Patent: Canon EF 50 f/1.8 IS

[Canon Rumors]

<div name="googleone_share_1" style="position:relative;z-index:5;float: right; /*margin: 70px 0 0 0;*/ top:70px; right:120px; width:0;"><g:plusone size="tall" count="1" href="http://www.canonrumors.com/2013/07/patent-canon-50-f1-8-is/"></g:plusone></div><div style="float: right; margin:0 0 70px 70px;"><a href="https://twitter.com/share" class="twitter-share-button" data-count="vertical" data-url="http://www.canonrumors.com/2013/07/patent-canon-50-f1-8-is/">Tweet</a></div>
<strong>Canon EF 50mm f/1.8 IS</strong>
A patent has show up showcasing an EF 50 f/1.8 IS lens. Could this be the replacement to the 50 f/1.4? We had <a href="http://www.canonrumors.com/2012/12/canon-ef-50-f1-4-is-in-2013-cr2/" target="_blank">heard about this lens existing last year</a>. While some may desire a direct 1.4 replacement with IS, I think Canon may want some separation between the <a href="http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/457680-USA/Canon_1257B002AA_Normal_EF_50mm_f_1_2L.html/bi/2466/kbid/3296" target="_blank">EF 50 f/1.2L</a> and the next 50 in the lineup. We’ve also heard of a new EF 50 f/1.2L design being tested.</p>
<p><strong>Patent Publication No. 2013-142782</strong></p>
<ul>
<li>Publication date 2013.7.22</li>
<li>Filing date 2012.1.11</li>
</ul>
<p><strong>Example 1</strong></p>
<ul>
<li>Focal length f = 51.51mm</li>
<li>Fno. 1.85</li>
<li>Half angle ω = 22.78 °</li>
<li>Image height 21.64mm</li>
<li>The overall length of the lens 76.78mm</li>
<li>BF 37.84mm</li>
<li>8 pieces of 7 lens configuration</li>
</ul>
<p><strong>Source: [<a href="http://egami.blog.so-net.ne.jp/2013-07-24" target="_blank">EG</a>]</strong></p>
<p><strong><span style="color: #ff0000;">c</span>r</strong></p>

 

[niklasR]

Re: Patent: Canon 50 f/1.8 IS

I can see both the 50/1.2L and 50/1.4 being replaced. The 50/1.2 because of it's general performance, and the 50/1.4 because of the competition (Sigma).
Also a 50mm-prime could be very nice for the budget handheld video-shooter who is into the short DoF-look and all that, but they really should keep the 50/1.8, because value for money and all that.

I wish Canon to replace the 50/1.4 by a 50/1.4 IS, because it would make life easier for me choosing lenses 8) (Because I don't want to think about Sigma 50/1.4 vs old Canon 50/1.4 vc Canon 50/1.8 IS.. assuming the price range remains on an equal level *brr*)

 

[pj1974]

While I do have some understanding about patents, I'm not currently too clued up on the details.

With a filing date of January 2012, and a publication date of July 2013, does any of this indicate when a lens might be in production / release? Or is this just a 'prototype'?

I'm in the market for a good 50mm, preferably Canon, ideal with IS. Any aperture between f/1.4 and f/2. My core requirements are great IQ wide open: sharp, great bokeh, low CA, strong contrast, USM focussing.

If Canon bring a new 50mm lens to the market similar to the recently released EF 35mm f/2 USM IS, I'll be very happy! Let's see what this will bring.

Looking forward to any insights folks on this forum can give about time-frame and possibility of actual production.

Paul

 

[CharlieB]

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

 

[CarlMillerPhoto]

Honestly, Canon needs to put out a decent f/1.4 before they release any other 50mm prime.

 

[RGomezPhotos]

IS on a 50mm? Why?

 

[horshack]

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.

 

[CarlMillerPhoto]

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.

 

[pj1974]

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.

PLUS... there are also times when you may wish to shoot at other than wide open (eg f/4) - as you WANT a greater depth of field (dof) - in lower light - and not have (or be unable to use) a tripod.

So the IS will allow a tripod-less (or 'tripod-restricted') photographer a sharp, 'steady' photo in such a (somewhat darker) situation, which a non-IS lens won't get you. 8)

I don't use IS all the time (I have both zoom and prime lenses that don't have IS). But my main lenses have IS. Generally I appreciate IS if it doesn't degrade overall image quality (and there are many recent lens releases that have shown IS doesn't have to degrade quality).

For the huge variety of photos I take, I'm willing to pay a few hundred Aussie dollars for IS, also in a 50mm. And yes, 50mm is useful on both FF and APS-C bodies.

Paul

 

[CarlMillerPhoto]

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.

 

[callaesthetics]

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

 

[Zv]

I'll take IS on a fifty. Heck I'll take it on any lens. Yes I am lazy - I do not want to carry 4 or 5 extra Kg of weight on my back! Am not looking for a workout when I'm doing street photography. When it starts to get a bit dark I want to be able to continue shooting at f/8 etc to get a nice amount of DOF. I also want the option to be able to shoot wide open at f/1.8 for indoor shots or portraits etc. 1/focal length rule is rubbish. Try using that on a crop body. Now it's 1/85 or 1/100 in reality. There goes the low light advantage. So yeah even if I can get ONE stop of IS I am happy because now I can shoot sharp shots indoors at 1/60 or lower (dragging the shutter) and combine it with flash for some cool effects. Minus a tripod - now am free to recompose quickly. So can we please stop saying "why do you need IS in a fifty?" Cos some of us might need it.

 

[verysimplejason]

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?

 

[BozillaNZ]

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.

 

[Hobby Shooter]

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

 

[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.

 

[drjlo]

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

I hope it's not true. I'd much rather have a new Canon 50 f/1.4, but a 50 f/1.8 (IS or not) would be acceptable ONLY IF it was very sharp wide open at f/1.8. Actually, I'm growing more and more attached to my 50L, so maybe it's a moot point for me..

 

[adhocphotographer]

Video lens mostly... Lets hope they don't get rid of the nifty-fifty, the price is one of it's best attributes!

 

[ashmadux]

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.

 

[Etienne]

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.