New 50mm On Coming Soon? [CR2]

[ahsanford]

I'd prefer it didn't have IS, just a better optical design than the 1.4 (more lenses and groups such as the Milvus but not pickle jar amount like the S Art, 9 rounded blades, limited to no CA, a nice manual focusing ring, true Ring USM and at least semi weather sealed (requiring front filter of course)

...and while we're at it, I'd like spot metering on my 5D3.

Even basic weather sealing and a high quality / long-throw focusing ring will be saved for a future 50L. I don't see a non-L prime getting something heretofore reserved for L primes.

More blades? Sure.

No CA? Doubt it. CA should be better managed, but the BR gunk is not going into a non-L lens anytime soon.

Bigger design? Probably needs to happen a bit, but I hope not too much. I love the compact double gauss action we have now, I just want something more usable wider than f/2. My current EF 50mm F/1.4 is a good copy without major AF issues, but it's soft as a pillow until I stop down to f/2.2 or so.

- A

 

[crashpc]

My 50 f/1.4 is quite sharp wide open, even on crop sensor. Some say best piece in the world. If they solved their variance in pieces, added newer coatings, more rounded aperture blades and IS, solved that "focus ring inside the lens, and sold it in $400 range, I would be all over it.

 

[JonAustin]

Assuming Canon doesn't go insane with pricing (let's drink that Kool Aid for now) ...

Given Canon's recent new lens offerings being announced at lower than anticipated (or feared) prices, there's good reason to be optimistic.

 

[Etienne]

My 50 f/1.4 is quite sharp wide open, even on crop sensor. Some say best piece in the world. If they solved their variance in pieces, added newer coatings, more rounded aperture blades and IS, solved that "focus ring inside the lens, and sold it in $400 range, I would be all over it.

You must have the only copy in the world that's sharp wide open. It generally needs to be closed 1 - 2 stops to reach good sharpness and contrast. By f/4 it's biting sharp

 

[ahsanford]

Assuming Canon doesn't go insane with pricing (let's drink that Kool Aid for now) ...

Given Canon's recent new lens offerings being announced at lower than anticipated (or feared) prices, there's good reason to be optimistic.

I think it's pretty Jeckyll & Hyde with pricing.

• The pancake pricing and 16-35 F/4L IS lenses are all great values in my book.
  
  
• But the 11-24L, the original asking of the 24/28/35 IS lenses, the original asking for the 24-70 f/4L IS, the 35L II, the 100-400L II, etc. are all a little painful for what they offer.
  

So we shall what we get with a new 50. I'm cautiously optimistic for no other reason than Canon got absoutely singed on the 24/28/35 pricing debacle, and the 50mm is far far far more crowded competitively.

- A

 

[ahsanford]

My 50 f/1.4 is quite sharp wide open, even on crop sensor. Some say best piece in the world. If they solved their variance in pieces, added newer coatings, more rounded aperture blades and IS, solved that "focus ring inside the lens, and sold it in $400 range, I would be all over it.

You must have the only copy in the world that's sharp wide open. It generally needs to be closed 1 - 2 stops to reach good sharpness and contrast. By f/4 it's biting sharp

See attached for PZ's test. I know it's only one copy, but mine crudely runs similar to what is plotted.

It's usable wide open with a center subject, but beyond the vignetting and CA problems you get, it's just a shade 'cloudy' at f/1.4. That clears up by f/2 and the shots are pretty sharp across the frame by f/2.8 or so.

I honestly believe it outperforms the 50L when stopped down past f/2.8, but that's not typically why you buy a fast 50.

- A

 

[Etienne]

My 50 f/1.4 is quite sharp wide open, even on crop sensor. Some say best piece in the world. If they solved their variance in pieces, added newer coatings, more rounded aperture blades and IS, solved that "focus ring inside the lens, and sold it in $400 range, I would be all over it.

You must have the only copy in the world that's sharp wide open. It generally needs to be closed 1 - 2 stops to reach good sharpness and contrast. By f/4 it's biting sharp

See attached for PZ's test. I know it's only one copy, but mine crudely runs similar to what is plotted.

