New 50mm On Coming Soon? [CR2]

[ahsanford]

Also, weird question since I brought up external focusing: because the front element is moving in and out to focus, wouldn't that mean that somewhere in the focus range, your shading is less than ideal?

In an internally focusing lens, the front element and hood mount would not move with respect to each other, so this wouldn't happen and you'd get ideal shading.... right? (Please straighten me out if I've missed something.)

- A

 

[midluk]

In an internally focusing lens, the front element and hood mount would not move with respect to each other, so this wouldn't happen and you'd get ideal shading.... right? (Please straighten me out if I've missed something.)

I think you missed focus breathing.

 

[pj1974]

A few thoughts:

A distance scale is not sexy, but it helps define the 'nice' level of quality/features you are getting, like a car with anti-lock brakes in the year 2000. It isn't going to make the sale, but it underscores that you aren't getting a bargain basement product. It's also somewhat useful for guess / chimp / adjust MF work when the AF has no chance to operate (really dark rooms).

A 58mm filter ring seems unlikely. Though the 24/28/35 IS refresh lenses maintained the older lenses' max aperture, two of the three lenses saw a jump in filter diameter (presumably to get more glass to chase a sharper image?). Heck the 35mm f/2 IS USM jumped in filter diameter by a good 15mm!

As I've said on a host of other threads, if the 50mm f/nooneknows IS USM turns out to be f/2, I'd buy it -- it would be nice and small. But I don't know how you have a budget / mid-level / L-series value proposition where the mid-level is slower than the budget 50mm f/1.8 STM -- so as much as I'd buy it, I think there's zero chance Canon would ever offer it.

I've just never liked external focusing (though I'll be the first to call this a pretty petty set of reasons):
The externally focusing lenses I've used have historically been cheap and slow focusing. All the internally focusing lenses I've used have been fast and well built.
The externally telescoping barrel is a natural path of ingress for dust, moisture, dirt, etc.
Ext. focusing lenses mean you need to tighten down filters on the sliding/telescoping internal barrel. I strongly prefer to crank on filter rings that are decoupled from sensitive optical tasks (which internal focusing lets you do), but someone could talk me down on that I'm missing something.
This is really niche, but ext. focusing messes with bokeh shape templates you drape over the front of the lens barrel. (It's an amateur's pursuit, I must admit, but a fast 50mm is a great lens to do that on.)

Also, weird question since I brought up external focusing: because the front element is moving in and out to focus, wouldn't that mean that somewhere in the focus range, your shading is less than ideal?

In an internally focusing lens, the front element and hood mount would not move with respect to each other, so this wouldn't happen and you'd get ideal shading.... right? (Please straighten me out if I've missed something.)

- A

Dot point reply:

- Distance scale certainly helps cement the fact that this lens is a step up from 'basic'. I also do use it when shooting in darkness (usually outside, at night).

- I probably should concede an update middle-class 50mm will be larger than 58mm. But I like the feel of all my 58mm USM lenses... and I have a number of 58mm filters (1x62mm and 1x67mm).. and many at 72mm. I don't want my 50mm prime being 72mm though...

- Though unlikely, it's possible Canon will provide a newer middle-class 50mm at slower than the STM (i.e. >f/1.8) But we must wait!!! Arrggghh.. the waiting!

- Thanks for sharing your points about external focusing. I think you might indeed be confusing external focusing with a) focus breathing and b) rotation of the front filter. As far as I know, not all externally focusing lenses rotate the front element. I certainly would appreciate internal focusing, AND a non-rotating front element. Focus breathing particularly an issue for close-up photography (especially 1:1 macros, etc). Glad my 100mm USM is great in this regard... little to no focus breathing.

Cheers!

Paul 8)

 

[MayaTlab]

As I've said on a host of other threads, if the 50mm f/nooneknows IS USM turns out to be f/2, I'd buy it -- it would be nice and small. But I don't know how you have a budget / mid-level / L-series value proposition where the mid-level is slower than the budget 50mm f/1.8 STM -- so as much as I'd buy it, I think there's zero chance Canon would ever offer it.

Me too, I can't see Canon offering a higher-end-than-el-cheapo-but-great-50mm-STM lens with a smaller aperture, but boy do I want it. If Canon releases a 50mm f2 IS USM the size of the 28mm IS USM with a 58mm filter ring (if that is possible) with the exact same attributes (or even better with weather sealing, but that isn't going to happen), and sharp wide open, I'll buy it on the spot and it will only solidify my attachment to the system.

 

[ahsanford]

- Thanks for sharing your points about external focusing. I think you might indeed be confusing external focusing with a) focus breathing and b) rotation of the front filter.

