New ef 50mm 1.2 annoucement coming?

[TheOx]

I'm surprised I haven't heard much about a new update to the 20mm 2.8 or a possible upgrade. Canon has been doing a lot with wide angle lenses lately and I personally would love a new wide prime in this range with a possible upgrade to an F2 or one with IS. It would be a great option for wedding photography and indoor low light photography in general. Nikon has a relatively new full-frame 20mm 1.8G that almost made me want to jump over and try it out. It has gotten pretty good reviews as well. The Canon 20mm 2.8 is over 20 years old so I wonder if they ever plan on replacing it or just letting this focal length die out. Maybe it isn't a lens in high demand but I think an update would be fantastic as long as it is super sharp and the weight stays reasonably low.

 

[ahsanford]

I'm surprised I haven't heard much about a new update to the 20mm 2.8 or a possible upgrade. Canon has been doing a lot with wide angle lenses lately and I personally would love a new wide prime in this range with a possible upgrade to an F2 or one with IS. It would be a great option for wedding photography and indoor low light photography in general. Nikon has a relatively new full-frame 20mm 1.8G that almost made me want to jump over and try it out. It has gotten pretty good reviews as well. The Canon 20mm 2.8 is over 20 years old so I wonder if they ever plan on replacing it or just letting this focal length die out. Maybe it isn't a lens in high demand but I think an update would be fantastic as long as it is super sharp and the weight stays reasonably low.

Fast + wide + prime = a very technically demanding design, and thus are usually priced out of the non-L market.

Personally, of the original USM primes set (i.e. the 'Middle' column of my prior chart), it's quite possible they only update the 50 and 85 and call it good. I would not be shocked to see Canon abandon the 20mm as a niche player and 100mm as already having two macro lenses that serve very capably as short tele primes.

That said, Canon needs to develop a fast, coma-free prime on the wider side for the astro community if no other reason. Many astro enthusiasts often opt for Zeiss or RokiBowYang glass instead of Canon's offerings, and one would think coma is the reason.

- A

 

[vscd]

But canon 35mm will cost about 2.2 times in Canada. So, no, canon didn't beat sigma 'easily'!

That's wrong and I heard it now several times. The 35mm 1.4 Art came out @999$, the Canon is listened @1799$ at the Moment. So this is "just" 1,8 time the Price with weathersealing. Not a bargain but not that far as you might think. You should compare the Prices fair from introduction (or wait 3 Years for the Canon to fall down to 1300/1400$). If I look at the Prices of the 35mm 1.4L I the Price will be more stable as for the Sigma-lenses.

My Samyang is optically better/equal to the Sigma @350$. No Autofocus, but I don't Need one... as Zeiss don't need one, too

 

[jd7]

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

My "prediction" (guess!!) is there will be only one L 50 (as ahansford predicts), and I reckon it will remain at f/1.2 as a differentiator from the competition. The other question to answer is what ahansford will get in response to his wish for a 50/nooneknows IS I am unconvinced about a 50/2 IS or 50/1.8 IS. The newer zoom lenses are so good it seems to me the most significant appeal of a prime these days is having a wide aperture, although the appeal of size/weight and price need some consideration too. On balance, I think Canon will go with

50 1.8 STM.

50 1.4 USM II. 50 1.4 IS is a possibility but I think only if Canon can do it without making the lens too large, heavy or expensive. Otherwise I think they will sacrifice IS to keep f/1.4 and a moderate size and cost. The role of a small, moderately wide aperture prime with IS is already filled by the 35/2 IS, and even though we're talking about different focal lengths, I feel like more people would go for both a 35/2 IS and 50/1.4 in their kits than a 35/2 IS and a 50/2 IS (or is that just me?!).

50 1.2L II - possibly 50 1.2L IS but my guess is it will forego IS, just as the 35L II has. I don't expect this to be small and light (or cheap!).

That said, Tamron's new 45 1.8 VC perhaps does mean Canon will be motivated to have a 50 IS of some sort ...?

Will be interesting to see what Canon actually does!

