Roger Cicala - Variance in 50mm-58mm primes

[ahsanford]

Personally, I'm seeing Canon gradually swamp the 50mm market with better products.

Range moving forward...

• 50mm f1.8 STM
• 50mm f1.8/2.0 IS USM
• Macro adapter for the above
• 50mm f1.4 L
• 50mm f1.2 L

I don't see the f1.2 being replaced anytime soon unless Sigma have a go at a Canon only version.

Interesting approach, but I see a three price point market, possibly four if the ancient 50mm f/2.5 1:2 macro is updated (I really consider that a different animal, though):

• 50 f/1.8 STM = inexpensive, sharp and light, but basically lacking any notable lens 'creature comfort' features -- it's only manual focus by wire, there's no distance scale, slower AF, non-sharpness metrics are not terribly well controlled (distortion, chromatic aberrations), etc.
  
  
• Presuming the current 50 f1.4 USM is replaced --> 50 f/nooneknows IS USM, which takes everything from the line above but adds:
  • A comprehensively better IQ
  • IS
  • Proper/modern/consistent/fast USM focusing
  • Internal focusing -- no externally sliding bits that can serve as a conduit for moisture or dust.
  • Much better build quality like the 24/28/35 IS refresh lenses
  • Still relatively small and light
  
  
• The 50 f/1.2L or 50 f/1.2L II someday, which has everything the 50 f/nooneknows IS USM has, but is that extra bit faster, can be as big as needed for maximum IQ, and adds a red ring and a weathersealing gasket. With a Mk II version, Canon needs to decide if that lens can get by on reputation, 'magic', and that odd plane of focus meant for small DOF (i.e. some believe it's an f/1.2 - f/2 only sort of lens and general 50 use is wasted with it) -- or if they want to modernize the lens to compete from a corner to corner sharpness perspective.

- A

 

[StudentOfLight]

By f/4, the 50-STM can deliver excellent detail. (How much does that cost, $150?)

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=989&Camera=453&Sample=0&FLI=0&API=3&LensComp=917&CameraComp=453&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=0&APIComp=4

With improved materials and build quality I guess you could realistically get 90% of the Otus performance by f/2 and stay below the $1000 mark. A 50/2 IS USM would hold advantages over the sigma in terms of hold-holdability, weight, cost (of manufacture), AF compatibility etc...

90% as sharp as the Art/Otus would be sharper than the 50/1.2L...

Yes it would be. The 50L is definitely not the sharpest knife in the drawer.

 

[StudentOfLight]

Ashanford continues his odd crusade against lenses faster than f/2.

Now that's consistent! :

I found my 50mm 1.8 STM to be very consistent. Way better than all my previous Canon's 50mm (1.2, 1.4 & 1.8) lenses.
I don't use it much but when needed it offers very acceptable IQ. I'd also like to see a 50mm 1.4 IS lens (with similar quality of 35/2 IS) but, it will kill 90% of 50L sales, except from those who need weather resistant lenses. If Canon releases such a good lens they will take my money right away.

Is the 50L really a popular lens? ???

 

[ahsanford]

That's good to hear, I do expect that the AF design using the STM motor benefits from improved design and manufacturing processes.

However, I'd not want a 50mm f/'1.4 STM, I'd want pro level AF.

Yep. I don't the red ring or magical draw of the 50L.

I just need a proper/modern/reliable/fast/consistent USM 50mm lens that's 90% as sharp as the Art/Otus glass in half the size and weight. That's not an unreasonable ask.

90% as sharp as the Art/Otus would be sharper than the 50/1.2L...

Dilbert, the 20 year old 50 f/1.4 USM is already sharper than the 50L!

Canon should be aiming at the Sigma Art as their bar for sharpness, not the 50L.

- A

 

[sdsr]

Could a 1.2 II have faster AF than the current? I really don't know. The elements are very heavy, the DoF so shallow. But if it had sharpness, accurate AF without focus shift complications, and slightly better f/2.8 - f/5.6 bokeh, even at double the Sigma Art's price, I think a lot of Canon shooters would buy it. A lot.

I've shot the 50L and found that at f/1.2, my AF hit rate for frame filling head and shoulders portrait was relatively poor. At first, I thought it was the 50L commonly discussed 'finnicky AF' that needs some TLC through AFMA to dial in. But that wasn't it. The damn AF boxes (I have a 5D3) were sufficiently large that I'd occasionally grab a bridge of the nose or eyebrow and it threw things off a bit. (I was using off-center boxes and not recomposing, so it wasn't that.)

