with a hammer.

 

[GammyKnee]

And if the non-macro 50mm f/1.4 replacement doesn't have USM (or Nano USM), I will buy one and then kill it with a hammer. "Bad Canon. Stop that, Canon." I will say.

- A

;D couldn't have put it better myself.

FWIW I gave up waiting for the ahsanfordTM 50mm and went with the Tamron 45mm. I really like it, but I'd like it even more if it had Canon USM inside it.

 

[ahsanford]

Interesting...if f/2, very sharp, with a nice long throw. I have been eyeing the 60mm for my 80D, but I'd rather have a 50mm for my 6D and 80D, even if half-macro. The current 50mm macro is out of stock whereas the 180 is still in stock; that lends a bit of credence to the notion an update coming.

Has Canon ever offered an f/2 macro? I thought they all ran f/2.5 to f/3.5.

- A

To my knowledge, there have been no f/2 Canon macros. I'm just being optimistic, or maybe just greedy. What I want is something like a Zeiss Makro at a better price, good AF, blue goo and at a reasonable price. Otherwise I will have to kill it with a hammer.

Blue goo on a non-L lens? I would not hold your breath on that.

One would assume they'd tent up the prices L lenses with it as an exclusive feature, probably starting with the wider aperture primes (24L, 50L, 85L, 135L, etc.), but in fairness that's purely conjecture from me at this point.

- A

 

[ahsanford]

And if the non-macro 50mm f/1.4 replacement doesn't have USM (or Nano USM), I will buy one and then kill it with a hammer. "Bad Canon. Stop that, Canon." I will say.

- A

;D couldn't have put it better myself.

FWIW I gave up waiting for the ahsanfordTM 50mm and went with the Tamron 45mm. I really like it, but I'd like it even more if it had Canon USM inside it.

I'll continue my vigil. I actually picked up a 35mm f/2 IS USM recently, and other than the little "35mm" written on the side, it's perfect.

In all honesty, I want a compact / quick / sharp 50 prime in that 35mm housing. I'll accept f/2 if that's what it takes, but it must have USM. In fact, my frequently posted picture asking Canon to make the lens for us is actually a PS'd 35mm f/2 IS.

- A

 

[JonAustin]

Finally, my little 50CM may be getting some upgrade love. Even if true, I probably won't buy its successor, especially if the Canon EF 50mm f/whatever IS USM AHSANFORD SPECIAL gets produced. 8)

I can't win. Every new 50mm thread involves a sideline camera dedicated to my reaction like I'm a football coach.

- A

I think all the posts you have made to this thread already proves my point. (Coach.) ;D

 

[vlad]

OK, I give up, even after brief searching, I have no idea what reproduction/copy means in a photographic context. Is it photographing artwork? I did that for a friend's paintings with the 100/2.8, and then proceeded to infuriate her with how easy it is to tweak colors in the digital world

 

[wsheldon]

OK, I give up, even after brief searching, I have no idea what reproduction/copy means in a photographic context. Is it photographing artwork? I did that for a friend's paintings with the 100/2.8, and then proceeded to infuriate her with how easy it is to tweak colors in the digital world

In days of old, before high quality scanners and digital projectors were available, 50mm macro lenses and copy stands (see http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/99444-REG/Beseler_4205_CS_14_Copystand_Kit.html) were commonly used to make high quality photo reproductions of documents and presentation slides for projection. Made some myself in my grad school days. Bit of a niche use now, though.

But a good 50mm macro would be excellent for product photography and artwork. I use a 50mm stm since I'm typically shooting at f8-10 and it's sharp as a tack at that aperture. However it does have noticeable distortion so a better corrected lens would be nice. Not sure if I'd part with the cash, though, since I have the 100mm and 180mm macros for nature work and 50mm stm corrections in Lightroom work very well.

 

[riker]

I'll continue my vigil. I actually picked up a 35mm f/2 IS USM recently, and other than the little "35mm" written on the side, it's perfect.

In all honesty, I want a compact / quick / sharp 50 prime in that 35mm housing. I'll accept f/2 if that's what it takes, but it must have USM. In fact, my frequently posted picture asking Canon to make the lens for us is actually a PS'd 35mm f/2 IS.

- A

I'm a fan of the 35/2 IS and I totally understand what u are saying, but I still need to argue. The 35/2 IS is clearly a bigger and heavier lens than the current 50/1.4.

I do NOT want the 50/1.4 to get any bigger or heavier! Not even by 10g! After 20 years of tech development, the only way it is allowed to go is smaller/lighter. Everyone is so fan of the 50/1.4 but noone seems to realise that it's most important value aside being f/1.4 is the size and weight. It's a great lens coz it's f/1.4 and you are still more than happy to take it even when you need to travel light. And you really do NOT need IS for a 50mm lens. Actually you do not need IS in anything under 85-100mm no matter what marketing may tell you.