 

[moreorless]

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

My "prediction" (guess!!) is there will be only one L 50 (as ahansford predicts), and I reckon it will remain at f/1.2 as a differentiator from the competition. The other question to answer is what ahansford will get in response to his wish for a 50/nooneknows IS I am unconvinced about a 50/2 IS or 50/1.8 IS. The newer zoom lenses are so good it seems to me the most significant appeal of a prime these days is having a wide aperture, although the appeal of size/weight and price need some consideration too. On balance, I think Canon will go with

50 1.8 STM.

50 1.4 USM II. 50 1.4 IS is a possibility but I think only if Canon can do it without making the lens too large, heavy or expensive. Otherwise I think they will sacrifice IS to keep f/1.4 and a moderate size and cost. The role of a small, moderately wide aperture prime with IS is already filled by the 35/2 IS, and even though we're talking about different focal lengths, I feel like more people would go for both a 35/2 IS and 50/1.4 in their kits than a 35/2 IS and a 50/2 IS (or is that just me?!).

50 1.2L II - possibly 50 1.2L IS but my guess is it will forego IS, just as the 35L II has. I don't expect this to be small and light (or cheap!).

That said, Tamron's new 45 1.8 VC perhaps does mean Canon will be motivated to have a 50 IS of some sort ...?

Will be interesting to see what Canon actually does!

That would be my prediction as well, the big advantage of F/1.2 is that not only is it a differentiator now but also likely into the future as 3rd party manufactures will likely keep to Nikon's limit of F/1.4.

The Tamron 45mm might only be F/1.8 but the size/price and MTF's look like its aiming high like the Sigma rather than looking to be a budget option, probably hoping the VC and close focus trumps extreme speed for some.

Its interesting that we don't seem to have had any really cheap 3rd party 50mmish lenses, I spose you could argue it might be akin to kit lenses where even if there not packaged with the cameras a lot of the market is users who don't look beyond brand designs or perhaps simply economies of scale.

 

[rs]

My "prediction" (guess!!) is there will be only one L 50 (as ahansford predicts), and I reckon it will remain at f/1.2 as a differentiator from the competition.

That would be my prediction as well, the big advantage of F/1.2 is that not only is it a differentiator now but also likely into the future as 3rd party manufactures will likely keep to Nikon's limit of F/1.4.

+1

There's nothing in it for Sigma or anyone else to develop an f1.2 with AF lens for the EF mount and then have to develop an f1.4 lens for other mounts (Nikon F, and while they're at it, the dying Sony A mount). Canon have a clear advantage here with no distractions of smaller throat lens mounts, so embracing this advantage by further developing the f1.2 line is just one way to keep their optics clearly ahead of the competition.

 

[StudentOfLight]

My "prediction" (guess!!) is there will be only one L 50 (as ahansford predicts), and I reckon it will remain at f/1.2 as a differentiator from the competition.

That would be my prediction as well, the big advantage of F/1.2 is that not only is it a differentiator now but also likely into the future as 3rd party manufactures will likely keep to Nikon's limit of F/1.4.

+1

There's nothing in it for Sigma or anyone else to develop an f1.2 with AF lens for the EF mount and then have to develop an f1.4 lens for other mounts (Nikon F, and while they're at it, the dying Sony A mount). Canon have a clear advantage here with no distractions of smaller throat lens mounts, so embracing this advantage by further developing the f1.2 line is just one way to keep their optics clearly ahead of the competition.

Is there a reason why you say f/1.2 wouldn't work on other full frame mounts? The Mitakon 85mm f/1.2 is currently made for Canon EF / Nikon F / Sony FE mounts. I know it's not an AF lens, but is there some other issue?

 

[moreorless]

That would be my prediction as well, the big advantage of F/1.2 is that not only is it a differentiator now but also likely into the future as 3rd party manufactures will likely keep to Nikon's limit of F/1.4.

+1

There's nothing in it for Sigma or anyone else to develop an f1.2 with AF lens for the EF mount and then have to develop an f1.4 lens for other mounts (Nikon F, and while they're at it, the dying Sony A mount). Canon have a clear advantage here with no distractions of smaller throat lens mounts, so embracing this advantage by further developing the f1.2 line is just one way to keep their optics clearly ahead of the competition.

The 50mmish market also to me seems to naturally be spilt into high end and low end sales with not much inbetween. It makes sense I would say as either it tends to be the cheapest prime with DOF control potential for people on a budget or its something for people after extreme performance.

