New ef 50mm 1.2 annoucement coming?

Haydn1971 said:
I'm still seeing the following...

50mm f1.8 - current cheapo
50mm f1.8/2.0 IS - new, just like the 35mm f2.0 IS, priced similarly
50mm f1.4 L - New Sigma smasher with blue glass tech etc
50mm f1.2 L - Existing model


50mm macro dumped

I think the two in bold above will just be one new L lens (not in addition -- I mean a 50L replacement), and they will abandon the relatively simple design and go big/heavy as if it were an Art lens. Don't expect the next-L to be tiny -- this is the era of the pickle jar primes.

- A
 
Upvote 0
ajfotofilmagem said:
Sales of Canon 50mm F1.2 are restricted to people who want a "dreamy" look. I even bought a Sigma 50mm Art, and I know Canon 50mm lenses not provide optical quality so good at F1.4 aperture.

I believe it will be first released an update for Canon F1.4 and months later will see an F1.2.

I've been lusting after one, because it has allowed me to shoot some VERY low light video situations with my 5D3.....I've been thinking of buying a 50L, but have held off when I heard there might be a redesign some time after the first of the year...

But it isn't all about the stills...video is nice for that fast a lens too!! I got some shots in what almost were pitch black bars here in New Orleans...and the 50L turned nighttime almost into daylight...

Cayenne
 
Upvote 0
privatebydesign said:
First off, all lenses focus when they are wide open, however that isn't the end of the story. AF modules have an effective aperture, Canon AF modules have been said to have an aperture of f2.8, just like the standard focusing screens have an aperture of f2.8 or so.
Canon's (and any other company's FWIW) phase detect AF sensors don't introduce this F/2.8 limit for fun and to create pain. Quite to the contrary: this limit aperture is an essential element of such an AF system. This document gives a good explanation how such systems work. The AF sensor "sees" even less than the full F/2.8 aperture, it "sees" just two small sections of the outer ring of this aperture.

privatebydesign said:
Ever tried manually focusing an f1.2 through the viewfinder? It is very difficult because you are seeing a dimmer and deeper dof view than the lens actually is.
This is a property of the ground glass used in most modern cameras and only marginally related to the AF system. The AF system does not look at the ground glass. In fact there are replacement parts for your camera's ground glass which will "see" larger apertures than F/2.8, yet the AF system will remain the same.

privatebydesign said:
Once you get to slow lenses wide open at f8 the view for the AF module becomes so dark it can't reliably attain accurate focus, it is looking for contrast but the lights are so dark there isn't enough, hence the slowdown in AF speed when we use TC's, and why some people find f8 easy to use (bright sunny day with a 100-400 and 1.4 TC with a high contrast bird in the sky), and some people find it totally useless (same lens but very late afternoon trying to focus on a bear in the woods, lower light levels and much lower contrast).
The problem with F/16 lenses is NOT the darkness of the image, even very bright subject matter won't AF correctly at F/16. The problem is that the AF sensor doesn't receive any light from such a lens, as it looks only in the direction where an F/2.8 lens would send light from but an F/16 lens doesn't. Replace the term F/2.8 with F/4, F/5.6 and F/8 for the respective AF sensors.

privatebydesign said:
5/ Focus shift has nothing to do with AF.
6/ There isn't an offset value to which lenses are focused after AF has been achieved to allow for focus shift.

I have a Sigma F/2.8 28-70 EX DF lens which proves you wrong: even in AI servo mode it will reliably and consistently front focus on the center AF point of my EOS 3, and that front focus is strong enough to be very visible even in the view finder. This would be utterly impossible without stored correction values which tell the camera "if your AF sensor is happy, move x amount in direction y anyway".

Doug Kerr calls this focus correction BFCV in this posting. The problem with Canon's 50L is that these BFCVs are tabulated for focal length and subject distance, but not for selected aperture. Evidently Canon did not consider this issue when they initially laid out their AF algos, and later AF algo revisions put more emphasis at making third party lenses incompatible than at making the 50L work correctly.