It's usable wide open with a center subject, but beyond the vignetting and CA problems you get, it's just a shade 'cloudy' at f/1.4. That clears up by f/2 and the shots are pretty sharp across the frame by f/2.8 or so.

I honestly believe it outperforms the 50L when stopped down past f/2.8, but that's not typically why you buy a fast 50.

- A

That diagram illustrates my summary perfectly. 1-2 stops down it's good, by f/4 it's great. But wide open, not so much.

 

[Haydn1971]

I'm still running with my theory
- 50mm f1.8 STM Cheapo - available now
- 50mm f1.8 IS USM at £400-500 built like a 35mm f2 IS - new
- 50mm f1.4 L non IS uber sharp and ace AF, £1000-1200, built like 35mm f1.4L
- 50mm f1.2 L - no change, artistic value

Similarly with the 85mm range
- 85mm f2.0 IS USM
- 85mm f1.4 L uber sharp and ace AF
- 85mm f1.2 L - no change

 

[ahsanford]

I'm still running with my theory
- 50mm f1.8 STM Cheapo - available now
- 50mm f1.8 IS USM at £400-500 built like a 35mm f2 IS - new
- 50mm f1.4 L non IS uber sharp and ace AF, £1000-1200, built like 35mm f1.4L
- 50mm f1.2 L - no change, artistic value

Similarly with the 85mm range
- 85mm f2.0 IS USM
- 85mm f1.4 L uber sharp and ace AF
- 85mm f1.2 L - no change

Seems like a lot of lenses to offer, but sure, it's plausible.

If I had to choose, I'd take that blue one above. The red one above is flat out for me. If you want to shoot down an Otus or Sigma Art on resolving power terms, it will be ginormous. I know many folks on this forum would buy that lens, but I would not. I'll take 90% of the IQ for half the size any time.

- A

 

[JonAustin]

I think it's pretty Jeckyll & Hyde with pricing.

The pancake pricing and 16-35 F/4L IS lenses are all great values in my book.

But the 11-24L, the original asking of the 24/28/35 IS lenses, the original asking for the 24-70 f/4L IS, the 35L II, the 100-400L II, etc. are all a little painful for what they offer.

So we shall what we get with a new 50. I'm cautiously optimistic for no other reason than Canon got absoutely singed on the 24/28/35 pricing debacle, and the 50mm is far far far more crowded competitively.

- A

I was thinking about the 16-35/4L IS and the 100-400 II when I made my comment. The 100-400 II was rumored to launch as high as $2,700 or even $3,000, so I was relieved when it came it at ~ $2,200, and bought one within a month of its release. I bought a 16-35/4L IS around the same time, although it'd been out for 6 months or so. I'm still extremely pleased with the quality and value of both purchases.

On the other hand, sure, the 11-24 is "out there" pricewise, but it's more of a specialty lens.

 

[ahsanford]

I was thinking about the 16-35/4L IS and the 100-400 II when I made my comment. The 100-400 II was rumored to launch as high as $2,700 or even $3,000, so I was relieved when it came it at ~ $2,200, and bought one within a month of its release. I bought a 16-35/4L IS around the same time, although it'd been out for 6 months or so. I'm still extremely pleased with the quality and value of both purchases.

On the other hand, sure, the 11-24 is "out there" pricewise, but it's more of a specialty lens.

Canon seems to price its lenses one of three ways:

• It's a specialty one-off type of lens that Canon is under no competitive motivation to lower over time: the 11-24L, the MP-E 65mm 5:1 macro, tilt-shifts, f/1.2 lenses, etc.
  
  
• A take-it-to-the-bank hitting of a market need, often (but not always) in the form of a II / clearly better version of an already great lens -- the new nifty fifty, the 24-70 f/2.8L, the 16-35 f/4L IS, a 70-200 II, etc. These products are in a mature market, Canon knows what the market will bear, and the price is planned out for many years in advance with no alarms and no surprises.
  