You look at say the Nikon 50mm F/1.4 G which doesn't seem to have sold that well because its aiming between the two where as the more recent 50mm F/1.8 G that's a good deal cheaper has had a lot more success.

That's the advantage of keeping the old Canon 50mm F/1.4 around, the price stays low. I wouldn't actually be shocked if they either didn't replace it or just gave it a limited workover with different build and AF motor.

 

[rfdesigner]

That would be my prediction as well, the big advantage of F/1.2 is that not only is it a differentiator now but also likely into the future as 3rd party manufactures will likely keep to Nikon's limit of F/1.4.

+1

There's nothing in it for Sigma or anyone else to develop an f1.2 with AF lens for the EF mount and then have to develop an f1.4 lens for other mounts (Nikon F, and while they're at it, the dying Sony A mount). Canon have a clear advantage here with no distractions of smaller throat lens mounts, so embracing this advantage by further developing the f1.2 line is just one way to keep their optics clearly ahead of the competition.

The 50mmish market also to me seems to naturally be spilt into high end and low end sales with not much inbetween. It makes sense I would say as either it tends to be the cheapest prime with DOF control potential for people on a budget or its something for people after extreme performance.

You look at say the Nikon 50mm F/1.4 G which doesn't seem to have sold that well because its aiming between the two where as the more recent 50mm F/1.8 G that's a good deal cheaper has had a lot more success.

That's the advantage of keeping the old Canon 50mm F/1.4 around, the price stays low. I wouldn't actually be shocked if they either didn't replace it or just gave it a limited workover with different build and AF motor.

You might be right.. but for people like me, I want the speed and accuracy of ring USM, a decent aperture and good enough sharpess and boke for A3 printing. Take the existing 50 1.4, put a propper AF on it, newest lens coatings and do something to make the sharpness a little better wide open, nothing extreme, just good enough, and for people like me you'll get a sales, I'm just an amateur and I won't buy L glass unless I come into money, sure it's nice, but I can't justify it for what I do.

 

[privatebydesign]

My "prediction" (guess!!) is there will be only one L 50 (as ahansford predicts), and I reckon it will remain at f/1.2 as a differentiator from the competition.

That would be my prediction as well, the big advantage of F/1.2 is that not only is it a differentiator now but also likely into the future as 3rd party manufactures will likely keep to Nikon's limit of F/1.4.

+1

There's nothing in it for Sigma or anyone else to develop an f1.2 with AF lens for the EF mount and then have to develop an f1.4 lens for other mounts (Nikon F, and while they're at it, the dying Sony A mount). Canon have a clear advantage here with no distractions of smaller throat lens mounts, so embracing this advantage by further developing the f1.2 line is just one way to keep their optics clearly ahead of the competition.

Is there a reason why you say f/1.2 wouldn't work on other full frame mounts? The Mitakon 85mm f/1.2 is currently made for Canon EF / Nikon F / Sony FE mounts. I know it's not an AF lens, but is there some other issue?

Many people seem to believe the Nikon mount is too small for lenses faster than f1.4, which just shows a lack of familiarity with the Nikon Nikkor 50mm f/1.2 AI-s, which mounts and works well enough on most DSLR's, though it isn't AF.

Now looking at an image of the back of that lens does seem to support the notion that f1.2 is a hard limit, and maybe f1.4 is a limit for AF lenses, but whilst many people have opinions it is rarely backed up with actual evidence.

Here is an image from this review by Mr Rockwell http://www.kenrockwell.com/nikon/50mm-f12.htm

It does seem to illustrate f1.2 as a hard, or close to, limit. Even at f1.2 they had to mess with the rear element a little to make the mechanicals fit and if you look in the front of the lens, also in that review, you will notice you can actually see part of the lens mount!

I don't see why AF f1.2 lenses aren't possible with the Nikon F mount though I do agree faster than that looks unlikely to be possible.

 

[privatebydesign]

That would be my prediction as well, the big advantage of F/1.2 is that not only is it a differentiator now but also likely into the future as 3rd party manufactures will likely keep to Nikon's limit of F/1.4.

