No New 50mm Lens Coming in 2017 [CR2]

[Respinder]

For me, an f1.0 is all I would care about. The original, although flawed, was still pushing the envelope, and I think that is really what Canon needs to continue to do here - we really need more innovative lenses that really push the boundaries of what is capable. I would buy one in a heartbeat - no matter the price.

 

[KiagiJ]

oh, there are so many alternatives to that Sigma lens you are dislike that much!
Tamron 45 1.8 VC, Dustin Abbott swears by it. etc.

NoooooooooooooooOOo00ooo. Over a year more having to live view focus the sigma on my 1dx2 as the piece o S___ doesn't viewfinder focus right. Awkward ass candids. NoooOoOO00ooo

Oh no I love my sigma art image quality that's why I use it. It's that I lost focus through the viewfinder switching from a 6d to 1dx2 and it can't be resolved on the dock or afma, so I'm stuck live view shooting ugh

 

[pwp]

I'm also no fan of the focal length...

Every few years an annoying amnesia kicks in and I buy another 50mm and then quickly remember why I tend not to keep them. It's because it hardly gets used. The same amnesia may well kick in again some time in 2017. Will I ever learn?

Honestly, zooms are so good today....

Especially the 24-70 f/2.8II. This astoundingly classy lens must have pushed an untold number of primes out of busy photographers bags and into the store room or onto the second-hand market. My last short prime, a 24 f/1.4II came out of the store-room a few weeks ago and used on a prospectus project. Meh...it's now up for sale. My only remaining primes are 300 f/2.8is and 100L f/2.8is macro. But I've always been a zooms guy...

-pw

 

[ExodistPhotography]

a 50mm 1.0 would be great, maybe the price would be more great than nice. Make it optically reasonable at 1.0 , good at 1.4 and excellent at 2.0, add IS and it would be the last ever needed 50mm

At f1.0 you wont need IS....it will magically create light in places that look dark.

haha, not to mention a 50 f/1 with IS would be the diameter of a coffee can.. LOL
Not sure many realize how much more room IS requires on really fast lenses..


That said, the current 50mm L is still fine and the 50mm STM is stupidly sharp and has great color and micro contrast.. Cant remember how many times I have seen the 50mm STM stuck on a 5DSR becuase its that sharp.. If someone is that upset no 50mm is coming, just spend the 125 bucks on the STM and stay out of the rain.

That said, likely the 85mm and 100mm will get updated together in 2017 followed by the 50mm and 135mm in 2018.. IMHO

 

[mb66energy]

I thin I am the only one not missing a new 50mm. I've owned at least 50 Canon 50mm lenses over my 60 years of photography, and have 3 or 4 FD lenses laying around, and one EF 1.8 II made in Japan.

I never keep them around very long, since I find its a focal length that gets little use.

True: it is a "no fish nor meat"-focal length. But it is (or was?) the easiest way to get 1.4 at good quality for a moderate price - between expensive retrofocus constructions for 35mm & below or large and thick lenses for 85mm & above.

A 50mm with very good IQ, compact built, IS and 1:5 closeup capability at 700-800$/EUR (1 year after market introduction) would be THE low light lens for me. But ... if I look at the 1.8 45 Tamron I think the price will be above 1000EUR ...
____

Your remarks (later post) about "Canon is not state of the art in every respect" are true - and the "machines" they produce are really reliable, they work mostly as expected. With high compatibility along the timeline. It is great to see the FD 3.5/135 on a EOS M and it's incredible IQ (the lens!). Or to use an old fashioned 2.8 24 non-IS EF lens on the 5D knowing that a 16-35 IS will work flawlessly with this 10 year old (great) camera.

 

[ahsanford]

Sorry to disappoint and delay the popcorn folks -- I'm on vacation with my family and lack a computer + PS with which to artfully render how I feel right now.

But imagine a man shoving his head inside of his own butt. That would be me for waiting for the 50mm f/nooneknows IS USM for so long.

