Patent: Canon EF 50 f/1.8 IS

[Zv]

IS on a 50mm? Why?

Because it'll let you shoot static scenes down to probably 1/13 or so. Two stops of extra exposure is a huge deal in low-light situations.

I was in the middle of writing how 1/15 is too slow for shooting people (unless they're exceptional at holding still) when I noticed you said "statics scenes". That begs the question: are people so lazy as to pay an extra ~$700 for IS (over the current f/1.8 ) simply to avoid having to bring/carry a tripod when they do night photography?

IS is always nice, but in this case I can't see it being worth what Canon is likely to charge for this lens. I'm honestly confused by this lens. For photographers, it's appeal is extremely limited to me. It probably has the biggest appeal to people doing video.

Ummm, no, not lazy. Sometimes, they just want to be more comfortable and be able to bring their camera without lugging a tripod with them. E.g., just imagine going to a party while lugging around a tripod. not too sexy isn't it?

Actually, bringing a DSLR to a party won't do you much good either

And that's why I have an EOS M! I wish the 22/2 had IS but then there's always the 18-55 or 11-22 for that.

 

[mrsfotografie]

Just what we need.....an eight hundred dollar 50mm f/1.8 lens. Oh boy!

+1. I don't know of any shooters who say they need IS on a non-telephoto. Definitely doesn't justify a $700 jump in price.

While some may desire a direct 1.4 replacement with IS, I think Canon may want some separation between the EF 50 f/1.2L and the next 50 in the lineup.

Maybe I'm not understanding this correctly, but is CR suggesting Canon might simply offer the f/1.2 and then the f/1.8 IS, skipping f/1.4 altogether (once it's phased out)? The window for a 3rd party to kill it with a decent 1.4 already exists, but this would literally pave the way. Here's hoping Sigma updates their 50mm 1.4.

So far, Canon has honored the traditional aperture sizes when they replaced the 24, 28 and 35. I suspect they will do the same for the 1.8 and it will co-exist with the 1.4 non-IS. The 1.4 is on a different release schedule altogether.

I predict Canon will drop the 1.8 II and it will be replaced by an all-plastic version with IS. It will be affordable like the Canon EF-S 18-55mm IS II F/3.5-5.6 which actually sells for less than the 50mm f/1.8 II.

 

[Daniel Flather]

Re: Patent: Canon 50 f/1.8 IS

The 50/1.2 because of it's general performance,

What did you not like about your experiences with the 50/1.2L? I have to assume you own this lens, have owned it in the past, or have used it in a rental or other situation.

I have owned the 50/1.8, 50/1.4, and the 50/1.2 as per my sig.

 

[pj1974]

The IS has nothing to do with stills. Looks like another "video lens." Oh well, if it's better than all the current 50's, I'll get it.

Wrong, actually.

IS also is very applicable for still photography.

A number of us have written that in our posts on this thread (pls read page 1).

While I've taken thousands of photos on tripods, I've taken hundreds of thousands of photos without a tripod, and believe me - in many situations using, bringing or even having a tripod (or monopod) just isn't practical (or allowed in some scenarios).

Many professional photographers use IS to get shots they otherwise couldn't have. I'm not a pro, (though plenty of my photographs have been sold) - and my photographic technique does at times benefit from IS.

Paul

 

[RGomezPhotos]

ps- these "why IS?" arguments is think is ludicrous. IS helps. THAT IS ALL.

+1

I am sick of hearing the "nobody needs IS" crap. Nobody "needs" power windows, but it sure is nice to have.

I have no problem with IS on certain lenses like zooms, telephotos and macro... But doing it on a 50mm? Yes, the IS would help in low-light situations. I use a 50mm in the street and while I can go to f1.4 to help with light, I lose too much DoF. So if IS can get me to f4 or f5.6 with a slower shutter speed. That would be great. And I just won't bring a tripod either.

And if you continue to get sick of people's opinions, changing channels will fix that.

 

[pj1974]

like someone else said- i could give a crap what kind of 50 they make, but for the love of god, let the damn thing focus properly.

hands down the worst canon lens ive ever used in terms of AF. It actually is usable as a manual only lens...because i dotn have a choice at this point.


ps- these "why IS?" arguments is think is ludicrous. IS helps. THAT IS ALL.

