New 50mm On Coming Soon? [CR2]

[slclick]

I have lost interest in a new 50. If someone brought out an auto-focus 60/1.4 or maybe 65/1.4 I might be tempted.

Is the difference between 50 and 60mm that noticeable?

It is for me between 40 and 50. That's why I use the pancake where others use a 50.

 

[scyrene]

I have lost interest in a new 50. If someone brought out an auto-focus 60/1.4 or maybe 65/1.4 I might be tempted.

Is the difference between 50 and 60mm that noticeable?

It is for me between 40 and 50. That's why I use the pancake where others use a 50.

Sure but as you go higher, each mm means less difference right? So 10 to 20 is a much bigger leap than 20 to 30... so 50 to 60 is even less of a difference than your 40 to 50. I just wonder at what point it's splitting hairs. After all, some companies produce 55 or 58 instead of 50.

 

[rfdesigner]

And for Ahsanford, I still think he just needs to put the 35mm f/2 IS on a 7D/70D/80D and call it good for a while. BAM! Modern 50mm problem solved!

So let me get this straight: I should disregard the $3k investment in my 5D3, move to crop and kiss my bokeh goodbye.

Yup, that's the ticket.

- A

well there's always the 35LII.. that would get roughly equal boke to a 50f2 on a FF

 

[In-The-Dark]

But any way that they choose to roll it out, sooner is better.

- A

Yup, sooner would be much welcome.

And if it's usable wide open (similar to the 35/2 IS), with improved contrast, real USM, and reliable AF on the outer points of my 6D, I'll be looking forward to replace my existing 50/1.4.

 

[Mac Duderson]

New 50mm 1.4 with new BR element goo. Yes or no? I'm guessing no. ???

 

[ahsanford]

New 50mm 1.4 with new BR element goo. Yes or no? I'm guessing no. ???

My guess (not a particularly brave one):

The next update to the EF 50mm f/1.4 USM will not get it. Non-L lenses won't get it.

The next update to the 50L will get it. I think all L primes will get it eventually.

- A

 

[Antono Refa]

New 50mm 1.4 with new BR element goo. Yes or no? I'm guessing no. ???

In a ~U.S.$700 lens, 35mm f/2 IS USM class lens? I bet no.

In a ~U.S.$1,500 lens, Nikon 58mm f/1.4G class lens? Possibly.

 

[Sporgon]

New 50mm 1.4 with new BR element goo. Yes or no? I'm guessing no. ???

In a ~U.S.$700 lens, 35mm f/2 IS USM class lens? I bet no.

In a ~U.S.$1,500 lens, Nikon 58mm f/1.4G class lens? Possibly.

The Nikkor 58mm certainly needs it.....

 

[YuengLinger]

Promise of a new 50 L that fixes all is a worn out tease.

 

[ahsanford]

Promise of a new 50 L that fixes all is a worn out tease.

Some folks believe that the next 50L just needs to be a Sigma 50 Art with reliable Canon USM.

Meanwhile, some folks would probably stab me for that allegation.

It's the whole bokeh/magic/draw/unquantifiable 'belief' camp vs. the sharpness/resolution/test chart studying camp.

Neither is right, neither is wrong, and neither is going away. So I contend that a '50L that fixes all' will never come to pass. Canon will either slightly sharpen up the 50 f/1.2L to preserve the magic, or they'll blow up that design and go huge like the Sigma Art and Zeiss Otus.

- A

 

[Sabaki]

This blue goo...why would it be exclusive to L series lenses?

Just throwing my own opinion into the hat here but how would the costing of this goo compare to say a lens element or other lens mechanic?

It's also unique in the sense that the cost of it can be spread across every Canon lens to be released from here on out. One could contend that the huge steps forward many 3rd party lenses have taken, Canon need to bring something extra to the table and perhaps the goo ticks that box?

On the other hand, Canon's marketing strategy is beyond my intellect and maybe they do consider this to be a L series exclusive feature

 

[Memdroid]

Promise of a new 50 L that fixes all is a worn out tease.

Some folks believe that the next 50L just needs to be a Sigma 50 Art with reliable Canon USM.

Meanwhile, some folks would probably stab me for that allegation.

It's the whole bokeh/magic/draw/unquantifiable 'belief' camp vs. the sharpness/resolution/test chart studying camp.

Neither is right, neither is wrong, and neither is going away. So I contend that a '50L that fixes all' will never come to pass. Canon will either slightly sharpen up the 50 f/1.2L to preserve the magic, or they'll blow up that design and go huge like the Sigma Art and Zeiss Otus.

- A

I hope this won't be the case. I don't like the idea that Canon is aping Sigma and bringing giant super sharp lenses on the market. I have the 50L, while it is an amazing lens it just needs to be a tad sharper wide open. I recently upgraded from the 35 f2 IS to the 35mm L II. It is a night and day difference, the colors contrast and the uber sharpness is beyond excellent. And on an assignment it is invaluable. It just is not a lens that I would grab for a quick fun, run n' gun recreational shoot as I do with the 50L or did with the 35 IS. The size and weight is the primary reason for this. The next 50L should not be that drastic IMO.

 

[cayenne]

I think they should go for gusto and make a sharp-wide-open 50mmf1.0 just to spite all the crop users and cement Full Frame as the best system in the world for light gathering and Bokeh.

And because it would make a great crop lens too.

I imagine the tripod ring would be included with that? :

- A

Now you're talking!!

