New Canon 50mm Coming? [CR1]

[Ellen Schmidtee]

For $849, I'd expect a 50 f/1.4 to either have Zeiss class build & IQ, or the abilities to make coffee and <self censored>

Actually the current on pretty much has zeiss class IQ, the basic zeiss 50mm 1.4 is the same old standard double gauss design

Actually, a certain photographer says that 50mm f/1.4 is Zeiss by name only.

 

[Smokin_toad]

For $849, I'd expect a 50 f/1.4 to either have Zeiss class build & IQ, or the abilities to make coffee and <self censored>

Actually the current on pretty much has zeiss class IQ, the basic zeiss 50mm 1.4 is the same old standard double gauss design

Actually, a certain photographer says that 50mm f/1.4 is Zeiss by name only.

That for sure is one hell of an amazing photographer to listen to

("Very clean inside, and ought to stay that way because it doesn't have air pumping in and out as a zoom does." Yes... Probably because it is a prime lens Ken?)

 

[Ellen Schmidtee]

For $849, I'd expect a 50 f/1.4 to either have Zeiss class build & IQ, or the abilities to make coffee and <self censored>

Actually the current on pretty much has zeiss class IQ, the basic zeiss 50mm 1.4 is the same old standard double gauss design

Actually, a certain photographer says that 50mm f/1.4 is Zeiss by name only.

That for sure is one hell of an amazing photographer to listen to

My point is that the Zeiss 50mm f/1.4 is, according the reviews I've read, is not exactly one of Zeiss' best performing lenses.

 

[infared]

"If you want great images from f/1.2 to f/2.8, the 50L is the only lens that will do it. But narrower, there are actually better lenses."

This is simply not true. For the money, at f/1.4 the 50mm Sigma out performs the Canon 50L. ...and think of all of the money you have ...to put toward another lens!

 

[bdunbar79]

"If you want great images from f/1.2 to f/2.8, the 50L is the only lens that will do it. But narrower, there are actually better lenses."

This is simply not true. For the money, at f/1.4 the 50mm Sigma out performs the Canon 50L. ...and think of all of the money you have ...to put toward another lens!

Sorry, I was only talking CANON lenses.

 

[Dylan777]

Show me the MTF chart

 

[dadgummit]

Oh I get the $850 pricing. It is almost the exact cost of getting a canon 50f1.4 breaking the focus mechanism out of warranty and then getting the Sigma 50. I hate to be labeled a fan boy but if I can get Sigma 50 build and IQ with no focus issues I think it may be worth the $850. Besides it will probably be $699 on the next round of rebates after its release.

 

[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.

RLPhoto,

This is where people have it WRONG. The 50L's top quality is that it IS SHARP wide open, the problem is that the 1.4 surpasses it's sharpness stopped down. It is sharp wide open. I'm in agreement with you on this one.

The 1.4 Canon is a good lens. The 50L though, is a Great lens.

Maybe I've never seen the famous focus shift because I can see the DOF with the EG-S screen on my 5Dc. It just works at all apertures and when I hit the DOF preview, It still perfectly in-focus where it landed. Its never been an problem on my copy stamped 2010.

The only downfall I see in the 50L is price and weight.

 

[vuilang]

unless the new 50 1.4 have similar/better IQ, bokeh than the L. I dont see why should i buy this instead of the L

 

[mortadella]

Everybody seems to be making a big stink about the price jumps for all the replacement lenses/cameras that canon has released recently, and the discussions of whether or not the new features/improvements are worth the added cost.

A point I feel needs to be made is that Canon is not increasing the retail price of the equipment proportional to the additional features/improvements (which is what consumers typically look at). They can't do that and continue to be a viable company. The Yen's strength to the Dollar has doubled in the last 5 years, and that rate is almost as dramatic or even more-so with most of the other country's currencies that they do high volume exporting to.

So when you see the 30%-40% increase in original release MSRP of 5DmkII vs the mkIII or the 24-70L and the mkII, keep in mind that is pretty much just accounting for the currency difference between those release dates.

So take that into consideration when you see these new price points. Might not just be Canon being greedy.