Yes, agree with you on both points.

I owned 2 copies of the 50mm, and the AF of it was terrible (better on my 7D than my 350D, and yes I've also used on FF) - but in all copies of the 50mm lenses, each was generally slow, inconsistent, inaccurate, hunting in poor light. That's not what I want a fast prime for! I need it to nail focus.

There were other non 50mm - lenses that I have used with AF (eg f/1.8 with USM) - which nailed focus consistently. So it's not me being unable to use a shallow depth of field. The 50mm occasionally would nail focus, but most of the time focus was not good enough. And trying to use the lens MF doesn't work well enough for my critical needs (focus ring = terrible).

And as per my other posts, yes - IS does help. I may buy a new Canon 50mm without IS if it's good and they release it indicating there won't be an IS version, if it meets all my other needs. (I won't need IS in most situations, but certainly would take IS over a non-IS version, as at times IS will allow me to get the shot I want).

I may even consider Canon's 35mm f/2 IS over the 50mm non IS is released. Just I know that I prefer the 50mm focal length for my style of photography rather than a 35mm. Just none of the current 50mm lenses from any manufacturer meets what I need.

Let's see!! C'mon Canon, please please please give us a great 50mm f/1.8 (or even f/2) with IS, USM and great IQ wide open! Eventual pirce under $1000 AUD. Pretty please.

Paul

 

[Sporgon]

+1. I don't know of any shooters who say they need IS on a non-telephoto.

You do now

 

[Chosenbydestiny]

Jeez, all I want is a 50 1.4 that don't break by no reason, has typical ring type USM (read: more predictable/precise), doesn't extend when focusing and less hazy wide open.

Why is it so hard to get? I think Canon enjoys screwing with it's customers.

I'm currently having both Sigma and Canon 1.4 in hand. Shooting them side by side, it is pretty much clear than the Sigma is a far superior lens.

The front focus in near/back focus in far problem is the only issue I have with Sigma, but at least it is PREDICTABLE unlike the Canon.

If that 50 1.8 IS becomes the actual product, I will have to either pay to get my Sigma calibrated, or buy a new one and have it calibrated.

+1 not sure about the sigma 50mm but the non L canon 50mm lenses are lacking plenty of practical features. Sharp shots wide open would be so nice on the 1.4. Less distortion and CA on both and more rounded aperture blades is also nice. IS is okay but I wouldn't prioritize it over improved distortion, CA, build, AF accuracy, speed, and better bokeh quality.

 

[discojuggernaut]

If the MTF charts and wide open sharpness compare to the IS 24/28/35 versions, it might be interesting. I have owned all 3 non-macro Canon versions as well as the Sigma 1.4. Currently the range is occupied by my venerable 28-70 f/2.8 and the pancake 40mm (i have FF + crop). I would love to see a Sigma 'mkII' of their excellent 1.4, since I found it to be the best bang-for-the-buck fifty for the Canon system, and I love 50mm prime on FF.

 

[paul13walnut5]

I'll add to the consensus, so long as it doesn't quadruple the price of a nifty fifty then it's potentially a good thing.

The 24, 28 and 35 were complete redesigns of very old lenses, including IS and USM, these lenses have a pretty narrow market in the scheme of things and so the economy of scale dictates that these lenses will cost more to recoup their cost.

The 50mm f1.8 is a different proposition, after the 18-55 IS it must be just about their best selling lens, if they can make a lens built as nice as the 40mm f2.8 for the modest cost then hopefully build and budget will be the way forward for the next 50mm 1.8.

I don't need IS, don't particularly want IS, so long as it doesn't add a fortune to the lens cost and there is an off switch then I don't see the harm. A lot of folk would gladly be without video, where would that leave me?

 

[photonius]

IS on a 50mm? Why?

Because it'll let you shoot static scenes down to probably 1/13 or so. Two stops of extra exposure is a huge deal in low-light situations.

I was in the middle of writing how 1/15 is too slow for shooting people (unless they're exceptional at holding still) when I noticed you said "statics scenes". That begs the question: are people so lazy as to pay an extra ~$700 for IS (over the current f/1.8 ) simply to avoid having to bring/carry a tripod when they do night photography?