Or it might be Canon marketing/development staff for leaving this part of their lens portfolio to rot for so long.

- A

 

[ntt2007]

Well, maybe Canon need some more pressure from third party manufacture, but I think there are at least 2 possibilities:
- a new 50 1.0L replace for 1.2
- no more f1.2 for L lens (f1.0 also out of the picture) as Canon mentioned about new 85 1.4L IS but no news about 85 1.2L III. In this case, new 50 1.4 will be L lens and Canon will have budget lens with aperture at 1.8 and L lens aperture 1.4.

 

[jolyonralph]

I'm sure we'd all much rather have a 50mm Compact Macro f/2.5 II

 

[symmar22]

I don't consider this to be bad news. I have the Sigma Art which I have tweaked with the dock and camera body AFMA. It is a solid performer. Canon would be wasting its time to equal that performance and I think they know that. Very interested to hear that an f/1 may be in the works. I'd be very interested in that. An F/1 along with a solid f/1.4 (perhaps with IS) would be a reasonable response to the current crop of 3rd party 50mm offerings. Canon should take the time required to produce a superior 50mm.

Well they actually did take all their time. We are approaching 30 years for the 50 macro (1987), 26 years for the 45mm TS-E (1991), 24 years for the 50 f1.4 (1993) and 11 years for the 50 f1.2 (2006). Considering the competition, (mainly Zeiss, Sigma, Tamron, Sony and to some extend Nikon) everyone has several modern 50mm available, only Canon still sells prehistoric models, and has obviously no plan to at least try to match the others (actually they should do better).

The 50mm f1.8 can barely be called an update, as the optics are the same, but for the price, it's a good deal. The 50 macro and f1.4 are simply a shame for modern standards, the f1.2 has a place as a "dreamy" portrait lens, and IMHO is not the one that should be replaced first. The 45mm TS-E has horrible chroma and very average sharpness.

The 50mm is not my favourite focal, I would prefer a true standard lens (40-45mm). I am using a 50 f2.5 macro because there is no other Canon choice for my needs, though I have been waiting for an updated 45mm TS-E since ever. I will likely end buying the Tamron 45 f1.8 (thanks Dustin for your nice review), only because Canon has no decent standard lens to offer.

So IMO they took enough time to think about it, it's more than time to actually do something.

 

[mb66energy]

I'm sure we'd all much rather have a 50mm Compact Macro f/2.5 II

If it's driven by USM, has f/2.0 and keeps the 1:2, gets IS, staying still compact and is roughly 550 EUR/$ ... a very interesting option!

 

[Hector1970]

I'm probably in a minority but I don't see an urgency to replace the current 50mm lens range. Maybe it's because I take photographs with them as opposed to checking charts. I am very happy with the 50 1.2. I find it sharp and reliable.I loved the 50 1.4 and was sorry I sold it. Not the sharpest of lens but it made beautiful pictures.. I had a 50 1.8 too and loved it. It introduced me to bokeh. A frond of mine dropped it and it didn't bounce. All of them as tools to take photographs I thought were and are great. They are certainly no impediment to taking great photographs. When I had an APS-C camera only they were great portrait lens and tack sharp stepped down in a studio. I like 50mm as a walk around on full frame.

 

[Maiaibing]

Maybe it's because I take photographs with them as opposed to checking charts. I am very happy with the 50 1.2. I find it sharp and reliable.

No, its because you are happy with less for your money than some others are.

I passed on buying the 50mm f/1.2 first and foremost due to the lack of a floating element and the resulting focus shift - which is exactly at its worst at the most useful portrait distances.

YMMV. Maybe you use it for something else or always shoot the lens wide open and thus never get hit by focus shift. Or you do not need sharp shots. All very legit. However, for the price I cannot stomach its limitations. And I think many others feel the same.