I appreciate everyone's comments about breathing, but no, I am referring to the front element telescoping in and out during focusing, i.e. the lens changes physical length during focusing.

And no, I am not referring to a rotating front element during focusing that the cheapest lenses do. Those make CPL use a nightmare, so they've all but been abandoned by Canon.

I just prefer lenses that do not change in length while in use.

- A

 

[ahsanford]

As for my hood comments, the EF 50mm f/1.4 USM is fairly unique compared to more modern lenses in that the hood is attached to the barrel of lens and does not move when the lens changes its length.

Isn't this a less than optimal shading situation, or do internal focusing primes have this same phenomenon?

Your normal standard 24-something L zoom has something like this problem as well when you zoom, btw. Only one end of the zoom range is ideal for shading. (This is more of a focal length problem than an external focusing problem, as the hood on the L lenses moves with that front element. Only the 24-70 f/2.8L overcomes this, but it does so with a nutty reverse telescoping + huge hood design.)

- A

 

[ahsanford]

As for my hood comments, the EF 50mm f/1.4 USM is fairly unique compared to more modern lenses in that the hood is attached to the barrel of lens and does not move when the lens changes its length.
[....]

- A

This has probably also lengthened the service life for quite a few of them. The 50/1.4 is quite sensitive for damaging the AF-motor by impact/pressure on the protruding moving part. (I know there are quotes available on this phenomenon but have not spent the time looking them up). So internal focus on the next one or a similar mount for the hood that will stay on my copy all the time.

Translating (to make sure I understand you): since the hood is decoupled from telescoping, leaving the hood on protects that telescoping bit from being pushed in, which in turn protects the lifespan of that famously fragile lens. Did I get that right?

Hmmm. Never thought of that. I am somewhat obsessive that I always turn the focus ring to retract the telescoping bits before I put the camera back in my bag, put my lens away in the cabinet, etc.

- A

 

[privatebydesign]

As for my hood comments, the EF 50mm f/1.4 USM is fairly unique compared to more modern lenses in that the hood is attached to the barrel of lens and does not move when the lens changes its length.

Isn't this a less than optimal shading situation, or do internal focusing primes have this same phenomenon?

Your normal standard 24-something L zoom has something like this problem as well when you zoom, btw. Only one end of the zoom range is ideal for shading. (This is more of a focal length problem than an external focusing problem, as the hood on the L lenses moves with that front element. Only the 24-70 f/2.8L overcomes this, but it does so with a nutty reverse telescoping + huge hood design.)

- A

I am a very strong hood user.

The design of the 50 f1.4 hood is close to optimal, as you focus closer your focal length gets shorter so you get a wider fov, this means the geometry is close to perfect, though a petal shape or rectangle will always be 'better'.

One of the main reasons I still have my MkI 24-70 f2.8 is the very good hood design, the MkII design is effectively worthless at anything over closest focus at 24mm!

 

[Maui5150]

I completely get the gist of your meaning and your styles of shooting examples, I'm right there with you (see my gear list below) I just meant in the overall world of professional photography, especially those using a Canon system outside the studio, we might see more 50's if there was one that had those qualities. It's the whole 'Your focal lengths aren't necessarily my focal lengths, but I respect your choices' thing.

I think my only complaint/criticism etc was the OP defining the 50mm as the most important lens for Professional Photographers, and so I was just enumerated a great many pros where the 50 was likely not even top 3.

Every lens has its place (for the most part) whether it is the super cheap kit lens, to very specialized tools like the T/S

Another way I could put it. Which would be a bigger seller? An updated 85mm (say a 1.4 or 1.8 IS) or a new 50? I think I am pretty safe in saying that there would be higher sales on Canon retiring the 85mm F/1.8 and something like a $1000 85mm F/1.4 or F/1.8 IS would fly. Not sure they would go 1.4 since it would likely cannibalize the 1.2L sales. But at the same time the old 50 F/1.4 vs the 50 F/1.2 shows that they will do this. I could also see with the Tamron and potential Sigma ART that may provide more motivation.

I think the 50 F/1.2 has some focus issues which is why I never really considered it. A great many would love an updated version.

 

[slclick]

I'd love a CR3 to keep this CR2 in the 'soon' territory.

 

[rfdesigner]

I completely get the gist of your meaning and your styles of shooting examples, I'm right there with you (see my gear list below) I just meant in the overall world of professional photography, especially those using a Canon system outside the studio, we might see more 50's if there was one that had those qualities. It's the whole 'Your focal lengths aren't necessarily my focal lengths, but I respect your choices' thing.

I think my only complaint/criticism etc was the OP defining the 50mm as the most important lens for Professional Photographers, and so I was just enumerated a great many pros where the 50 was likely not even top 3.