I guess you have never travelled (no tripod) and wanted to take a picture inside, e.g., a dark church, ....

 

[BozillaNZ]

But for this sort of focal length, if I have to choose between f2 IS and f1.4, I will take the f1.4 any time of the day. (not when I was drunk and shaky )

 

[Hobby Shooter]

Why IS?

On a human front, IS allows people that cannot hold things steady to take non-blurry photographs. That's not a bad thing.

That's what makes IS so important for me, my hands are not very steady unless I really focus on it.

 

[TW]

The current Canon 50mm 1.4 is unusable wide open in most situations anyway, just no contrast at all. Everything has a soupy, misty look. Also quite a bit of CA, though that's not such an issue anymore.

If a 50mm 1.8 IS is sharp and contrasty wide open, and has IS to boot, this will be a fine lens; modern USM and the build quality will put such a lens in a whole different category than its predecessor.

Of course, Canon, realizing this, will charge accordingly. ;D

 

[asposium]

hoping for a 85 f2 IS to be next in line.

I'd like an 85L f1.2 IS

my 85L mark 2 would be straight onto ebay!

 

[dstppy]

IS on a 50mm? Why?

Because it'll let you shoot static scenes down to probably 1/13 or so. Two stops of extra exposure is a huge deal in low-light situations.

I was in the middle of writing how 1/15 is too slow for shooting people (unless they're exceptional at holding still) when I noticed you said "statics scenes". That begs the question: are people so lazy as to pay an extra ~$700 for IS (over the current f/1.8 ) simply to avoid having to bring/carry a tripod when they do night photography?

IS is always nice, but in this case I can't see it being worth what Canon is likely to charge for this lens. I'm honestly confused by this lens. For photographers, it's appeal is extremely limited to me. It probably has the biggest appeal to people doing video.

Tripods are like flashes, any use of them in photography is 100% cheating.

OR, or, let me just throw this out there:
Maybe some people don't shoot with them for whatever reason and calling them lazy is as inane as calling using them cheating

 

[Viggo]

IS on a 50mm? Why?

Because it'll let you shoot static scenes down to probably 1/13 or so. Two stops of extra exposure is a huge deal in low-light situations.

I was in the middle of writing how 1/15 is too slow for shooting people (unless they're exceptional at holding still) when I noticed you said "statics scenes". That begs the question: are people so lazy as to pay an extra ~$700 for IS (over the current f/1.8 ) simply to avoid having to bring/carry a tripod when they do night photography?

IS is always nice, but in this case I can't see it being worth what Canon is likely to charge for this lens. I'm honestly confused by this lens. For photographers, it's appeal is extremely limited to me. It probably has the biggest appeal to people doing video.

Tripods are like flashes, any use of them in photography is 100% cheating.

OR, or, let me just throw this out there:
Maybe some people don't shoot with them for whatever reason and calling them lazy is as inane as calling using them cheating

+1 I hate dragging around a tripod (don't even have one anymore). It's always in the way. IS is fantastic in everywhich way and should, imo, be included in ALL lenses. the 14mm with 4 stops if IS? yes please. Will also help a lot with my handheld HDR. Not to mention video.

 

[Dylan777]

IS on a 50mm? Why?

Because it'll let you shoot static scenes down to probably 1/13 or so. Two stops of extra exposure is a huge deal in low-light situations.

The reason buying prime is big aperture & shallow DOF. Can't shoot people @ 1/13 or so. Wonder who do landscape @ f1.8? If the lens is on tripod, then why IS?

 

[CANONisOK]

Oh good, a "nifty-850."

 

[bradfordswood]

Lots of good points here, as usual, on both sides of the argument. For me, IS is always welcome. My hands are not steady all the time especially at shutter speeds slower than about 1/60. So for that reason alone I love having IS on my lenses. Do I always need it? Well no, not if I'm shooting in good light...but how often does that really happen? Image stabilization helps me take sharper pictures which makes me happy.

If this is as sharp as the 35mm IS then I'm in for one. But of course, once the price drops.