Patent: Canon EF 50 f/1.8 IS

[dadgummit]

All I ask is for Canon to put out a fast + accurate focusing 50mm with good bokeh and is sharp wide open. Don't care if it is f1.2, 1.4 or 1.8... Even if it is a EF 50mm f2.0 IS USM I would be ok with that as long as it is good.

 

[BRNexus6]

Canon, please for the love of God make this lens a reality. I don't care if you price it at $700 I want it. I've been wanting a true update to the Nifty-Fifty for so long now. The 50mm 1.4 is an outdated lens as well. Canon needs to update these lenses asap.

 

[BRNexus6]

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

And its downfall as well. Sure, it's cheap, but sometimes things can be too cheap.

The Nifty-Fifty was great in the 80's and 90's, but it just doesn't hold up in 2013. The Nikon 50mm 1.8G simply destroys the Canon 50mm 1.8 and it's only a $100 more. I don't think Canon users would mind paying an extra $100 for a far superior 50mm 1.8 lens if Canon offered it.

 

[Chosenbydestiny]

The argument for IS being used mostly for video is ridiculous. Like said previously, serious video use requires a support system just like some types of serious photography require a tripod. IS was introduced to lenses far before the video feature was introduced to DSLR. People used to argue often about NOT having IS in the body, which was also ridiculous since optical IS is better than electronic IS. They have IS on wide angle lenses like 24mm and 28mm now, why would it be impractical at 50mm? Just turn it off if you don't like it, or buy the old version. Or troll on out of here to another brand =P

 

[Komodor]

İts my opinion but ı think new ef-s lenses mostly entry level lenses will come İS and STM focusing motor... STM motor will be standart for ef-s lenses thats my opinion too. Because STM is faster and quiter ever ı love it, when ı use the first stm (18-135 STM) really impressed me...

I was using my canon 50mm 1.4 usm on 600d and 550d this lens was razor sharp at f/2.8. but ı start to using new 6d and 50mm 1.4 is really screwed up...

Canon must be updated 50mm 1.4 and 1.8. Especially 50mm 1.8 must be have at least 7 aparture blade )))

 

[CarlMillerPhoto]

The argument for IS being used mostly for video is ridiculous. Like said previously, serious video use requires a support system just like some types of serious photography require a tripod. IS was introduced to lenses far before the video feature was introduced to DSLR. People used to argue often about NOT having IS in the body, which was also ridiculous since optical IS is better than electronic IS. They have IS on wide angle lenses like 24mm and 28mm now, why would it be impractical at 50mm? Just turn it off if you don't like it, or buy the old version. Or troll on out of here to another brand =P

Nobody is saying IS in general is mostly a video feature. People are saying that IS within this context, for a 50mm 1.8, is mostly unnecessary for photography situations and thus has more application for video.

 

[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

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.

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.

Well I'm glad both Pauls (me and Paul Walnut) are on the same page and seem to understand each other.

bdunbar79, I've appreciated a number of your posts in CR for some time - but it seems here you do not appreciate that the style of photography of some people is different to yours, and some people (like me) are hugely benefitted by IS in certain situations.

While you might not use it in stills photography and think that optical stabilisation is mainly, or purely for video - while even that is debatable, read chosenbydestiny's post, for example - the truth is that many pros and many non-pros use IS with great effect in certain photography scenarios. Not in all situations, but in some!

There are just SO many scenarios that I have shot in, and I have been alongside professional photographers too - where you just can not take or use a tripod (even a $1000 lightweight, compact carbon fibre one).

Consider just these 2 applications A and B.