+1

There's nothing in it for Sigma or anyone else to develop an f1.2 with AF lens for the EF mount and then have to develop an f1.4 lens for other mounts (Nikon F, and while they're at it, the dying Sony A mount). Canon have a clear advantage here with no distractions of smaller throat lens mounts, so embracing this advantage by further developing the f1.2 line is just one way to keep their optics clearly ahead of the competition.

The 50mmish market also to me seems to naturally be spilt into high end and low end sales with not much inbetween. It makes sense I would say as either it tends to be the cheapest prime with DOF control potential for people on a budget or its something for people after extreme performance.

You look at say the Nikon 50mm F/1.4 G which doesn't seem to have sold that well because its aiming between the two where as the more recent 50mm F/1.8 G that's a good deal cheaper has had a lot more success.

That's the advantage of keeping the old Canon 50mm F/1.4 around, the price stays low. I wouldn't actually be shocked if they either didn't replace it or just gave it a limited workover with different build and AF motor.

You might be right.. but for people like me, I want the speed and accuracy of ring USM, a decent aperture and good enough sharpess and boke for A3 printing. Take the existing 50 1.4, put a propper AF on it, newest lens coatings and do something to make the sharpness a little better wide open, nothing extreme, just good enough, and for people like me you'll get a sales, I'm just an amateur and I won't buy L glass unless I come into money, sure it's nice, but I can't justify it for what I do.

Count me in on that too, I am a generalist and don't want an f1.2 one trick pony, I really like my 50 f1.4 but know it needs an upgrade, my 35 f2 IS is the lens I'd like it modeled on, great performance, size, weight, character etc. I am not driven by the price but this is the feature set I am interested in, f1.4, IS, simple design, don't care about "weatherproofing" nor a red ring, ring type USM.

 

[FTb-n]

That would be my prediction as well, the big advantage of F/1.2 is that not only is it a differentiator now but also likely into the future as 3rd party manufactures will likely keep to Nikon's limit of F/1.4.

+1

There's nothing in it for Sigma or anyone else to develop an f1.2 with AF lens for the EF mount and then have to develop an f1.4 lens for other mounts (Nikon F, and while they're at it, the dying Sony A mount). Canon have a clear advantage here with no distractions of smaller throat lens mounts, so embracing this advantage by further developing the f1.2 line is just one way to keep their optics clearly ahead of the competition.

The 50mmish market also to me seems to naturally be spilt into high end and low end sales with not much inbetween. It makes sense I would say as either it tends to be the cheapest prime with DOF control potential for people on a budget or its something for people after extreme performance.

You look at say the Nikon 50mm F/1.4 G which doesn't seem to have sold that well because its aiming between the two where as the more recent 50mm F/1.8 G that's a good deal cheaper has had a lot more success.

That's the advantage of keeping the old Canon 50mm F/1.4 around, the price stays low. I wouldn't actually be shocked if they either didn't replace it or just gave it a limited workover with different build and AF motor.

You might be right.. but for people like me, I want the speed and accuracy of ring USM, a decent aperture and good enough sharpess and boke for A3 printing. Take the existing 50 1.4, put a propper AF on it, newest lens coatings and do something to make the sharpness a little better wide open, nothing extreme, just good enough, and for people like me you'll get a sales, I'm just an amateur and I won't buy L glass unless I come into money, sure it's nice, but I can't justify it for what I do.

Count me in on that too, I am a generalist and don't want an f1.2 one trick pony, I really like my 50 f1.4 but know it needs an upgrade, my 35 f2 IS is the lens I'd like it modeled on, great performance, size, weight, character etc. I am not driven by the price but this is the feature set I am interested in, f1.4, IS, simple design, don't care about "weatherproofing" nor a red ring, ring type USM.

+1, Except my current 50 f1.4 is a 40 year-old FD mount that I used extensively on the FTb-n. I also have the 35 f2 IS and would like to add a 50 f1.4 IS USM to my kit. Might even consider adding an 85 f1.8 IS USM, but 50 mm is the focal length that I'm more interested in for my current needs in a prime lens.

 

[moreorless]

My "prediction" (guess!!) is there will be only one L 50 (as ahansford predicts), and I reckon it will remain at f/1.2 as a differentiator from the competition.

That would be my prediction as well, the big advantage of F/1.2 is that not only is it a differentiator now but also likely into the future as 3rd party manufactures will likely keep to Nikon's limit of F/1.4.