My point is, there comes a point that your DOF is so small that perhaps MF is the way to go...

I agree (though I tend to prefer MF anyway). Which is perhaps as good an excuse as any to note that the FD 50L and FD 85L are smaller, lighter, have much nicer MF mechanisms and are much less expensive than their AF equivalents (more attractive too, I think), and hope that Canon eventually cough up a FF mirrorless camera to make them easy to focus (meanwhile there's the Sony a7 line...).

 

[ahsanford]

Is the 50L really a popular lens? ???

It is, but it depends on who you are. You've got three different camps on the 50L (based on a few dozen threads I've chatted with folks about them):

1) Some believe there is some unquantifiable draw and magic about the 50L. That could be tied to its large aperture or it's nutty not-quite-plane of focus that is built for bokeh, but many would say the images that lens produces can't really be accomplished with another lens.

2) There are those who recognize some of the 50L's flaws, but they only use Canon first party gear and facts are facts -- it's Canon's best overall 50mm prime. Iffy sharpness be damned, it has the fastest and least hunt-y AF of all Canon 50 primes, and it is the best built.

3) Folks who principally care about sharpness -- something you can readily measure and compare -- can clearly see the 50L is outclassed by a number of lenses: Canon's own 50 f/1.4 USM, both Sigma 50 primes (Art and its predecessor), 3 Zeiss MF lenses, etc. However, all of those lenses have some drawbacks of their own, principally with quality of bokeh, reliability/consistency of AF (or presence of AF for the MF lenses).

So there is no clear top dog for 50 primes:

The Zeiss Otus (technically a 55mm) is owned by a very very small subset of people. It is spectacular on virtually every front, but being an MF lens + being a $4k lens limits its overall appeal. It's also a 2.3 lb pickle jar of a lead weight, but I'm guessing if you have the money for one, you don't that mind that so much.

The Sigma 50 Art is the popular 'best general use 50' today as it is a solid 9/10 at everything, but there are a number of reports of inconsistent AF that frustrate some users. It's also comically big and heavy -- on the order of a 24-70 f/2.8 zoom.

I still use my 50 f/1.4 USM because it's the sharpest 50 Canon sells at the apertures I shoot, and I got lucky and have a decent AF copy that may hunt a bit but almost always eventually confirms. It's also a fairly unassuming little lens I can use for candids that won't get a party or gathering of friends all gunshy. It also leaves an aggregate body+lens footprint small enough to allow me to bring my camera more places more often (i.e without large padded coffin of a camera bag). It's not the best 50, I admit -- but it's the best 50 for me.

- A

 

[HighLowISO]

I have the Sigma 50mm f/1.4 Art lens and as people say it's very nice optically and physically, with a fair price.

Still I think Canon could produce a 50mm f/1.4 update and not have to worry about not matching or exceeding the Sigma optically on every characteristic. They 50mm f/1.2L is still a fin lens and for some is the better choice for portraits, the Sigma is more general purpose but it's not f/1.2 so Canon has a few differentiators in their top model and being a "Canon" lens is one of them.

So on the 50mm f/1.4 update, ring USM should be a given, this might affect the size a bit. Or maybe to keep the lens small they will introduce a new dual or tripple linear motor of some-type and that will keep the lens well suited for video. So they can look at a few features as differentiators and as long as the size is kepts under control I don't think people will expect it to exceed the Sigma Art.

• Size/Weight - important these days with mirrorless competition, and trends.
• AF by Canon- go for precision and performance.
• IS - if they managed to get IS in it while maintaining size/weight and reasonable oprical performance then it seems like a large part of the market would go for it.
• Price - as reasonable as the Sigma Art is for the quality, some just don't want to pay that much. With the expected market for the lens, maybe Canon could have at-least two of the above and keep the price no more than $500US. There are some good composites that could be used in the manfacturing to keep weigth and costs down, and with the sub-assembly construction Canon has been using lately parts of the lens could manufactured maybe outside of Japan. Seems like with the high resolution sensors and digital in general the newer lenses are assembled with a bit tighter tollerances so they probably have some new QC steps or machines in final assembly.
• Built-in Hood?

Will it happen... well luckily now with the Sigma I can wait, and I really probbaly don't need any update from Canon as I tend to also use an APS-C mirrorless often now for 50mm equivalent so I can carry the Canon with a large telephoto.