 

[CanonGuy]

I'm probably in a minority but I don't see an urgency to replace the current 50mm lens range. Maybe it's because I take photographs with them as opposed to checking charts. I am very happy with the 50 1.2. I find it sharp and reliable.I loved the 50 1.4 and was sorry I sold it. Not the sharpest of lens but it made beautiful pictures.. I had a 50 1.8 too and loved it. It introduced me to bokeh. A frond of mine dropped it and it didn't bounce. All of them as tools to take photographs I thought were and are great. They are certainly no impediment to taking great photographs. When I had an APS-C camera only they were great portrait lens and tack sharp stepped down in a studio. I like 50mm as a walk around on full frame.

1. You are minority for sure. 2. You are happy because you don't know about the other options available out there.

The 50L definitely needs an update asap. Among the modern lenses, it's just a prehistoric dinosaur right now. The 50 art is leaps and bounds ahead sharpness wise. Buying this lens at that price is just a complete rip off. But canon just playing typical turtle game...

 

[pokerz]

Please replace all ancient len AF motors with STM, the era of STM is yet to come

 

[Loswr]

The 50L definitely needs an update asap. Among the modern lenses, it's just a prehistoric dinosaur right now. The 50 art is leaps and bounds ahead sharpness wise. Buying this lens at that price is just a complete rip off.

I didn't know sharpness was the most important characteristic of a lens. I'm so glad you're here to educate all of us on what aspects of image quality we should find most important. I guess we've foolishly thought that things like bokeh and color rendering matter. Thanks for setting us straight!

Not that sharpness is unimportant, but some people treat it as the sole criterion for evaluating lens performance, probably because reducing a complex set of objective and subjective parameters to a simple, uncomplicated number makes it easier for simple, uncomplicated minds to grasp.

 

[jeffa4444]

The 50L definitely needs an update asap. Among the modern lenses, it's just a prehistoric dinosaur right now. The 50 art is leaps and bounds ahead sharpness wise. Buying this lens at that price is just a complete rip off.

I didn't know sharpness was the most important characteristic of a lens. I'm so glad you're here to educate all of us on what aspects of image quality we should find most important. I guess we've foolishly thought that things like bokeh and color rendering matter. Thanks for setting us straight!

Not that sharpness is unimportant, but some people treat it as the sole criterion for evaluating lens performance, probably because reducing a complex set of objective and subjective parameters to a simple, uncomplicated number makes it easier for simple, uncomplicated minds to grasp.

Ive sat in a whole bunch of meetings lately discussing sharpness and how modern cameras & lenses are too sharp. These conversations have been with cinematographers and fashion photographers in particular who deal with either actresses or models at the top of their game and they are not happy to see every pore. This can be dealt with by either reducing the sharpness / contrast of lenses at design, post processes or filters. Many post processes make skin look like plastic weve all seen over corrected images promoting software plug-ins so their use must be subtle. diffusion filters are another route as is in camera sharpening adjustments but again these need to be used wisely.
Larger format with shallow depth of field or fast primes like the Canon 50mm f1.2L or 85mm f1.2L help by having a very narrow plain of focus but I believe the main reason for upgrades is not sharpness but better correction of CAs (50mm) and bokeh fringing (50 & 85mm). Of the two the 50mm is the weaker lens but it does have a creamy out of focus bokeh which has been its trade mark feature.

 

[rfdesigner]

The 50L definitely needs an update asap. Among the modern lenses, it's just a prehistoric dinosaur right now. The 50 art is leaps and bounds ahead sharpness wise. Buying this lens at that price is just a complete rip off.

I didn't know sharpness was the most important characteristic of a lens. I'm so glad you're here to educate all of us on what aspects of image quality we should find most important. I guess we've foolishly thought that things like bokeh and color rendering matter. Thanks for setting us straight!

Not that sharpness is unimportant, but some people treat it as the sole criterion for evaluating lens performance, probably because reducing a complex set of objective and subjective parameters to a simple, uncomplicated number makes it easier for simple, uncomplicated minds to grasp.