+1

There's nothing in it for Sigma or anyone else to develop an f1.2 with AF lens for the EF mount and then have to develop an f1.4 lens for other mounts (Nikon F, and while they're at it, the dying Sony A mount). Canon have a clear advantage here with no distractions of smaller throat lens mounts, so embracing this advantage by further developing the f1.2 line is just one way to keep their optics clearly ahead of the competition.

Is there a reason why you say f/1.2 wouldn't work on other full frame mounts? The Mitakon 85mm f/1.2 is currently made for Canon EF / Nikon F / Sony FE mounts. I know it's not an AF lens, but is there some other issue?

Many people seem to believe the Nikon mount is too small for lenses faster than f1.4, which just shows a lack of familiarity with the Nikon Nikkor 50mm f/1.2 AI-s, which mounts and works well enough on most DSLR's, though it isn't AF.

Now looking at an image of the back of that lens does seem to support the notion that f1.2 is a hard limit, and maybe f1.4 is a limit for AF lenses, but whilst many people have opinions it is rarely backed up with actual evidence.

Here is an image from this review by Mr Rockwell http://www.kenrockwell.com/nikon/50mm-f12.htm

It does seem to illustrate f1.2 as a hard, or close to, limit. Even at f1.2 they had to mess with the rear element a little to make the mechanicals fit and if you look in the front of the lens, also in that review, you will notice you can actually see part of the lens mount!

I don't see why AF f1.2 lenses aren't possible with the Nikon F mount though I do agree faster than that looks unlikely to be possible.

The big issue is the pin connectors on a modern F-mount lens, they mean you can't make the rear element quiet so large.

Everyone talks about the 50mm F/1.4 but I actually wonder whether if your looking at charging a bit of a premium but not $1000+ the best option might be to update the old 50mm F2.5 macro. Tamron have gone a bit this way with there 45mm but a 50mm F/2 IS 1:2 half macro is a very versatile lens indeed, I paid $700 for a used Ziess 50mm F/2 Makro because it could do multiple jobs but IS and AF as well would make it even more of an all rounder potentially replacing 2-3 lenses.

 

[HighLowISO]

....
Everyone talks about the 50mm F/1.4 but I actually wonder whether if your looking at charging a bit of a premium but not $1000+ the best option might be to update the old 50mm F2.5 macro. Tamron have gone a bit this way with there 45mm but a 50mm F/2 IS 1:2 half macro is a very versatile lens indeed, I paid $700 for a used Ziess 50mm F/2 Makro because it could do multiple jobs but IS and AF as well would make it even more of an all rounder potentially replacing 2-3 lenses.

Well if it could be 50mm f/1.4 IS and 1:2 reproduction ratio? ...that would be wonderful. The f/1.4 needs an update, but it needs some differentation from what's already out there. I own the Art so if canon produces an update I hope is still relatively small, and lightweight. It has to have ring USM, and 1:2 would be killer.

That said with the STM just released, the 40mm very good, and Canon needing to update a few lenses I think we're still going to wait a while for the 50mm f/1.4 to be updated. It's going to be interesting to see what they come up with and when that will be.

 

[GMCPhotographics]

The size of the rear element has nothing to do with the lens maximum aperture. It's a relationship between the focal legnth, the iris size and objective lens size. It's quite possible to make an f1.2 lens with the rear element the same size as the aperture / Iris hole.
When Canon chose to go Auto focus, they decided they needed an entirely new mount. Which is why the EF mount was created. Canon chose their larger mount for versatility and future possible applications. Canon also chose to fit custom motors into each lens. Nikon on the other hand...added AF to their existing mount and was stuck with their legacy mount diameter. Quite a few of the current Nikon lenses even to this day rely on ancient worm drive, where the camera's motor drives the lens and one motor fits all approach. Where as all of the Canon lenses are EF.
It used to make me laugh when the D3/D700 came out and hoards of photographers jumped ship (who were mostly nikon fans using Canon because Nikon had no viable alternative). Stating the AF as the biggest reason, and yet it was only better with a handful of f2.8 zoom lenses. The rest of the Nikon range (excluding the super tele's) were in the dark ages. It is only recently that Nikon has added an 85mm f1.4, 35mm f1.4 and 24mm f1.4 to their lens portfolio...but with new AF systems.

