New Canon 50mm Coming? [CR1]

[avatar13]

I have a 50mm 1.4 and really wish it had quicker and better AF in low light and sharper wide open. If they improve on these two factors (closer to the 1.2L optically) I could easily see them selling it for $800+. In fact there is a huge gap in price between the 50 1.4 and the 1.2. However seeing as this is a replacement for the 1.4 that would leave a gap on the low end. I don't mind seeing a 50% increase in price if they deliver on features but lately Canon's new models seems to all be at a significant price increase.

 

[EchoLocation]

i have a Sigma 50mm 1.4 and it is awesome. Very solid and pleasant to use for 450 bucks. I definitely wouldn't be in the market for an 850 dollar 50mm.
The pricing of Canon really has me scratching my head lately. If the bodies were expensive and the lenses were cheap I could accept it, or opposite:cheap bodies, expensive glass.
When will we get some really good news?

 

[dstppy]

I came in at the 15-85 days, so I don't know if the 'the lens would be better at $" thing started then, or is just something from pricing experts.

Am I the only person that won't pay retail? Bundle? Used? Think about it, at nearly $900, we're talking improved (just sub-L) build quality, most likely a faster USM ( think the 85mm f1.8) and probably improved IQ.

IS, well, Yeah, that'd be nice, but if it's the same system from the 70-300mm non-L, I think we're all better off without it.

 

[lol]

I think the existing Canon 50mm f/1.4 is only acceptable due to its low price. It's design is very dated and I've held off upgrading an AF '50 since none of the options are really appealing beyond the f/1.8. If a new f/1.4 has modern optical design (better resolution wide open, less loCA) and ring USM, double the current price is about right.

For perspective, the current Canon f/1.4 is even cheaper than the Sigma, which I would get but focus shift is a major deal breaker in my uses.

 

[BRNexus6]

I would love to have an updated 50mm 1.8 with IS and 7 aperture blades, but I am not at all willing to spend $800 on 50mm lens.

 

[Stone]

Canon price jacking is still in full effect I see, but this lens is definitely in need of update due to it's extremely fragile focusing mechanism. Bump the front element of the existing 50 1.4 and there's a good chance you'll need a trip to Canon. It's well documented on the Canon forums and the reason alot of people go with the Sigma 50, but for ~$800 the replacement better be built like a tank....

 

[KevinAv4]

Id love to see a new 50 1.4 II at around 500$, anything higher than that and a lot of people wont be buying it due to somewhat of a price barrier or price vs performance issues,
For what i want to upgrade to id like to see a better Build with ring USM and some updated optics, at 1.4 you don't really need stabilization IMO.

 

[Gothmoth]

canon seems to think DSLRs are for people with more money then brains if they sell this for 8xx $ without IS.

so we can expect that every updated lens canon releases cost 2.5x as much.

and then they deliver only evolutionary but no exciting new cameras.
i can´t complain the 5D MK3 still sells well.. but the D800 sells better.

from a resellers point of view it´s all ok for me.

but as a private canon shooter.. well that´s a different story.

nikon is putting a lot of pressure on canon.
canon is maybe still no. 1 when it comes to market penetration. but not when it comes to innovations. i have seen this too often before to be not concerend. being a market leader means not much in these days. it can change very quick (sony, nokia you hear me?).
.

 

[AlicoatePhotography]

I would love to see an $800 50mm 1.4L I would expect it would be sharper, higher contrast and no flare or ghosting at 1.4. I love the current 1.4, but wide open it's hit or miss when it comes to quality. I do love the 50 1.2L, but it is very expensive. I just end up renting it. This new one I would actually buy. If it had IS also, consider it sold.

Tom

 

[Mt Spokane Photography]

$849 for a 50/1.4 II? No IS?

Just how stupid does Canon think we are?

Probably no more stupid than paying $450-500 for the sigma 50mm f/1.4.
Yes, prices are getting out of hand.

 

[sandymandy]

Hope the price is wrong. I got the 50mm 1.8 II at the moment and if i wanna upgrade i would just save more and get the L version if the 1.4 would cost abouzt 850$.

 

[bp]

I'd rather pay $2k for a mk2 version of the 1.2L that doesn't focus shift and isn't soft wide open, than $850 for a mk2 1.4

 

[Daniel Flather]

I'd rather pay $2k for a mk2 version of the 1.2L that doesn't focus shift and isn't soft wide open, than $850 for a mk2 1.4

What are you comparing the 1.2L to in order to call it soft at f1.2? There is a post above this that mentions the focus shift.

 

[RLPhoto]

I'd rather pay $2k for a mk2 version of the 1.2L that doesn't focus shift and isn't soft wide open, than $850 for a mk2 1.4

What are you comparing the 1.2L to in order to call it soft at f1.2? There is a post above this that mentions the focus shift.

+1.

Never seen the famous focus shift and is sharp at 1.2.

 

[bp]

I'd rather pay $2k for a mk2 version of the 1.2L that doesn't focus shift and isn't soft wide open, than $850 for a mk2 1.4

What are you comparing the 1.2L to in order to call it soft at f1.2? There is a post above this that mentions the focus shift.

When I owned it (briefly), I compared it to my 85LII, and it was shockingly soft. Have also tried 2 other copies which both exhibited the same thing. At f/2, it was razor sharp, but if I'm going to shoot at f/2, I'm not going to spend $1500.

 

[mememe]

When I owned it (briefly), I compared it to my 85LII, and it was shockingly soft. Have also tried 2 other copies which both exhibited the same thing. At f/2, it was razor sharp, but if I'm going to shoot at f/2, I'm not going to spend $1500.

Mine was ok. Not as sharp as the 85 but it was ok...

And back to Topic: If its a 1.4 it must be stunning. Sharp to the edges at 1.4. Cause its price is really ugly

 

[Fatalv]

<rant>
At $850 it better come with a bottle of lube to help relieve the pain. Not sure what Canon has been smoking but if that price is correct it better have build like an L lens in all respects except the weather sealing to be marketable.

There are times I wish I wasn't so vested in a single system...
</rant>

 

[robbymack]

good news indeed, I'm a big supporter of the 1.8 for value/performance reasons. Never could bring myself to upgrade to a 1.4 or the 1.2 simply because for the money I never thought the 1.4 was three times better than the 1.8 and certainly never thought the 1.2 was four times better than the 1.4. That being said I have been patiently waiting for canon to update the 1.4 and see if we get updated optics and true ring usm. If we do and the performance is great then price may not matter so much.

 

[infared]

i have a Sigma 50mm 1.4 and it is awesome. Very solid and pleasant to use for 450 bucks. I definitely wouldn't be in the market for an 850 dollar 50mm.
The pricing of Canon really has me scratching my head lately. If the bodies were expensive and the lenses were cheap I could accept it, or opposite:cheap bodies, expensive glass.
When will we get some really good news?

I agree..have the same lens and LOVE it. It really beats out all the Canon 50mm lenses from a performance/price standpoint. It was the only choice I could make and feel good.
Perhaps the pricing we are seeing is in large-part happening because of the tsunami.......?

 

[Random Orbits]

And back to Topic: If its a 1.4 it must be stunning. Sharp to the edges at 1.4. Cause its price is really ugly

I can't see the new version being sharp to the edges wide open. None of the fast 50s from Canon, Nikon, Sigma do that. It Canon were to figure that out, it'd be an L for 2k+.

Besides the 50mm f/1.4, which other Canon lenses sell at a discount to their Sigma counterparts? Even if the new 50 f/1.4 were to match Sigma's offering, Canon's price would still likely be higher than Sigma's by a couple hundred dollars, which puts it near the $600-700.