  
• Stuff Canon gets wrong in shooting for the stars with the asking price -- the 24/28/35 IS refreshes, the 24-70 f/4L IS, etc. They get the original asking price wrong, sales tank, and the price plummets.

- A

 

[Mt Spokane Photography]

The Nifty Fifty was my 2nd non kit lens I bought after the Canon 100mm Macro (non L)

The very first thing I didn't enjoy about it, was the very thin, somewhat difficult to access manual focus ring. When I realized the lens/body combo struggled to autofocus the lower light environs, that focus ring killed me!

I'd love for it to be a 1.4 and have 9 aperture blades, if anything, just to offer the eye something to distinguish over the f/1.8STM.

IS, I'm not sure if I need it. I don't need IS on my 24-70 but then again, unlike others, I believe the IS on my 100mm L macro does help. I'm thinking I'll let Canon decide this for me, I trust them.

All that being said, my nifty fifty is sharp, I can't complain about that. I can't see this new lens doing anything other but take a step forward with IQ and improve on all associated aberrations from the f/1.4 v.1

You bought the wrong version of the Nifty 50. My made in Japan (First Version) had the correct focus ring. The STM version has a improved focus ring as well.

 

[rfdesigner]

I'm still running with my theory
- 50mm f1.8 STM Cheapo - available now
- 50mm f1.8 IS USM at £400-500 built like a 35mm f2 IS - new
- 50mm f1.4 L non IS uber sharp and ace AF, £1000-1200, built like 35mm f1.4L
- 50mm f1.2 L - no change, artistic value

Similarly with the 85mm range
- 85mm f2.0 IS USM
- 85mm f1.4 L uber sharp and ace AF
- 85mm f1.2 L - no change

If canon do this I suspect they'll lose sales:

http://www.canonrumors.com/forum/index.php?topic=29253.0;topicseen

poll suggested demand for aperture significantly outweighs demand for IS in a mid range 50mm... accepted CR != world market.

 

[slclick]

I think they'll get it right this time. It's only tied for the most common, famous and widely used focal length after all. And the idea of it undercutting L sales is ricockulous. It is a stepping stone lens for one thing. It also used to be (there weren't that many choices in 1993-film only era) and should be once again a fine piece of glass that can appeal to everyone.

I agree, my wish for partial weather sealing is a bit much but when I talk of CA I ask for an improvement over the current model, not so much an elimination which can be done with the BR coating. I think what really needs to be done is a redesign of the optic groups while still keeping the focus internal with Ring USM.

 

[Bennymiata]

I'm still waiting for a new 85mm.
Either an improved L lens with fast focussing or a new 1.4 non L, I'm not fussy.

 

[The Supplanter]

Dear Canon...

You don't stop amazing me with your poor choices... You prefer to worry about 250 mega trillion zillion pixel cameras that are useless, silly novelty lenses... absurd amateur bodies...and useless point and shoot cameras...
But the most important lens that any professional should have, you save for last... seriously ?
Is the 80mm for the Hasselblad the last lens they would upgrade ? NO !!!
Canon... help me help you... you are so out in outer space making sh*t for wedding guys that it makes the rest of us really mad.
Please Canon, support the ones that make you look good.

Sincerely

A professional photographer

I don't know why, but this made me laugh pretty hard. ;D

 

[Sabaki]

The Nifty Fifty was my 2nd non kit lens I bought after the Canon 100mm Macro (non L)

The very first thing I didn't enjoy about it, was the very thin, somewhat difficult to access manual focus ring. When I realized the lens/body combo struggled to autofocus the lower light environs, that focus ring killed me!

I'd love for it to be a 1.4 and have 9 aperture blades, if anything, just to offer the eye something to distinguish over the f/1.8STM.

IS, I'm not sure if I need it. I don't need IS on my 24-70 but then again, unlike others, I believe the IS on my 100mm L macro does help. I'm thinking I'll let Canon decide this for me, I trust them.