The posting also states clearly, that "The AF subdetectors each work with rays through a small subaperture, essentially all rays passing through the overall aperture at a small range of distances from its center.". I hope this finally puts the "the AF sensor uses the whole F/1.2 area to focus the 50L" myth to rest.
 
Upvote 0
Cali Capture said:
Anyone think that Canon may go Bigger f/? As in bring back the f/1.0? If the new lens strategy is to push technology and offer lenses that Nikon, Sigma, Tamron can't touch, why not push the 50. The 11-24 does this, yea 11mm is crazy wide, but hey this is a zoom that can pound out 12mm, 13mm also. So can a 1.0 be more optimized for the corners at higher f/ stops while still delivering center sharp f/1.0? You also grab Astro folks where Canon is weak. Plus we'll probably see blue gel in all the new 50-85 primes. I think the 135 will get IS!

I hope they don't pass on a 50 f/1.2 in favor of a 50 f/1.0 for a couple of reasons: 1. It would be huge and slow focusing, and 2. It would be really expensive, probably prohibitively so. f/1.2 is already really large aperture, and I'd even give up 1/3 stop for IS (50 f/1.4 IS) as long as the IQ was great.
 
Upvote 0
Etienne said:
Cali Capture said:
Anyone think that Canon may go Bigger f/? As in bring back the f/1.0? If the new lens strategy is to push technology and offer lenses that Nikon, Sigma, Tamron can't touch, why not push the 50. The 11-24 does this, yea 11mm is crazy wide, but hey this is a zoom that can pound out 12mm, 13mm also. So can a 1.0 be more optimized for the corners at higher f/ stops while still delivering center sharp f/1.0? You also grab Astro folks where Canon is weak. Plus we'll probably see blue gel in all the new 50-85 primes. I think the 135 will get IS!

I hope they don't pass on a 50 f/1.2 in favor of a 50 f/1.0 for a couple of reasons: 1. It would be huge and slow focusing, and 2. It would be really expensive, probably prohibitively so. f/1.2 is already really large aperture, and I'd even give up 1/3 stop for IS (50 f/1.4 IS) as long as the IQ was great.

On the matter of size, I agree with you -- it's one of many many reasons why I want an non-L 50 f/nooneknows IS: I expect it to be in a relatively small package like the 35 f/2 IS USM.

But also on the matter of size, consider that the 50L has been pasted by two competitive lenses that are just a weeeeee bit bigger (see pic. Yes that's a Zeiss 85 as the comparison site didn't have a 55 in its database, but TDP claims they are roughly the same size.)

So the question we need to ask is: Is Canon's next 50L going to stick with the compact design (it's 'double gauss', right?) or abandon it for the weapon-like pickle jars it now faces competition from? Surely, it cannot be tack sharp when stopped down and dreamy when wide open unless it goes big, right?

- A
 

Attachments

  • Size of 50mm lenses.jpg
    Size of 50mm lenses.jpg
    570.6 KB · Views: 239
Upvote 0
ahsanford said:
Etienne said:
Cali Capture said:
Anyone think that Canon may go Bigger f/? As in bring back the f/1.0? If the new lens strategy is to push technology and offer lenses that Nikon, Sigma, Tamron can't touch, why not push the 50. The 11-24 does this, yea 11mm is crazy wide, but hey this is a zoom that can pound out 12mm, 13mm also. So can a 1.0 be more optimized for the corners at higher f/ stops while still delivering center sharp f/1.0? You also grab Astro folks where Canon is weak. Plus we'll probably see blue gel in all the new 50-85 primes. I think the 135 will get IS!

I hope they don't pass on a 50 f/1.2 in favor of a 50 f/1.0 for a couple of reasons: 1. It would be huge and slow focusing, and 2. It would be really expensive, probably prohibitively so. f/1.2 is already really large aperture, and I'd even give up 1/3 stop for IS (50 f/1.4 IS) as long as the IQ was great.

On the matter of size, I agree with you -- it's one of many many reasons why I want an non-L 50 f/nooneknows IS: I expect it to be in a relatively small package like the 35 f/2 IS USM.