A
I have shot with the 50mm f/1.4 and 50mm f/1.8, and even at ISO3200, shots were at the limit of shake. Being able to take a photo at 50mm in low light situations without risk of image shake, is of HUGE advantage.
Just 2 egs:
1) Christmas tree decorations being lit up by other fairy lights (tripod wouldn't fit on any side of the tree) as it was in a small apartment, near a bed and wall, and I wanted to get the shot without disturbing others who were sitting nearby
2) children relaxing by a campfire at a hike that I've been a leader at (fancy being 1 of a few adult leaders trekking 10 days, already carrying all the necessary gear eg food, tents, first-aid, cooking utensils, clothing, etc - and then also taking along a cumbersome tripod and setting it up while caring for a dozen children?) No?? I didn't think so either!IS is great!
I could easily provide a much longer list....

Yes I do use my good tripod often, but I use IS more. And I also do use my IS lenses with IS turned off in situations too! (eg HDR, panning, some sports, BIF, etc)

B
Then, secondly there is another application- as I have already described previously - photos taken at smaller apertures, eg f/4 to f/11 (to obtain greater depth of field) ... and having IS helps to steady the shot (saying 'just use a larger aperture', as this would ruin the shot, ie in some situations I do not want a super narrow dof eg f/1.4-f/2.

I could easily provide a long list of examples here, but I trust one's imagination and photographic experience help here, realising that one can't always take a tripod along, or the time to set one up and compose with a tripod (which even on the quickest set/ release types - is far from as quick as 'purely in one's hand').

This 2nd application is why some users (including some pros) of FF have skipped the Canon 24-70mm f/2.8 v1 and v2 and instead gone to Canon's 24-105 f/4 IS or Canon's 24-70mm f/4 IS, OR to Tamron's 24-70mm f/2.8 VR. I know many pros and non-pros who own both larger aperture non-IS lenses and also a mix of IS lenses (often covering the same focal length).

So, if your photographic style doesn't need IS, fine... don't use it (or turn it off).

I know some people think IS adds lots of money to each lens, though it's not as much as many people think. Most of the cost is not IS, it's optics (to obtain high IQ), solid build, and focusing mechanisms, etc. eg a version of Canon's 24-70 f/4 without IS wouldn't cost $500, as compared to the current higher price with IS. A Canon 24/70 f/4 without IS would cost a few hundred dollars less than the IS version. I'm willing to pay that for IS.

Same for any new 50mm prime.

While I genuinely feel it's a pity for folks who don't need IS (or don't think they ever need IS) - to pay that extra amount, please don't say IS is useless - when for many people it's actually both very useful or even necessary!

I hope my post is helpful in highlighting the value of IS, and also exposing what a lot of people don't realise about IS.

Regards

Paul

 

[bradfordswood]

pj1974, well stated as usual.

IS is very helpful for shooting handheld in low light, which I do all the time. Parties, museums, events, restaurants, outdoors at night...

I recently spent a week with the 35mm IS and that sucker is sharp, no question about it. I'm hoping the 50mm IS will be as sharp.

I am excited for this rumor and I'm glad some others are as well.

 

[pj1974]

pj1974, well stated as usual.

IS is very helpful for shooting handheld in low light, which I do all the time. Parties, museums, events, restaurants, outdoors at night...

I recently spent a week with the 35mm IS and that sucker is sharp, no question about it. I'm hoping the 50mm IS will be as sharp.

I am excited for this rumor and I'm glad some others are as well.

Thanks bradfordswood

Glad my post is appreciated by you (and I expect a few others too).

Even with the advances in lower noise at high ISO performance, having a 4 stop IS advantage means we can shoot in up to 4 stops lower ISO (eg ISO100 instead of ISO1600) Or ISO1600 instead of ISO25600. Lower ISO = cleaner, more visually appealing photos [all other things being equal].

Great to hear that you spent a week with the 35mm IS, and found it a great (& sharp) lens. What were the main style of photos / photographic genre that you used your 35mm IS lens for? I might look to rent that lens some time - or if one of my friends here in Australia purchases it, I might ask to use it. (I have lent out my lenses to trusted local friends several times - I know my friends are careful with my lenses).

bradfordswood, as you wrote - if Canon comes out with a 50mm IS - and it has similar specs & sharpness as the 35mm IS, I'll be very happy too!

