Patent: Canon EF 50 f/1.8 IS

[crasher8]

A 4th choice from Canon? Come on Sigma…...

 

[Marsu42]

IS on a 50mm? Why?

Because their fast zoom in this range doesn't have IS, so rather than go f2.8+IS they do it the other way around: 1.8+IS :-\ ... and they'll probably also design and market these as video lenses.

That's cool I see your point ... but a cheap fifty without IS already exists.

But w/o a decent af system...

 

[Dylan777]

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?

Most Canon non-L prime lenses are quite out of date. Tech changes fast - smaller and faster. Still, adding IS will not decrease the lens size. I'm sure you recall cell phone sizes 5-7yrs ago. I still believe primary reason buying prime is fast aperture & shallow DOF. IS was introduced to prime due to video feature in DSLR. Again, I can't speak for everybody else. I prefer f1.4 with or without IS. and yet, sharp @ wide open.

 

[RLPhoto]

How about adding IS to a lens that really needs it. Take the 135L for example.... :

 

[insanitybeard]

Most Canon non-L prime lenses are quite out of date. Tech changes fast - smaller and faster. Still, adding IS will not decrease the lens size. I'm sure you recall cell phone sizes 5-7yrs ago. I still believe primary reason buying prime is fast aperture & shallow DOF. IS was introduced to prime due to video feature in DSLR. Again, I can't speak for everybody else. I prefer f1.4 with or without IS. and yet, sharp @ wide open.

Regarding lens size, there are limits to how small in size and weight a lens can be made to cover a particular size of sensor, regardless of the march of technology, as long as we are using glass optics. I am not disputing that IS makes lenses bigger and heavier than a non stabilised equivalent, however the point I was trying to make is that the new primes (or old ones for that matter) offer a compact and lighter alternative to a zoom, whether they have IS or not. To me, the IS is another tool for helping get a shot under certain circumstances where I could not have done so previously, it's not the solution to everything, nor do I expect it to be.

 

[drjlo]

How about adding IS to a lens that really needs it. Take the 135L for example.... :

Or 85L III IS. That would enable me to sell my 50L, maybe even 35L.

 

[Krob78]

Let's not forget the other unforgivable reason they may well put this lens out. Profit. Canon is a profit center first and foremost. That is there duty and they will sell thousands and thousands of these lenses with the IS feature included, making??? Profit... Good plan...

 

[mrsfotografie]

Let's not forget the other unforgivable reason they may well put this lens out. Profit. Canon is a profit center first and foremost. That is there duty and they will sell thousands and thousands of these lenses with the IS feature included, making??? Profit... Good plan...

Profit is what keeps Canon in business, it allows them to invest in new technology and it secures a future for 'our' camera system.

 

[Krob78]

Let's not forget the other unforgivable reason they may well put this lens out. Profit. Canon is a profit center first and foremost. That is there duty and they will sell thousands and thousands of these lenses with the IS feature included, making??? Profit... Good plan...

Profit is what keeps Canon in business, it allows them to invest in new technology and it secures a future for 'our' camera system.

Exactly! That's why I said Canon is a profit center first and foremost. It's their duty and responsibility to their board and their investors... It's what they exist for and there is no knocking that!

 

[vscd]

>Profit is what keeps Canon in business, it allows them to invest in new technology and it
>secures a future for 'our' camera system.

Yes, but they should always invest in the right direction. Otherwise they'll fall like others did...
especially the camerabusiness is a great example for that.

 

[BRNexus6]

I can't tell you how many times I shot video using the 50mm 1.8 and wishing it had IS. IS benefits both video and still shooters, so why are we having a debate about this? If you don't want to pay for IS than stick with your current 50mm lenses.

 

[paul13walnut5]

Because it seems once again that canon are lagging behind nikon, if not in terms of quality then in terms of value. Nikon launched a line of cheap cheerful optically good g primes, canon redesigns old favourites and puts them at a price beyond many. The nifty fifty is a staple and its strengths and weaknesses well documented. Make a new version costing 4x as much and scrap the old version (ala 24, 28, 35) and the lens on which many a novice master dof and perspective becomes an exclusive tool.

 

[luciolepri]

If this new 50mm will have the same optical/built/IS quality than the recent 24/28/35 IS, I'll definitely welcome it to my equipment. I bet it will be, just like the others I mentioned, a new overpriced lens that will come without weather sealing or even a lens hood, but if you need a good, fast standard lens with IS, it looks like you don't have many alternatives...