Ive sat in a whole bunch of meetings lately discussing sharpness and how modern cameras & lenses are too sharp. These conversations have been with cinematographers and fashion photographers in particular who deal with either actresses or models at the top of their game and they are not happy to see every pore. This can be dealt with by either reducing the sharpness / contrast of lenses at design, post processes or filters. Many post processes make skin look like plastic weve all seen over corrected images promoting software plug-ins so their use must be subtle. diffusion filters are another route as is in camera sharpening adjustments but again these need to be used wisely.
Larger format with shallow depth of field or fast primes like the Canon 50mm f1.2L or 85mm f1.2L help by having a very narrow plain of focus but I believe the main reason for upgrades is not sharpness but better correction of CAs (50mm) and bokeh fringing (50 & 85mm). Of the two the 50mm is the weaker lens but it does have a creamy out of focus bokeh which has been its trade mark feature.

I'd be quite happy with the current 1.4, but new coatings for reduced flair, maybe a new glass for better CA, a propper AF mechanism like.. oh I don't know.. RING USM!!!

And the whole thing in a properly built package, something akin to the 28f1.8/85f1.8/100f2.0 in terms of robustness.

Anyway looking on the bright side, the news is good for my bank account.

 

[zim]

Ive sat in a whole bunch of meetings lately discussing sharpness and how modern cameras & lenses are too sharp. These conversations have been with cinematographers and fashion photographers in particular who deal with either actresses or models at the top of their game and they are not happy to see every pore. This can be dealt with by either reducing the sharpness / contrast of lenses at design, post processes or filters. Many post processes make skin look like plastic weve all seen over corrected images promoting software plug-ins so their use must be subtle. diffusion filters are another route as is in camera sharpening adjustments but again these need to be used wisely.
Larger format with shallow depth of field or fast primes like the Canon 50mm f1.2L or 85mm f1.2L help by having a very narrow plain of focus but I believe the main reason for upgrades is not sharpness but better correction of CAs (50mm) and bokeh fringing (50 & 85mm). Of the two the 50mm is the weaker lens but it does have a creamy out of focus bokeh which has been its trade mark feature.

yeah I was hoping for a 50L refresh, correction of CAs and fringing rather than a totally new lens, Oh and a little faster AF if possible
wish they could have squeezed that into their busy schedule :'(

 

[SkynetTX]

Please replace all ancient len AF motors with STM, the era of STM is yet to come

No, no, no! No more STM or NanoUSM lens, please! Except if they are released as EF-V lenses for videographers and A+ mode users. As a macro photographer I want Ring-type USM in all new lenses since it's the only motor that supports Full Time Manual focusing.

 

[CanonGuy]

The 50L definitely needs an update asap. Among the modern lenses, it's just a prehistoric dinosaur right now. The 50 art is leaps and bounds ahead sharpness wise. Buying this lens at that price is just a complete rip off.

I didn't know sharpness was the most important characteristic of a lens. I'm so glad you're here to educate all of us on what aspects of image quality we should find most important. I guess we've foolishly thought that things like bokeh and color rendering matter. Thanks for setting us straight!

Not that sharpness is unimportant, but some people treat it as the sole criterion for evaluating lens performance, probably because reducing a complex set of objective and subjective parameters to a simple, uncomplicated number makes it easier for simple, uncomplicated minds to grasp.

It's always nice to see delusional people who are extreme fanboys too people like you are an asset to a company like canon who's moto is to move like Turtle and milk customers as long as they can. And Nah... Some people can't ever be educated

I just mentioned sharpness for sake of argument. Here it's for you: horrible CA, slow AF, inaccurate AF, curved focus plane needs to be fixed in that prehistoric garbage lens as well. Hope you are happy now I guess all those garbage aspects of this lens makes an image artistic for you