I'm keen to know what will come out in the 50mm length from Canon (and perhaps other manufacturers) in the future.... Oh for a crystal ball!

Cheers.

Paul

 

[dgatwood]

The argument for IS being used mostly for video is ridiculous. Like said previously, serious video use requires a support system just like some types of serious photography require a tripod. IS was introduced to lenses far before the video feature was introduced to DSLR.

To be a bit pedantic, camcorder manufacturers were putting OIS into camcorders a good decade before anyone put video on their IS-capable DSLRs. I had a Sony TRV-9 with OIS way back in '98. I know it hit still camera lenses a few years earlier, but it didn't take very long at all for it to trickle down to video use.

As a result, I suspect that at least a hundred people use some form of IS for video (on camcorders) for every one person who uses it for stills. So yeah, it's mostly used for video—which is not to say that it is only useful for video, just that statistically, it is mostly used for video.

Also, I don't agree that serious video requires a support system. Sometimes it does, but not always. I've shot a fair amount of serious video without a tripod. Sure, you can't survive shooting for hours at a time that way, but if you're just trying to grab a few seconds of B-roll, you can get it a heck of a lot faster if you aren't having to drag a tripod around, in my experience. It's a compromise, yes, but often it's the right compromise.

IMO, some form of IS is critical for long still exposures and for video for very different reasons. For long exposures, it is needed because otherwise you get double images. For video, it is needed because otherwise you get seasick. Either way, it isn't always useful or necessary, but when it is, it's a godsend. Just my $0.02.

 

[Viggo]

Instead of making the old f1.4 an f1.8 with IS, they should've done a new f1.0 L that is as sharp as the current L at 1.8 and with 35 L fast focusing.

I'm still waiting for the Zeiss 55 though.

 

[schmidtfilme]

IS on a 50mm? Why?

I shoot video, I need IS. The 35 f2 is already fantastic. A 50 w/ IS and the 135 w/ IS would be perfect matches.

 

[Grumbaki]

All this IS debate is totally moot.

The only thing some (including me) can say is that we are pissed paying for IS that we don't want/need due to our style orientation. (+carrying the weight and bulk).

 

[insanitybeard]

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.

Maybe not, but the new 24 and 28mm 2.8 IS lenses are still compact and light relative to zooms or their faster aperture equivalents, is this not true?

 

[paul13walnut5]

To be a bit pedantic, camcorder manufacturers were putting OIS into camcorders a good decade before anyone put video on their IS-capable DSLRs. I had a Sony TRV-9 with OIS way back in '98. I know it hit still camera lenses a few years earlier, but it didn't take very long at all for it to trickle down to video use.

As a result, I suspect that at least a hundred people use some form of IS for video (on camcorders) for every one person who uses it for stills. So yeah, it's mostly used for video—which is not to say that it is only useful for video, just that statistically, it is mostly used for video.

They are different systems. For a start the video image device on your TRV9 is probably 1/4", and the lens will be tiny as well.

The system developed over the years and on my last compact camcorder (Sony Z1) you could specify how smoothly the IS operated. This is a feature that DSLR lenses just don't have. My SX230 lets me choose whether IS is on all the time, or just for the shot, maybe this is what we need on EOS bodies, if the mount protocol exists (which I doubt, as the switchgear is on the lens)

Also, I don't agree that serious video requires a support system. Sometimes it does, but not always. I've shot a fair amount of serious video without a tripod. Sure, you can't survive shooting for hours at a time that way, but if you're just trying to grab a few seconds of B-roll, you can get it a heck of a lot faster if you aren't having to drag a tripod around, in my experience. It's a compromise, yes, but often it's the right compromise.

A trv9 is a different prospect, ergonomically, size, distibution of weight, to a DSLR. My old TRV-900 could be hand held with OS on, but it was desgined to be held that way, unbraced. DSLR's really are designed to be braced against the eye... not the way folk use them in video mode.