But also on the matter of size, consider that the 50L has been pasted by two competitive lenses that are just a weeeeee bit bigger (see pic. Yes that's a Zeiss 85 as the comparison site didn't have a 55 in its database, but TDP claims they are roughly the same size.)

So the question we need to ask is: Is Canon's next 50L going to stick with the compact design (it's 'double gauss', right?) or abandon it for the weapon-like pickle jars it now faces competition from? Surely, it cannot be tack sharp when stopped down and dreamy when wide open unless it goes big, right?

- A

I have zero knowledge of lens design, and I have no desire to learn, but a 50 f/1.4 is fast enough for me. I'm more interested in improving the sharpness wide open, contrast, and bokeh, than going to f/1.2 or larger. And IS would be great! But if I had to choose between a great 50 f/1.2 and a great 50 f/2 IS, I'd probably pick the 50 f/1.2 unless the price and/or size/weight was outrageous.
 
Upvote 0
I didn't know there was a 50 1.8 IS patent out there. I'd probably buy the mythical 50 in the 35 IS sized body over a larger 1.4 or 1.2 without IS.

If Canon actually does redo all their 50's and adds in one with IS I'm sure the one with IS will be the highest volume seller, new nifty fifty aside, so it would make sense to save it until last.

If I were Canon I would do 50 1.8 > 50 1.2 > 50 1.4 then 50 1.8 IS. I think that would get the maximum number of people to buy more than one of those lenses. The way it is I already have to buy two, since I already bought the 50 1.8. lol
 
Upvote 0
I'm quite content to shoot with an 850g 24-70mm f/2.8 lens (with 82mm front filter) , which has a lens barrel that extends to a length of 135mm (over 5") in order to shoot images at 50mm. Should I be filled with discontent if a dedicated 50mm lens was developed which was more than 2 stops faster but of a similar size and weight?
 
Upvote 0
I have zero knowledge of lens design, and I have no desire to learn, but a 50 f/1.4 is fast enough for me. I'm more interested in improving the sharpness wide open, contrast, and bokeh, than going to f/1.2 or larger.

If you have a good 50mm f1.2 you hav probalbly a better f1.4 on it (stopped down) as on a 50mm f1.4 (wide open).

Ok, just give me the IQ of the 85mm 1.2, but with some serious AF performance, and I'd still be happy.

To all nagging on the AF of the 85L II... it's awesome. There is no competitor on the market who did a AF in a 85 1.2 anyway, and to move a kilogram of glass is quite a task. The 85L is a portraitlens and no sportsvehicle... the 85mm 1.8 is the right choice for such usage.

I think Canon recently proved with the 35mm 1.4L II that they can beat Sigma easily. Maybe it was quite a good time to get a bit pressure on Canon... both sided won.
 
Upvote 0
vscd said:
I think Canon recently proved with the 35mm 1.4L II that they can beat Sigma easily. Maybe it was quite a good time to get a bit pressure on Canon... both sided won.

But canon 35mm will cost about 2.2 times in Canada. So, no, canon didn't beat sigma 'easily'! It's like saying Otus 35 beats canon 35 easily! You can not compare lenses those are so different price wise. Canon 35 is GOOD, 35 art is also GOOD. And I'm sure the 35 art will still claim major market share of 35mm as most people won't pay more than double for comparable IQ.
 
Upvote 0
I think that the current Canon 50mm f/1.2L and the Sigma 50mm Art are BOTH incredible lenses for creating images. They are also tools for two different disciplines. I could see owning both. Truly.
I would bet that a new 50mm f/1.2L would be something aimed at satisfying the new hi-rez sensors...right?
 
Upvote 0
The beauty of the out-of-focus region is something so abstract I don't quite get it how we can agree on an "upgrade". Prominent reviews of the EF 70-200/2.8L II say "harsher rendition of the out of focus region" yet this lens is considered better than its predecessor. Now we're talking about upgrade of the 50/1.2L for the sake of the bokeh at 1.2? I don't think it's quite an easy thing to "fix". I can imagine Canon engineers making prototypes one after the other to decide the final formula, and I wouldn't like to be in the position to decide which would be the one to finally market.

