Patent: Canon EF 50 f/1.8 IS

[insanitybeard]

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?

How about light weight and compact size? No, I wouldn't do landscapes at 1.8, but IS gives me the option to shoot in lower light, maybe at a lower ISO or at a smaller aperture for DOF. Carrying a tripod isn't always practical or possible when hiking etc.

 

[paul13walnut5]

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.

Hmm, disagree. Video has a couple of things going for it..

1. Minimum shutter of 1/30th. More likely to be 1/50th or 1/60th for most users. Largely negates the IS of a stills lens. IS for video and IS for stills is quite different. We don't know how aggressive or how reactive the IS will be. On a better handycam format camera IS can be set in different modes, on traditional camcorders it isn't present at all.

2. In anycase most serious video users would have the camera supported in someway. Anything over 30s becomes a pain to handhold. Again, largely negating the benefit of IS for video users.

 

[Etienne]

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.

Hmm, disagree. Video has a couple of things going for it..

1. Minimum shutter of 1/30th. More likely to be 1/50th or 1/60th for most users. Largely negates the IS of a stills lens. IS for video and IS for stills is quite different. We don't know how aggressive or how reactive the IS will be. On a better handycam format camera IS can be set in different modes, on traditional camcorders it isn't present at all.

2. In anycase most serious video users would have the camera supported in someway. Anything over 30s becomes a pain to handhold. Again, largely negating the benefit of IS for video users.

It seems you don't shoot video. Shooting at 1/30, 1/60 or 1/4000 does not improve eliminate shake in video, but IS cuts it down quite a bit.

Hand-held video is common even on big budget films today. Eliminating the micro-shakes improves the look quite a lot. The camera on a shoulder brace with a 50mm with IS is great on FF, and even more important on a crop.

 

[mrzero]

I'm just wondering what will the final stable of 50mm lenses be. I find it hard to believe that Canon will keep the 50 1.8, 50 1.4, 50 1.8 IS (or whatever), and the 50 1.2L. Are they going to kill of the nifty fifty and treat the shorty forty as its "replacement," keep the 1.4 for budget wide aperture shooters, and treat the IS model as the non-L intermediate? Now that so many DSLR shooters are on crop sensors, the 50mm length is more like an 80mm short telephoto to them, so the 40mm as entry-level prime lens makes more sense, although a 28mm entry-level prime would be the best.

Also, as to the chorus of "why IS," we've been through this before with the 24, 28, and 35. Obviously they are going to do the same with the 50, and probably the 85. The biggest question left is where they will stop. They already have a 100mm IS macro L that people love, and non-L macro and non-macro 100s. They killed off the 135 non-L soft focus, so that is a possibility, but the 135 L is widely beloved -- would they undercut it with an $800 wide aperture with IS? Seems doubtful. And the 200 L prime -- if they add a non-L with IS, it would seem to undercut the widely beloved 70-200 zooms. Canon has always been reticent to cannibalize their existing sellers (i.e. EOS M vs. micro 4/3). However, as many point out repeatedly, the telephotos are the lengths that benefit most from IS.

EDIT: Oops, I forgot to include the 50mm 2.5 macro. I have a hard time believing that they will continue with five 50mm primes (and a 40mm).

 

[dstppy]

+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.

I don't mind schlepping one around, especially if I may end up in the shot or I've got the option of sending it back to the car. It made a BIG difference since I went to a carbon fiber, manfrotto tripod with a modified ball-head to use an arca-swiss type connector. It's a genuine pleasure to use when I need it.

IS has gotten really good, but it just drives the price up sometimes. I was an IS-baby for years (meaning I was terrified to not use it), then when I realized I was almost ALWAYS shooting at a fast shutter speed, I released my death grip from it My 200mm 2.8 is just a darling to use.

The other side of it is, with the 5d2/3 etc., you can crank the iso higher to keep that faster shutter speed.

Then again, when you're literally chasing down your subject (a child that won't sit still), IS is a big deal ;D

 

[dstppy]

I'm just wondering what will the final stable of 50mm lenses be. I find it hard to believe that Canon will keep the 50 1.8, 50 1.4, 50 1.8 IS (or whatever), and the 50 1.2L. Are they going to kill of the nifty fifty and treat the shorty forty as its "replacement," keep the 1.4 for budget wide aperture shooters, and treat the IS model as the non-L intermediate? Now that so many DSLR shooters are on crop sensors, the 50mm length is more like an 80mm short telephoto to them, so the 40mm as entry-level prime lens makes more sense, although a 28mm entry-level prime would be the best.