 

[AAPhotog]

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

Incorrect! I know many shooters who use IS lenses for making music videos hand held. and I mean music videos that play on major networks. Not sure if you're into hip hop, but if so, Ace hood, bird man, Future, ring a bell?
Theres a young man by the name of Edgar Esteves who shoots these and many other talent videos. Before he moved on to Red cameras, he used 5d's all the time with guess what... IS lenses. Not everyone who would like this lens is shooting 100 million dollar motion pictures. IJS

 

[luciolepri]

Serious video use requires a support system just like some types of serious photography require a tripod.

If you're doing a war reportage, you would benefit more from an IS than from a tripod or a steadicam... that's just an extreme example, the point is that dogmas are always harmful. Even with a professional "support system" like a rig or a camera stabilizer, IS can be very useful. I almost never shoot hand held, but I turn on the IS very often.

People used to argue often about NOT having IS in the body, which was also ridiculous since optical IS is better than electronic IS.

In-camera IS can also be mechanic (sensor-shift). Canon claims to use an in-lens stabilizer to customize it for each lens and get the best performances. This choice has its pros (you see a stabilized image in the viewfinder and, if what Canon and Nikon say it's true, you get better results) and its cons (much more expensive lenses and less chances to have an up-to-date IS system, since you usually change bodies more often than you change lenses).

 

[Viggo]

Make a new version costing 4x as much and scrap the old version (ala 24, 28, 35) and the lens on which many a novice master dof and perspective becomes an exclusive tool.

I actually think that is a great point to make. "All" of us, at some point, bought our first fast lens, and they were mostly the cheapos, and that is when we saw how frikkin cool it is to play with DOF, and where we started to want more and maybe ending up with two-three, ten fast primes earning Canon som serious money.

If no novice can afford a fast lens anymore...

 

[Zv]

Make a new version costing 4x as much and scrap the old version (ala 24, 28, 35) and the lens on which many a novice master dof and perspective becomes an exclusive tool.

I actually think that is a great point to make. "All" of us, at some point, bought our first fast lens, and they were mostly the cheapos, and that is when we saw how frikkin cool it is to play with DOF, and where we started to want more and maybe ending up with two-three, ten fast primes earning Canon som serious money.

If no novice can afford a fast lens anymore...

+1 my first lens purchase was the 50mm f/1.8II. It's a gateway lens for sure!

 

[crasher8]

I 2nd the post which said "Just turn it off" but those folks will complain about having to pay extra for it being there. Well, if it also comes with TRUE ring USM , a better build than the 1.4 and sharper wide open then be happy for the improvements you CAN use because you can't please everyone all of the time yadda yadda yadda

 

[mrsfotografie]

I 2nd the post which said "Just turn it off" but those folks will complain about having to pay extra for it being there. Well, if it also comes with TRUE ring USM , a better build than the 1.4 and sharper wide open then be happy for the improvements you CAN use because you can't please everyone all of the time yadda yadda yadda

Just to put this whole yes/no to IS discussion in perspective:

I haven't heard anybody complaining nowadays that a lens is AF and argue why pay for the AF mechanism if you can MF just fine???

IS is like AF, it may take a while for (almost) everyone to adopt it, but it's technological advancement and quite literally 'IS' the future

Of course not all lenses will become IS just like not all lenses are AF.

 

[sdsr]

In-camera IS can also be mechanic (sensor-shift). Canon claims to use an in-lens stabilizer to customize it for each lens and get the best performances. This choice has its pros (you see a stabilized image in the viewfinder and, if what Canon and Nikon say it's true, you get better results) and its cons (much more expensive lenses and less chances to have an up-to-date IS system, since you usually change bodies more often than you change lenses).

I guess it's too much to hope that Canon would ever end this particular debate by joining Olympus, Pentax and Sony and putting IS in the camera, thereby making every lens you stabilized (if you want). The IBIS system in the top level Olympus cameras works superbly (and you can see its effect through the viewfinder), at least as well as the best Canon IS, maybe better. I believe that Panasonic is about to make the switch from in-lens IS (like Canon & Sony, not all their lenses have it) to in-body IS; if they can, why not Canon? It may add a bit to the cost of the body, but it's surely cheaper (both for them and the consumer) than putting it in lenses. Plus, as you say, you can keep updating it if necessary when you buy a new body. Plus, a lot of "legacy" lenses suddenly become more appealing....