Other thoughts/theories:

Maybe that was a Hong Kong pricelist and this is a replacement for the 1.8

$900(you would spend on the new 1.4) + $300 for your used 1.4 and you can get yourself a used 1.2L

 

[bdunbar79]

unless the new 50 1.4 have similar/better IQ, bokeh than the L. I dont see why should i buy this instead of the L

Exactly. It has very similar IQ. I'm not saying it's not a great lens, it's just not $1100 better than the 1.4. The 1.4 is sharper stopped down. I"m not one to bank on reviews, as I have all 3 50mm lenses, but read this review:

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/Canon-EF-50mm-f-1.2-L-USM-Lens-Review.aspx

I guess Bryan and I think alike? If you want to spend $1499 on a lens that doesn't perform better at f/2.8 and narrower than a lens that costs $369, it's your money. I happen to use the lens f/1.2 to 2 and it looks great, so that's why I have it. But my photos at low ISO outdoors are actually better and sharper with the 1.4.

Bottom line is that no other lens is like this, 35mm f/1.4L is better at all apertures than the 35 f/2, and the 85 f/1.2L is better at all apertures than the 1.8. The 50L is not that compared to the 1.4.

 

[bp]

Bottom line is that no other lens is like this, 35mm f/1.4L is better at all apertures than the 35 f/2, and the 85 f/1.2L is better at all apertures than the 1.8. The 50L is not that compared to the 1.4.

Agreed! I bought the 35L and shortly thereafter sold my f/2. Bought the 85L II and sold my 1.8. Bought the 50L, and ... sold the 50L. I do understand why some people love it, gorgeous bokeh - every pic I took with it looked amazing as a thumbnail or at web resolution, but when I'd pixel peep the sweet spot of the in-focus area of the razor thin DOF, it went from blur to almost sharp, and back to blur - but never really hit it.

I'm curious if, out of the people who love the 50L, any of them also have the 85L II. To me, that one is what f/1.2 sharpness is supposed to look like. I reaaalllly wanted to love the 50L, pined over it for more than a year before taking the plunge - perhaps I would've felt differently about it if I wasn't comparing it to the 85 already in my bag.

 

[mathino]

Bottom line is that no other lens is like this, 35mm f/1.4L is better at all apertures than the 35 f/2, and the 85 f/1.2L is better at all apertures than the 1.8. The 50L is not that compared to the 1.4.

Agreed! I bought the 35L and shortly thereafter sold my f/2. Bought the 85L II and sold my 1.8. Bought the 50L, and ... sold the 50L. I do understand why some people love it, gorgeous bokeh - every pic I took with it looked amazing as a thumbnail or at web resolution, but when I'd pixel peep the sweet spot of the in-focus area of the razor thin DOF, it went from blur to almost sharp, and back to blur - but never really hit it.

I'm curious if, out of the people who love the 50L, any of them also have the 85L II. To me, that one is what f/1.2 sharpness is supposed to look like. I reaaalllly wanted to love the 50L, pined over it for more than a year before taking the plunge - perhaps I would've felt differently about it if I wasn't comparing it to the 85 already in my bag.

Ive shot with 50 f/1.8 II, 50 f/1.4 USM and with Sigma 50 f/1.4. Canon f/1.4 needed to be stopped down to f/2 to get good results, 50 f/1.8 is good for its price. I was pleased with results from Sigma 50 f/1.4, but I guess it was good copy...but it was sharp straight from 1.4 (and thats why we buy fast lenses).

Ive also tried 35L and its sooo great

...if there will be Mk II version of Canon 50 f/1.4 sharp from 1.4, true USM and build like 85 f/1.8 - I would take it into consideration. I know that it wont be cheap with current yen-dollar exchange rate and Canon pricing. Well, Im curious about rumored entry FF - new body is my next purchase.

 

[mememe]

I guess all new lenses will be at least built like the 28 and 24mm. Cause you can see a new design "line" in the 3 new lenses (40, 24, 28)

My canon 1.4 is usable at 1.4 and its really not soft! always depends on the copy you got...

 

[Portrait_Moments_Photogra]

"If you want great images from f/1.2 to f/2.8, the 50L is the only lens that will do it. But narrower, there are actually better lenses."

This is simply not true. For the money, at f/1.4 the 50mm Sigma out performs the Canon 50L. ...and think of all of the money you have ...to put toward another lens!

i agree with the sigma 50 1.4,

i have the canon 50 1.8, loved it and bought the 50L 1.2 and the love was great but quickly fades away after the sigma 1.4 went on sale.

i got better keepers with the sigma than the 50L - yes, the Sigma cant match the beauty of the bokeh of the 50L when the AF is spot on, otherwise, for the price, the Sigma is a great lens.

I sold my 50L and kept my Sigma. // just like with anything in life, things could change //

 

[lastSKYsamurai]

Just as long it's not a new 1.2. I just got that glass. Though a 1.2 with IS "would" be dreamy.....