Every lens has its place (for the most part) whether it is the super cheap kit lens, to very specialized tools like the T/S

Another way I could put it. Which would be a bigger seller? An updated 85mm (say a 1.4 or 1.8 IS) or a new 50? I think I am pretty safe in saying that there would be higher sales on Canon retiring the 85mm F/1.8 and something like a $1000 85mm F/1.4 or F/1.8 IS would fly. Not sure they would go 1.4 since it would likely cannibalize the 1.2L sales. But at the same time the old 50 F/1.4 vs the 50 F/1.2 shows that they will do this. I could also see with the Tamron and potential Sigma ART that may provide more motivation.

I think the 50 F/1.2 has some focus issues which is why I never really considered it. A great many would love an updated version.

I'm not so sure.. the 85 is pretty good.. if you feel you can't use it wide open, get the 100f2 that's very good wide open.

Of the old mid level lenses (28f1.8, 50f1.4, 85f1.8, 100f2.0) the 50f1.4 stands out as being a major weakness, partly in optics, but mostly in overall build and AF. I have the 100 and the 28, I went with the 50STM as it's AF is IMHO superior to the 1.4, and it's cheap enough to be disposable, for me the 1.4 isn't disposable. put ringUSM on the 50 and make it such that a dink on the front can't push the main barrel out of shape causing the lens AF to fail (i.e. like the 28, 85 or the 100) and I'd buy it. Sharper wide open is secondary, (but matters too).

 

[ahsanford]

Of the old mid level lenses (28f1.8, 50f1.4, 85f1.8, 100f2.0) the 50f1.4 stands out as being a major weakness, partly in optics, but mostly in overall build and AF. I have the 100 and the 28, I went with the 50STM as it's AF is IMHO superior to the 1.4, and it's cheap enough to be disposable, for me the 1.4 isn't disposable. put ringUSM on the 50 and make it such that a dink on the front can't push the main barrel out of shape causing the lens AF to fail (i.e. like the 28, 85 or the 100) and I'd buy it. Sharper wide open is secondary, (but matters too).

If the new mid-level 50mm stays with external focusing (internal bits telescoping out while focusing), I will eat my monitor.

The fix for what you described above (in red) is simple, accomplishable, and 100% will happen -- they will design an internal focusing lens. That's not an L lens luxury feature anymore.

The pic I always link on these rumors (below) is just a 35mm f/2 IS USM that I've doctored up. I really think the new 50 will look something highly similar though perhaps a shade longer in barrel., slightly different filter diameter, etc.

- A

 

[romanr74]

Of the old mid level lenses (28f1.8, 50f1.4, 85f1.8, 100f2.0) the 50f1.4 stands out as being a major weakness, partly in optics, but mostly in overall build and AF. I have the 100 and the 28, I went with the 50STM as it's AF is IMHO superior to the 1.4, and it's cheap enough to be disposable, for me the 1.4 isn't disposable. put ringUSM on the 50 and make it such that a dink on the front can't push the main barrel out of shape causing the lens AF to fail (i.e. like the 28, 85 or the 100) and I'd buy it. Sharper wide open is secondary, (but matters too).

If the new mid-level 50mm stays with external focusing (internal bits telescoping out while focusing), I will eat my monitor.

The fix for what you described above (in red) is simple, accomplishable, and 100% will happen -- they will design an internal focusing lens. That's not an L lens luxury feature anymore.

The pic I always link on these rumors (below) is just a 35mm f/2 IS USM that I've doctored up. I really think the new 50 will look something highly similar though perhaps a shade longer in barrel., slightly different filter diameter, etc.

- A

Did I ever mendion that i think people who make "everyone" statements are poorly informed/educated (to say it very very friendly)?

 

[ahsanford]

Did I ever mendion that i think people who make "everyone" statements are poorly informed/educated (to say it very very friendly)?

You just quoted two posts that did not have the word 'everyone' in it at all. Could you be more specific?

If you are referring to the 'everyone' in my frequently posted "canon please give us this lens" graphic, the use of that word is clearly being used for comedy purposes to express a plurality of folks who want such a lens. It's not being used to express an ignorant worldview or belittle others' opinions.

- A

 

[Sporgon]

Did I ever mendion that i think people who make "everyone" statements are poorly informed/educated (to say it very very friendly)?

You just quoted two posts that did not have the word 'everyone' in it at all. Could you be more specific?

If you are referring to the 'everyone' in my frequently posted "canon please give us this lens" graphic, the use of that word is clearly being used for comedy purposes to express a plurality of folks who want such a lens. It's not being used to express an ignorant worldview or belittle others' opinions.

- A

Keep your sense of humour ahsanford, you're going to need it over the next few years when you don't get your EF 50mm f/1.4 IS