All that being said, my nifty fifty is sharp, I can't complain about that. I can't see this new lens doing anything other but take a step forward with IQ and improve on all associated aberrations from the f/1.4 v.1

You bought the wrong version of the Nifty 50. My made in Japan (First Version) had the correct focus ring. The STM version has a improved focus ring as well.

So the mkii took a definite step back in that regard!

Just for interest's sake, how does this lens compare optically to the mkii and STM versions?

 

[-1]

Can't see the point for Canon in making anything but a "L" to complement the 1.8... A 1.4 IS STM would only eat their L sales. Sorry...

I disagree.

As ahsanford wrote, the L lenses offer more than wider max aperture. In the case of the 50mm f/1.2, it's such things as bokeh that make it a specialty portraiture lens. Its a niche lens that just isn't in the same category as the 50mm f/1.4 IS, or the uber 50mm lenses released lately (Zeiss 55mm f/1.4 Otus, Nikon 58mm f/1.4, and Sigma 50mm f/1.4 Art).

IMHO

1) The 50mm f/1.2 is a niche lens, I don't see Canon upgrading it having it discontinued.

2) The 50mm f/1.4 requires an upgrade like the 24mm, 28mm, and 35mm. I think it would compete with the Tamron 45mm f/1.8 VC. My guess it would cost ~U.S.$700, and decrease within a couple of years.

3) A new uber 50mm f/1.4 USM, possibly a bit longer focal length. My guess is it would cost ~U.S.$1,500, like the Nikon 58mm f/1.4G.

4) The 50mm f/1.8 STM is already a recent upgrade, I doubt it would be upgraded again any time soon.

5) I'm not sure what Canon would do with the 50mm f/2.5 compact macro. I wouldn't even guess what Canon would do with that one, but I somehow doubt Canon would repeat the life size adapter (= 1.4x TC & an extension tube in one) trick again.

Well... The Canon über 50 would be the 50L, wouldn't it. An IS STM would eat of it sales just like it's 35mm sybling eats of 35L. The only reason that I could think for Canon to realease it bewould to please the cine crowd. That's a mountean of monkeys that would love something like that to go with their new 80Ds!

 

[ahsanford]

Well... The Canon über 50 would be the 50L, wouldn't it. An IS STM would eat of it sales just like it's 35mm sybling eats of 35L. The only reason that I could think for Canon to realease it bewould to please the cine crowd. That's mountean of monkeys that would love something like that to go with their new 80Ds!

That's the problem -- there appears to be two different ideals to reach for in a 50-ish prime lens: sharpness and 'magic'/draw/bokeh.

To reach the first ideal, you need to pull some optical witchcraft on the plane of focus and turn a lens into a specialty tool --> and you end up with something like the 50L.

To reach the second ideal, you need to build a monstrous pickle jar. Sigma pulled this off, but some 50L users were unimpressed with the pictures it took and stuck with their 50L. (The 50L is not unconditionally 'better', it's just better for them, their needs, etc.)

To reach both ideals, I guess the Otus comes close, but $4k + MF only is double deal-breaker for many of us.

- A

 

[johnctharp]

My 2013-purchased 50/1.4 USM is a pleaser too- at least, it was when I ditched the dodgy AF of my 60D for the class-leading center point of the 6D, where it no longer misses, even close wide-open. If I do my part, it does it's part, and following the performance curves that makes it a better lens than any of the f/1.8's (and I own the 50/1.8 STM, for size and close focus ability) or the 50/1.2L at every aperture except the widest shared range of <f/2.0.

I keep thinking I should sell it, but it's hard to let go of knowing that it isn't worth a whole lot!


And all that said, it's replacement just needs to be one thing: solid. Note how well the 50/1.8 optics (not changed since the first version) cleaned up with new coatings and a nicer aperture in the STM version, and apply that with maybe a tweak for contrast and lower CA with real ring USM and call it done. If they keep the size and price in check, they'll still compete well with the Tamron and Sigma lenses, as both of those are large, heavy, and expensive, and if the AF is solid too? Done. Neither third-party maker can make that claim.