The 40 is really nice, but I'd still go to my 50mm 1.4 because I'm not use to the motor speed/noise.

I still have an unused/in-box 50mm 1.8 that I got in a bundle two years ago, after looking at it and seeing how flimsy it was compared to the 1.4. I really got to get around to selling stuff :

 

[paul13walnut5]

It seems you don't shoot video. Shooting at 1/30, 1/60 or 1/4000 does not improve eliminate shake in video, but IS cuts it down quite a bit.

Hand-held video is common even on big budget films today. Eliminating the micro-shakes improves the look quite a lot. The camera on a shoulder brace with a 50mm with IS is great on FF, and even more important on a crop.

No, I shoot lots of video. My point was that IS for video and IS for stills is entirely different because of the contiguous nature of video footage. Most photo lens IS has been designed for photo use, i.e. short bursts of agressive and noisy IS, not prolonged smooth and quiet IS.

It seems you didn't read the second part of my answer. Supported. Could be a studio pedastol. Could be a shoulder rig. Both of which would negate IS.

IS for video is called steadicam. And it works on the entire set up, not just one part of it. I'm not saying that in lens IS can't be used for video, just that it sucks.

Can you tell me one film that you can hand on heart say has been shot with an unsupported 'hand held' camera, that is no rig, no steadicam.

Cheers!

 

[bdunbar79]

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

Sighhhhhhhhhh. No, I meant that that's WHY Canon made this lens. Same thing for the 24-70 f/4 IS lens. Clearly aimed toward video more so than stills photographers.

 

[paul13walnut5]

Same thing for the 24-70 f/4 IS lens. Clearly aimed toward video more so than stills photographers.

f4? Seriously... wide max aperture is best for video, generally shutter would be at 1/50th, so the more flexible the lens can be the better as you effectively have one less paramater to play with.

 

[CarlMillerPhoto]

It seems you don't shoot video. Shooting at 1/30, 1/60 or 1/4000 does not improve eliminate shake in video, but IS cuts it down quite a bit.

Hand-held video is common even on big budget films today. Eliminating the micro-shakes improves the look quite a lot. The camera on a shoulder brace with a 50mm with IS is great on FF, and even more important on a crop.

No, I shoot lots of video. My point was that IS for video and IS for stills is entirely different because of the contiguous nature of video footage. Most photo lens IS has been designed for photo use, i.e. short bursts of agressive and noisy IS, not prolonged smooth and quiet IS.

It seems you didn't read the second part of my answer. Supported. Could be a studio pedastol. Could be a shoulder rig. Both of which would negate IS.

IS for video is called steadicam. And it works on the entire set up, not just one part of it. I'm not saying that in lens IS can't be used for video, just that it sucks.

Can you tell me one film that you can hand on heart say has been shot with an unsupported 'hand held' camera, that is no rig, no steadicam.

Cheers!

Perhaps think smaller than a film coming from a huge production house (i.e. a wedding film, student film, etc.). IS definitely helps those run and gun shooters. IS even helps if your glidecam operator isn't the most adept....


And I hate to return to the IS debate, but...

So far, just about everyone arguing for IS on this 50mm f/1.8 cite being able to shoot at a smaller aperture (f/4, f/5.6) in low light. And that's because if you're shooting at f/1.8 you can get away with 1/50, 1/60 for just about anything, especially with ISO performance these days. I think many of these people would be far better suited by the 24-105 IS or by Tamron's 24-70 f/2.8 VC (IS) than by this lens. It has yet to be argued that someone needs IS while shooting at f/1.8...and honestly, I can't think of any photography situation where I'd need/use/like IS at f/1.8. Like I said earlier, I can shoot at 1.8 & 1/50th of second for everything. If I want a wider DOF I have much more versatile IS zooms for that. If I want to get creative with motion/light, I'm going longer than just 1/13 on my shutter. Sure, shooting at 1/13 would give me less noise than 1/50th, but I'd be more restricted in what I could shoot. Plus, noise reduction is free.

Consequently, this just screams video lens to me. If I'm filming a wedding reception I'm going to be wide open, and IS will definitely help during those moments where I'm clumsy/not as steady, etc. (by the reception I've already been filming for ~8 hours).