I've got various grips, from a simple L bracket, to a shoulder rig to full ENG tripod. And I always have a superclamp and microball head in my kitbag. I love tripods for wide establishers and interviews. More often than not my camera is on my shoulder, or a monopod.

The form factor of a DSLR is just wrong when held away from the 'brace against face' position. So IS isn't a bad thing, just so far Canon haven't got it right for video, in their EF lenses at least (the XL lenses had a nice implementation, that said)

IMO, some form of IS is critical for long still exposures and for video for very different reasons. For long exposures, it is needed because otherwise you get double images. For video, it is needed because otherwise you get seasick. Either way, it isn't always useful or necessary, but when it is, it's a godsend. Just my $0.02.

For long exposures you really want a tripod. There are limits.

I look forward to seeing what the proposed nifty fifty 2 offers. If it's a well implemented contiguous IS with a smooth mode that doesn't cost the earth I might be interested.

 

[Zv]

All this IS debate is totally moot.

The only thing some (including me) can say is that we are pissed paying for IS that we don't want/need due to our style orientation. (+carrying the weight and bulk).

That's cool I see your point ... but a cheap fifty without IS already exists. Why would you be pissed if a more expensive version became available? No one is forcing you to buy it. In fact the 50 1.4 offers good value too. That's 2 cheap 50 primes. Now what Canon need to do is simply improve the 50L and we will all be happy! Btw I am convinced there is nothing wrong with the 50L and most of the hoo ha is all baloney. What is an issue is the price.

 

[Viggo]

Why are so many lenses being fitted with IS?

Because as sensor pixel densities go up, without it you would need to shoot at 1/150 to get a sharp shot with a 50mm lens.

Is the penny dropping yet?

+1 I saw it very clearly going from the 1d3 to the 1d4, I had to go from 1/1000s to 1/2000s to get sharp action shots. And now with the 1d X, it's somewhere in between, but I set my min.speed to 1/2000s anyway.

And for low light it's the same, it's very seldom I go under 1/250s with a lens shorter than 100.

 

[vscd]

...and do you really need the pixelcount? Doubling the Pixelamount just gives you minor resolutiondifference in x/y, but you gain a lot of negative effects. That's the reason why I still use the 5DC... it's a lightgathering beast with 12 MP on a FF-Sensor.

And yes, the new Canon 24 IS or 28 IS are not that big, but they have a whopping Price around 700$. For a normal 2.8 prime... I think this is way too much. Without IS ist would be 200$ less, I think.

Why does everyone think IS is *the* masterkey to filmmaking? Every serious filmmaker uses manual lenses and If you want to have steady shots you can even get a gyrostabilizer for the whole camerasystem.

Don't get me wrong, If canon would make both versions, everyone would be lucky... but this won't happen, so everyone has to pay the higher price for the demands of a few.

 

[insanitybeard]

And yes, the new Canon 24 IS or 28 IS are not that big, but they have a whopping Price around 700$. For a normal 2.8 prime... I think this is way too much. Without IS ist would be 200$ less, I think.

Why does everyone think IS is *the* masterkey to filmmaking? Every serious filmmaker uses manual lenses and If you want to have steady shots you can even get a gyrostabilizer for the whole camerasystem.

Don't get me wrong, If canon would make both versions, everyone would be lucky... but this won't happen, so everyone has to pay the higher price for the demands of a few.

I don't disagree with you about the price, but can you substantiate that 'everyone has to pay....for the demands of a few'? Opinion on here may be divided, but I disagree that a majority don't want it, especially as the posters here are a fraction of Canon's market.

In any case, I think the bigger issue here is not that Canon is implementing IS on their new lenses, it's the price premium they see fit to levy for the privilege. But that is their direction as a company, like it or not.

 

[Viggo]

Yes, because much better IQ, build, focusing accuracy and speed is 0% of the price increase of the new models. :