Honestly I would not even mind staying at the same optics, the biggest problem of that lens is the unacceptably crapy AF speed. Just repack it with an AF as good as possible and that's it, I'm first to buy. Do what you did with the 50/1.8 just forget STM.
For the people who want to play fancy, don't care about weight, for some reason think they can't hold a 50mm lens and need IS, there's the 50/1.2L IS and future versions of it.

 

[Maximilian]

Funny!
Now we have at least every old 50 mm lens rumored.
But absolutely no release day or at least something looking like [CR2].

Looks like the pink unicorn seems to be a herd of 50 mm high/long/wide unicorns now
(or is it the lengh of the horn? :-\ )

This group of 50mm's shall now be known as "The Herd" from this point forth....

*lol* ;D

 

[ScottyP]

THIS is the 50mm lens they think buyers most want to be updated?

And for that matter, THIS is the macro they think most people want upgraded?

 

[Ladislav]

Make it small version of 100 L IS Macro with 2.0 aperture and it will cause havoc in my wish list. Really, something like 50 f/2 L IS Macro would be 50 prime I would love to have.

 

[Maximilian]

I'll continue my vigil. I actually picked up a 35mm f/2 IS USM recently, and other than the little "35mm" written on the side, it's perfect.

In all honesty, I want a compact / quick / sharp 50 prime in that 35mm housing. I'll accept f/2 if that's what it takes, but it must have USM. In fact, my frequently posted picture asking Canon to make the lens for us is actually a PS'd 35mm f/2 IS.

- A

I'm a fan of the 35/2 IS and I totally understand what u are saying, but I still need to argue. The 35/2 IS is clearly a bigger and heavier lens than the current 50/1.4.

I do NOT want the 50/1.4 to get any bigger or heavier! Not even by 10g! After 20 years of tech development, the only way it is allowed to go is smaller/lighter. Everyone is so fan of the 50/1.4 but noone seems to realise that it's most important value aside being f/1.4 is the size and weight.
...

Hi riker!

I can understand you but I think I'll have to add something to your opinion. Because 20 years of tech development cannot change the laws of optical physics.

I think there are two major points of critique with the old 50/1.4:
1. mechanical built
2. optical quality

While #1 could probably be solved without making the lens bigger it could become heavier.
If Canon didn't use a lot of expensive high tech plastics or carbon fiber better mechanical built leads to higher weight.
But #2 is the sticking point. The optical formula is not only 20 years old but much older.
Even if you stay with the Double Gauss design better coatings and quality control won't help much here.
The trend is that the front element becomes a little bit bigger so you have less corner and edge distortion.
Even if you use expensive DO tech this wouldn't help much with a standard focal length.
So if you want to improve this lens optically it has to become (slightly) bigger and heavier.

IMO Canon shouldn't built a Sigma 50/1.4 Art pendant, but increase the overall performance of the recent lens.

If you don't like that, buy the recent lens or change to MFT where you can use a 25 mm lens
http://www.olympus.co.uk/site/en/c/lenses/om_d_pen_lenses/m_zuiko_premium/m_zuiko_digital_25mm_118/index.html

Disclaimer: Sorry for hijacking this 50 mm Macro thread with the 50/1.4 topic. but I couldn't leave this unanswered. I'll end here with that.

 

[arcer]

I'll continue my vigil. I actually picked up a 35mm f/2 IS USM recently, and other than the little "35mm" written on the side, it's perfect.

In all honesty, I want a compact / quick / sharp 50 prime in that 35mm housing. I'll accept f/2 if that's what it takes, but it must have USM. In fact, my frequently posted picture asking Canon to make the lens for us is actually a PS'd 35mm f/2 IS.

- A

I'm a fan of the 35/2 IS and I totally understand what u are saying, but I still need to argue. The 35/2 IS is clearly a bigger and heavier lens than the current 50/1.4.

I do NOT want the 50/1.4 to get any bigger or heavier! Not even by 10g! After 20 years of tech development, the only way it is allowed to go is smaller/lighter. Everyone is so fan of the 50/1.4 but noone seems to realise that it's most important value aside being f/1.4 is the size and weight.
...

Hi riker!

I can understand you but I think I'll have to add something to your opinion. Because 20 years of tech development cannot change the laws of optical physics.

I think there are two major points of critique with the old 50/1.4:
1. mechanical built
2. optical quality

While #1 could probably be solved without making the lens bigger it could become heavier.
If Canon didn't use a lot of expensive high tech plastics or carbon fiber better mechanical built leads to higher weight.
But #2 is the sticking point. The optical formula is not only 20 years old but much older.
Even if you stay with the Double Gauss design better coatings and quality control won't help much here.
The trend is that the front element becomes a little bit bigger so you have less corner and edge distortion.
Even if you use expensive DO tech this wouldn't help much with a standard focal length.
So if you want to improve this lens optically it has to become (slightly) bigger and heavier.

IMO Canon shouldn't built a Sigma 50/1.4 Art pendant, but increase the overall performance of the recent lens.

If you don't like that, buy the recent lens or change to MFT where you can use a 25 mm lens
http://www.olympus.co.uk/site/en/c/lenses/om_d_pen_lenses/m_zuiko_premium/m_zuiko_digital_25mm_118/index.html

Disclaimer: Sorry for hijacking this 50 mm Macro thread with the 50/1.4 topic. but I couldn't leave this unanswered. I'll end here with that.