 

[RC]

Been aching to buy a worthwhile 50mm for years. Time to refresh the whole 50mm line up and provide us something worth buying:

50 1.2L II - (keep this as the "specialty" 50)
50 1.4L - (with or without IS, don't care, USM ring, sharp wide open, WS)
50 1.8 IS or f/2 IS - (budget and or video lens)
50 2.5 Macro - (?? Don't know enough about this lens to comment)

I'll take the 50 1.4L or maybe the 50 1.2L if they fix the front/back focus issue

Yes I know, Canon would not offer a 50 1.4L since it would eat into the 50 1.2L sales

 

[Krob78]

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.

I'd take it... I can use the help with my shaky hands! Seems as I've aged my hands just don't hold my gear as still as they used too. I just don't see them charging $700 more for it. $250 more, maybe... $700? I don't think it would be that much additional money.. After all, it's still not an L lens... as far as we know...

 

[bdunbar79]

Same thing for the 24-70 f/4 IS lens. Clearly aimed toward video more so than stills photographers.

f4? Seriously... wide max aperture is best for video, generally shutter would be at 1/50th, so the more flexible the lens can be the better as you effectively have one less paramater to play with.

Would you have paid the money Canon would have charged for a 24-70 f/2.8 IS lens? Didn't think so.

 

[vscd]

I think all of us have nothing against the IS of a lense, but you always have to think about the higher costs you will pay. If I could get a 50mm 1.4 IS over a 50mm 1.4 for the same price, the first one would be the killer. But are you willing to spend 800 Bucks for it? Over the 350 of the old one? In the last months Canon presented a lot of nice lenses, but the price of em were reasonable higher than for the old one. Just take the 24-70L II, a nice lense, but double the price of the old one? Just guess what it would cost with IS.

Maybe not all people are willing to spend 1000 Euro for a simple Standardprime just to satisfy some people with shaky hands. Adjust the iso if you can't hold the Camera or take a tripod. We were running with our cameras through the streets, having film of ISO50 or ISO64 in our Cams and took great pictures in the night. So why can't you? Start to work again, use your existing gear... try to feel the spirit of a lense above it's specs. And if you can't, get a camera with IS build inside, so you don't need IS-Lenses anymore.

By the way, the specs of the patent print "Image height 21.64mm", so I guess this could be more or less a patent for APS-C or at least for some heavy vignetting on FF. Greetings.

 

[AJ]

I really don't get the "IS is for video" thing. Video clips typically last several seconds, and IS won't hold an image that long. If you shoot video and care about quality, you use a tripod.

 

[AprilForever]

Is there a particular reason why the IS primes are slightly slower than the original?

 

[crasher8]

Same thing for the 24-70 f/4 IS lens. Clearly aimed toward video more so than stills photographers.

f4? Seriously... wide max aperture is best for video, generally shutter would be at 1/50th, so the more flexible the lens can be the better as you effectively have one less paramater to play with.

Would you have paid the money Canon would have charged for a 24-70 f/2.8 IS lens? Didn't think so.

Tamron made it and it's damn sweet. 1200

 

[vscd]

>Tamron made it and it's damn sweet.

Yes, Tamron made a good one for a reasonable price (it's even weathersealed)... Canon should think about their actual lenses and the pricetag on it. The new Sigma 35mm 1.4 DG is also quite a bargain against the 35L. The Samyang 35 1.4 is even less expensive and in my eyes another great lense if you like manual lenses (which I do).

So, I hope Canon is not taking away the 50mm f1.4 and is coming back with a 50mm 1.8 IS with a 799$ pricetag on it. But anyhow, it seemes that we'll get some nice choices from other manufacturers lately...

 

[paul13walnut5]

Same thing for the 24-70 f/4 IS lens. Clearly aimed toward video more so than stills photographers.

f4? Seriously... wide max aperture is best for video, generally shutter would be at 1/50th, so the more flexible the lens can be the better as you effectively have one less paramater to play with.

Would you have paid the money Canon would have charged for a 24-70 f/2.8 IS lens? Didn't think so.

Nope. Nor will I pay the money for an f4 for a focal length that makes no sense on aps-c or s35.

The full frame users, perhaps those video shooters most concerned with shallow dof aren't going to flock to an f4 either.

Just a thought.

 

[Dylan777]

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?

How about light weight and compact size? No, I wouldn't do landscapes at 1.8, but IS gives me the option to shoot in lower light, maybe at a lower ISO or at a smaller aperture for DOF. Carrying a tripod isn't always practical or possible when hiking etc.

Adding IS will not make the lens lighter or smaller.