I'd BUY that!!!!

I seriously hope for a 50L 1.2 upgrade..I'm on the precipice of buying one...and have been holding off to see if the 1.2 gets the update...


cayenne

 

[ahsanford]

This blue goo...why would it be exclusive to L series lenses?

[truncated]

On the other hand, Canon's marketing strategy is beyond my intellect and maybe they do consider this to be a L series exclusive feature

I see BR staying on the top end until the L's have it, then it might trickle down like other standard features might.

A really rough chart on prime segmentation is attached. (Yes, I know some L primes aren't sealed -- I'm speaking in recent terms, what we might expect in a future lens, etc.)

- A

 

[JonAustin]

I recently upgraded from the 35 f2 IS to the 35mm L II. It is a night and day difference, the colors contrast and the uber sharpness is beyond excellent. And on an assignment it is invaluable. It just is not a lens that I would grab for a quick fun, run n' gun recreational shoot as I do with the 50L or did with the 35 IS. The size and weight is the primary reason for this. The next 50L should not be that drastic IMO.

Interesting, reading your take on the 35 L II vs. the 35/2 IS, the latter of which I own. Most photographers I have read who upgrade from a mid-range prime to the L line have described the L lens as "just that much sharper," "just that much better," "just that much faster," etc. I've never read anyone describe it as a "night and day difference."

 

[midluk]

This blue goo...why would it be exclusive to L series lenses?

Just throwing my own opinion into the hat here but how would the costing of this goo compare to say a lens element or other lens mechanic?

They might indeed add it to mid level lenses, but then they will likely not use that to reduce CA completely but to get away with a much simpler lens design while still having only normal levels of CA.

 

[YuengLinger]

Promise of a new 50 L that fixes all is a worn out tease.

Some folks believe that the next 50L just needs to be a Sigma 50 Art with reliable Canon USM.

Meanwhile, some folks would probably stab me for that allegation.

It's the whole bokeh/magic/draw/unquantifiable 'belief' camp vs. the sharpness/resolution/test chart studying camp.

Neither is right, neither is wrong, and neither is going away. So I contend that a '50L that fixes all' will never come to pass. Canon will either slightly sharpen up the 50 f/1.2L to preserve the magic, or they'll blow up that design and go huge like the Sigma Art and Zeiss Otus.

- A

Wedding and environmental portrait photographers would be happy with a 50mm 1.2 as sharp as the 85 1.2 and as accurate and quick with AF as a 24-70mm II. Asking too much?

 

[Antono Refa]

It's the whole bokeh/magic/draw/unquantifiable 'belief' camp vs. the sharpness/resolution/test chart studying camp.

Neither is right, neither is wrong, and neither is going away. So I contend that a '50L that fixes all' will never come to pass. Canon will either slightly sharpen up the 50 f/1.2L to preserve the magic, or they'll blow up that design and go huge like the Sigma Art and Zeiss Otus.

Canon is a business out to make a profit, hence, if there's money to be made from both camps, Canon will make two lenses.

It seems to me (as I don't have sales & profit figures to prove any of it) that

A) Canon is making money from the 50mm f/1.2L, so why stop making it?

B) Zeiss, Nikon, and Sigma show there's money in making a sharp 5Xmm f/1.4 lens, so why not start making one?

 

[pj1974]

This blue goo...why would it be exclusive to L series lenses?

[truncated]

On the other hand, Canon's marketing strategy is beyond my intellect and maybe they do consider this to be a L series exclusive feature

I see BR staying on the top end until the L's have it, then it might trickle down like other standard features might.

A really rough chart on prime segmentation is attached. (Yes, I know some L primes aren't sealed -- I'm speaking in recent terms, what we might expect in a future lens, etc.)

- A

I like your chart, ahsanford… (and I have liked other charts you have previously posted).

As a generalisation, I also agree your chart is quite accurate.

(Note – sorry for the typo I made in your name in an earlier post on this threat, ahsanford!)

The 50mm f/no one(yet)knows will hopefully have all those boxes ticked. These are the more important features for me:
- very good IQ wide open,
- fast, accurate, consistent AF (yes please: USM, or nano USM!)
- 4 stop IS
f/2 is fast enough for me (though f/1.4 or f/1.6 would be a treat!)
Internal focussing is not that important
Distance scale… nice and somewhat handy, but not essential for my purposes.
I am more than happy to purchase a non-Canon lens hood online, as I have done for my other lenses.

Having some BR gunk / goo on the lens, as an inexpensive way to manage CAs is an interesting, and perhaps valid concept!

A small, handy sized lens (58mm pretty please, as I have several 58mm filters already!) would be ideal. I have enjoyed using my 50mm f/1.8 STM, but a step up (when Canon produces it) – will be wonderful.

Regards

Paul 8)

 

[ahsanford]

The 50mm f/no one(yet)knows will hopefully have all those boxes ticked. These are the more important features for me:
- very good IQ wide open,
- fast, accurate, consistent AF (yes please: USM, or nano USM!)
- 4 stop IS
f/2 is fast enough for me (though f/1.4 or f/1.6 would be a treat!)
Internal focussing is not that important
Distance scale… nice and somewhat handy, but not essential for my purposes.

A small, handy sized lens (58mm pretty please, as I have several 58mm filters already!) would be ideal. I have enjoyed using my 50mm f/1.8 STM, but a step up (when Canon produces it) – will be wonderful.

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.)

- A