For the 50/1.4 even more than technical upgrade, this lens practically comes from the FD era. 50/1.4 is called "a lens with which all others are measured". A 30+ years successful formula is hot potato to tamper with.

So the way I see it upgrading these two lenses goes much deeper than some improved technical formula or a BR gel add-on. It's about the essence of Canon as a leading photographic equipment manufacturer. Art so to speak.
 
Upvote 0
I'll jump on the Prediction Train. The new lineup of 50's will be:

- 50 f1.8 STM at $125.99. This will replace the 50 f1.8 II (once stock runs out).

- 50 f1.4 USM IS at $699.99. This will replace the 50 f1.4 USM and compliment the 28 f2.8 USM IS, 35 f2 USM IS. At some point, I expect to see an 85 f1.8 USM IS to complete this line.

- 50 f1.2L II USM at $1,899.00. This will replace the 50 f1.2L USM and compliment the 35 f1.4L II USM and the 85 f1.2L II USM.

This leaves the 100 f2.0 USM as the oddball. If the 85 f1.8 USM is replaced with an IS version, will the 100 be replaced as well?
 
Upvote 0
dilbert said:
It is interesting that in threads about the Sigma 50/1.4 Art and how much sharper it was, many people wrote comments to defend the 50/1.2L for being soft because it had a "softness and look" that no other lens does.

Both are true to some extent, and the debate still rages today.

However, the Sigma Art camp brings data and the Canon 50L camp brings opinion -- it's really hard to quantify the beauty of transition to OOF areas.

So one group says "Sharpness!" and the other says "Magic!" It ends up becoming an argument between a mathematician and a poet -- neither is speaking each other's language. If you're sharpness obsessed, you've already bought the Art, and if you are bokeh fanatic, you've already bought the 50L.

- A
 
Upvote 0
ahsanford said:
dilbert said:
It is interesting that in threads about the Sigma 50/1.4 Art and how much sharper it was, many people wrote comments to defend the 50/1.2L for being soft because it had a "softness and look" that no other lens does.

Both are true to some extent, and the debate still rages today.

However, the Sigma Art camp brings data and the Canon 50L camp brings opinion -- it's really hard to quantify the beauty of transition to OOF areas.

So one group says "Sharpness!" and the other says "Magic!" It ends up becoming an argument between a mathematician and a poet -- neither is speaking each other's language. If you're sharpness obsessed, you've already bought the Art, and if you are bokeh fanatic, you've already bought the 50L.

- A

And if you are both, you bought an Otus.
 
Upvote 0
dadohead said:
ahsanford said:
dilbert said:
It is interesting that in threads about the Sigma 50/1.4 Art and how much sharper it was, many people wrote comments to defend the 50/1.2L for being soft because it had a "softness and look" that no other lens does.

Both are true to some extent, and the debate still rages today.

However, the Sigma Art camp brings data and the Canon 50L camp brings opinion -- it's really hard to quantify the beauty of transition to OOF areas.

So one group says "Sharpness!" and the other says "Magic!" It ends up becoming an argument between a mathematician and a poet -- neither is speaking each other's language. If you're sharpness obsessed, you've already bought the Art, and if you are bokeh fanatic, you've already bought the 50L.

- A

And if you are both, you bought an Otus.

And lament the fact that it isn't AF................
 
Upvote 0
The other bit that always confuses me is that many believe (including myself) that the non-L IS refresh treatment of the 24/28/35 lenses will definitely come to the 50, 85, 100, etc.

But we have to remember that there really were two price points under the L at one point.

  • The 24/28/35 lenses were 'Simple' lenses with the squeaky old AF motors like the 50 f/1.8.
  • And the faster version of the 28, along with the 20/50/85/100, came years later (with USM). They were a higher class of lens than the 24/28/35 lenses.

So the 24/28/35 non-L IS refresh of a few years ago simply cleaned out Canon's remaining old AF motor lenses. The 20/fast28/50/85/100 were in a different class at that time, so perhaps Canon didn't feel the pressure to update those as much as the 24/28/35.

- A
 

Attachments

  • Canon Primes.jpg
    Canon Primes.jpg
    96.3 KB · Views: 1,023
Upvote 0