 

[midluk]

The size of the rear element has nothing to do with the lens maximum aperture. It's a relationship between the focal legnth, the iris size and objective lens size. It's quite possible to make an f1.2 lens with the rear element the same size as the aperture / Iris hole.

The f-number gives you the the apparent size of the aperture as seen from the sensor, i.e. the angle under which the aperture appears from a given point of the sensor. So the rear element has to have at least the diameter d/N, where d is the distance of the rear element from the focal plane (sensor) and N is the f-number.
I think smaller diameters would violate Liouville's theorem.

 

[GMCPhotographics]

The size of the rear element has nothing to do with the lens maximum aperture. It's a relationship between the focal legnth, the iris size and objective lens size. It's quite possible to make an f1.2 lens with the rear element the same size as the aperture / Iris hole.

The f-number gives you the the apparent size of the aperture as seen from the sensor, i.e. the angle under which the aperture appears from a given point of the sensor. So the rear element has to have at least the diameter d/N, where d is the distance of the rear element from the focal plane (sensor) and N is the f-number.
I think smaller diameters would violate Liouville's theorem.

To quote from Wikipedia:
An f stop is the focal length divided by the size of the entrance pupil.

No mention of the rear element, which it may be assumed to the the same size or larger than the pupil...it's not mentioned anywhere.

 

[chromophore]

The size of the rear element has nothing to do with the lens maximum aperture. It's a relationship between the focal legnth, the iris size and objective lens size. It's quite possible to make an f1.2 lens with the rear element the same size as the aperture / Iris hole.

The f-number gives you the the apparent size of the aperture as seen from the sensor, i.e. the angle under which the aperture appears from a given point of the sensor. So the rear element has to have at least the diameter d/N, where d is the distance of the rear element from the focal plane (sensor) and N is the f-number.
I think smaller diameters would violate Liouville's theorem.

To quote from Wikipedia:
An f stop is the focal length divided by the size of the entrance pupil.

No mention of the rear element, which it may be assumed to the the same size or larger than the pupil...it's not mentioned anywhere.

I have previously discussed this misunderstanding at great lengths. The reality is that the f-number is both of these relationships: f-number = focal length / entrance pupil diameter = exit pupil to image plane distance / exit pupil diameter. The quantities involved are not independent.

I have also pointed to documentation, written by an actual lens designer at Zeiss, if nobody cares to believe what I say, since on the internet, anyone can claim anything:

http://www.zeiss.com/content/dam/Photography/new/pdf/en/cln_archiv/cln35_en_web_special_bokeh.pdf

Basic and elementary reasoning should force one to arrive at the conclusion that if what the sensor sees of the exit pupil is only a tiny aperture of light, the f-number cannot possibly be, say, f/1.2 or f/1.0. You cannot, by doing something with the optical path, "concentrate" the intensity of photons passing through that tiny aperture somehow: you can only lose photons through losses in transmission, for a fixed number of photons reflected off the scene and reaching the lens.

Furthermore, to address the earlier comment about Nikon's maximum relative aperture of the F mount,

http://www.pierretoscani.com/echo_shortpres.html#shortpres04

This should again put to rest various nebulous claims and speculations. Thorough research and presentation of evidence and a basic understanding of optics should be more than sufficient.

 

[krautland]

to all those who have called the Canon 1.2 soft and begun using replacements ... which ones do have AF (sorry, Zeiss) and are sharp? Is the Sigma worth checking out? Does it have AF?

I'm getting ready to ebay my Canon off.

 

[ajfotofilmagem]

to all those who have called the Canon 1.2 soft and begun using replacements ... which ones do have AF (sorry, Zeiss) and are sharp? Is the Sigma worth checking out? Does it have AF?

I'm getting ready to ebay my Canon off.

I have the Sigma 50 Art is wonderfully crisp even when used in F1.4. In some bodies Canon, Sigma Art has trouble focusing through the viewfinder (phase-detection), but works well with Live View, and optimally well with Dual Pixel AF.

I know Bokeh is subjective, but for me the quality of the bokeh Sigma 50 Art, is better than the Canon 50L. Yes, the 50L is capable of a larger background blur, but Sigma Art has a smoothness on the boundary of the "balls" Bokeh, which pleases me very much.