Thanks Max for saying it first, I was going to reply to his opinions also.

Improvements in the mechanical built and optical quality will most likely increase weight and size of the revised lens. And to be honest, I like the size and weight of the 35F2 IS more than the current 50F1.4. It fits better in the hand and the weight makes it feel much more comfortable on my Rebel or my friend's 5D.

I rather have a 50mm that fully "enclose" the optical formula as I grew tired of the protruding element when close focusing and AFAIK, the newer engineered plastic is slightly heavier but sturdier than the plastic used in the past. A real USM would be necessary too, unless Canon want to miss the market again. IF they can fit a IS system in either 50F1.4 or 50CM, why not have both of them equipped with it? USM and IS will make it the same size as the 35F2 more or less.

I hope the new 50CM will also have the specs I said above and it might be my next 50, not the ahsanford 50.

P.S. Not to jest, but I hope people don't mistake that because we can make electronic gadgets smaller, we can defy physics and make lens smaller while still possessing excellent optical quality. Yes, smaller and lighter is better in some case but not always the rule.

Edit: Thanks to ahsanford, yes I want all new primes of Canon to be "internal focusing", that term slipped from my mind earlier.

 

[ahsanford]

I'm a fan of the 35/2 IS and I totally understand what u are saying, but I still need to argue. The 35/2 IS is clearly a bigger and heavier lens than the current 50/1.4.

I do NOT want the 50/1.4 to get any bigger or heavier! Not even by 10g! After 20 years of tech development, the only way it is allowed to go is smaller/lighter. Everyone is so fan of the 50/1.4 but noone seems to realise that it's most important value aside being f/1.4 is the size and weight. It's a great lens coz it's f/1.4 and you are still more than happy to take it even when you need to travel light. And you really do NOT need IS for a 50mm lens. Actually you do not need IS in anything under 85-100mm no matter what marketing may tell you.

Respect your post, but please consider a few things:

1) You really should not tell other people what they do / do not need. The world has enough of those people already. I am, however, glad to hear what you think you need, and why.

2) If I'm shooting with available light handheld at ISO 6400+ regularly, I absolutely need IS on everything. IS gives spectacular compositional latitude to either bring ISO down to earth or stop down for additional DOF.

3) I, too, want the lens to stay small and light, but even I would want the current design to grow a good centimeter or so to allow for internal focusing. No more external sliding barrels in a prime that you can push on accidentally and damage the lens, no more paths for fluid and particulate ingress, etc.

- A

 

[Chaitanya]

eagerly waiting for 50/60mm Usm IF 1:1 Macro lens. I will complement my Sigma 150mm lens perfectly.
Edit: Many people are mentioning 50cm lens, that lens costs 10000$+ and is currently present in Canon lineup and was updated recently.

AF is very useful for photographing butterflies and other critters who dont like stay put in one place. I took this shot using 100mm L during my recent trip to foothills of Himalayas.
Sorrel Sapphire by Chaitanya Shukla, on Flickr

 

[mrzero]

Edit: Many people are mentioning 50cm lens, that lens costs 10000$+ and is currently present in Canon lineup and was updated recently.

CM = "compact macro"

 

[lloyd709]

That this lens even exists (alongside all the nutty one-offs Canon has in its lineup) is both a blessing and a curse.

Blessing: If you want something nutty, chances are Canon has it.

Curse: If you don't want something nutty, chances are Canon might be working on something nutty instead of what you want.

I appreciate that the 50mm macro is even older than the 50mm f/1.4 USM, but I have wonder what small sliver of a market that macro lens even has today. Is it even 1/5th of the 50 f/1.4 share? 1/10th?

- A

You won't find many canon shooting food photographers without it!

 

[Maximilian]

[snip]
I appreciate that the 50mm macro is even older than the 50mm f/1.4 USM, but I have wonder what small sliver of a market that macro lens even has today. Is it even 1/5th of the 50 f/1.4 share? 1/10th?

- A

You won't find many canon shooting food photographers without it!

I knew there was a reason why the 1300D/T6 has a food mode *lol*
[/joke mode]

 

[ecka]

eagerly waiting for 50/60mm Usm IF 1:1 Macro lens. I will complement my Sigma 150mm lens perfectly.

+1

Is 10mm extension tube making my 40 STM a 50mm macro?

 

[Chaitanya]

Edit: Many people are mentioning 50cm lens, that lens costs 10000$+ and is currently present in Canon lineup and was updated recently.

CM = "compact macro"

I never understood that nomenclature. I have used Sigma 50mm macro alongside this lens and its pretty much similar size except that Sigma does 1:1 without any stupid additonal TC like attachment. Also having worked with mechanical engineers for long time for that group of people cm is an unit of measurement which they really hate. Canon's Ef-s 60mm is quite small and having IF helps a lot in keeping dimensions compact over the entire focusing range as there is no extending tube.