Two New Professional Lenses Coming Ahead of Photokina? [CR1]

[Talys]

hmmmm ... in my book EF 50/1.8 STM has "no problem" whatsoever.

Sure, it's a killer value. I just can't stand FBW and my 50 f/1.4's AF hunts but it does it quickly. I prefer it over the f/1.8 STM.

So -- to me, in fairness to my prior posts -- the f/1.8 STM is lovely but not ticking the boxes I need. I continue to wait for a 35 f/2 IS USM like instrument (perhaps not in specifics on aperture) that is internally focusing, FTM mechanical focusing, modern ring USM, has reliable/consistent AF when shot on the wide open end and generates sharp photos. It doesn't need to be a Sigma Art atom-splittingly sharp instrument-- just 90% as good in half the size.

- A

Same. I can't stand the FBW. But, more significantly, the 50/1.8 has inconsistent autofocus. My 50/1.4 copy has significantly more consistent autofocus, but has other issues, like terrible chromatic aberration (much worse than the 1.8), and the focus mechanism gets stuck periodically, requiring a teardown.

I've given away my 50/1.8 and don't use my 50/1.4 (which is my second, by the way; my first 1.4 had the same focus ring stuck issue). I've kind of given up on it and use either 24-70/2.8 (original), 24-70/4 IS or the 84/1.4 IS -- the last of which is, in my opinion, a perfect example of what a modern prime lens should be.

 

[Ozarker]

why would one ever need FTM, when the lens has "fast and accurate AF"?

I want the latter, and hardly ever twist focus rings. Only in very rare situations when AF is absolutely not possible do I switch to MF. I have not yet encountered a use case, where I would want to use FTM and intervene / fiddle with camera's AF system. ]. Focus by wire is also no issue for me, as long as focussing happens snappy and precisely.

I pay for AF in camera body and each and every Canon lens I purchase - so i want it to do the work. reliably, without any fuss. I am in charge of image idea, composition, timing/moment, light, post-processing/final look. Technicalities like exposure, focus and the like are my camera's job. I aspire to [some day, hopefully] be a "photographer", a "creator of images", a "vision-ary" - am not interested in being a "camera operator" and even less a "photo mechanic".

And some day, when cameras can read minds, your dream might come true.

+100

Can't really fault him. It's the mirror. The mirror is holding him back. :

 

[Ozarker]

EF 50mm F1.2 L IS USM, anyone?
Fingers crossed.

There won't be anymore new 1.2s. Only 1.4s.

 

[CanonGrunt]

It would be like if -- of all the lenses in the original non-L USM prime line from the 90s -- Canon chose to update the EF 20 f/2.8 USM before the 50 or 85.
- A

An updated EF 20/2.8? Now that I'd buy.
An updated 85/2 IS to match my 35/2 IS? Absolutely.

For me, 50mm is meh. But I acknowledge the gap in the EF series.

Well, looking at how all of the Cinema Lenses except for the new 20mm T 1.5 take the lens elements of their stills L series counterparts (with different coatings of course), I'd be really surprised if we don't see the reverse sometime soon with the debut of an L series 20mm 1.4 prime. If it's not these, it will be coming. Canon doesn't like to throw away a good opportunity to double dip on a formula.

 

[Ozarker]

Ive never really found f1.2 to hold a real advantage over 1.4. With normal focus issues, both automatic and manual (particularly with the crappy manual focus aids on digital cameras) things could even be worse, not better. I’d rather have a seriously improved 1.4 instead.

+1. But how an improved f/1.4 arrives might herald another f/1.4.

The more I think about it, if a non-L 50 f/1.4 USM II is coming (sans IS, as the rumors indicate), there's a near certainty a 50 f/1.4L IS in the vein of the recent 85 f/1.4L IS has to happen as well. IS has to show up in a 50 in at least one price point.

And would a bigger/sharper/better focusing 50 in the vein of the 35L II or 85 f/1.4L IS really be that bad of a thing? (Spoiler: No. Not at all.)

Bring on the 50 f/1.4L IS. I personally may not buy it while I continue my vigil for the non-L 50 f/1.4 USM replacement, but such an L lens would surely be a hit.

- A

I think any new 50mm f/1.4 will be an L. I don't believe there will be anymore 1.2s. Hope I'm wrong, but...

 

[pwp]

I'd love to see canon make a 50mm like their new 85mm f1.4. If the improvements are similar, I'd jump on that real quick.

You and many others...It makes a lot of sense as the R&D for both lenses would be closely linked.

-pw

 

[Bennymiata]

If they are to be 2 new professional lenses, they could be cine lenses. :-[

 

[pwp]

For a while I was of the opinion that fast non-telephoto primes didn't really need IS, but testing out the 35mm f/2 IS changed my mind on that.

I held the same opinion until I got the 16-35 f/4is which I ran alongside a 16-35 f/2.8II for a couple of months. The stabilized f/4 lens ended up being the keeper. My opinion of IS grew even stronger when I picked up the surprisingly good Panasonic G9, mainly as a fun exercise. When you combine IBIS with a compliant stabilized Panasonic lens, their Dual IS kicks in...incredible.

If Canon eventually introduces IBIS on upcoming bodies, they'd do well to run with a similar Dual-IS system. Hopefully both these professional grade lenses coming from Canon with ship with IS.

-pw

 

[jolyonralph]

If they are to be 2 new professional lenses, they could be cine lenses. :-[

You're probably right

 

[mb66energy]

is does not necessarily make lenses (significantly) bigger. see 70-200/4 L IS vs. non-IS. and ef 24/28/35 with IS are also reasonably compact. retrofocus design and/or oversized image circle make lenses bigger.

Agree. IS typically adds weight, not size.

- A

I think in telephoto you have a good chance to add a lens group for IS in some space between the lens elements of the non-IS version (see construction image close to the end of page):
non-IS: http://cweb.canon.jp/ef/lineup/tele-zoom/ef70-200-f4l/spec.html
IS: http://cweb.canon.jp/ef/lineup/tele-zoom/ef70-200-f4l-is/spec.html

The existing double-gaussian derivatives are very crowded with lenses where you might add a movable / make an existing element movable. I think you have to do some changes to create a space for the IS group which will add a considerable amount of space (mostly length) - retrofocus constru:
50 1.4: http://cweb.canon.jp/ef/lineup/standard/ef50-f14/spec.html
50 1.2: http://cweb.canon.jp/ef/lineup/standard/ef50-f12l/spec.html

But hopefully they find a way to integrate IS in a f/1.4 50mm and simultaneously keep the lens size small e.g. by using high refractive glasses (thinner) and maybe some glasses with exotic dispersion (e.g. BR material) to counteract chromatic aberrations with a small number of elements!

EDIT/ADD:
Just read the following thread:
http://www.canonrumors.com/forum/index.php?topic=35104.0

At least an option (despite lacking IS) which at least will motivate Canon to push their own assortment of lenses

 

[bitm2007]

I'm looking for a standard zoom with better corner sharpness than my aging 24-105mm F4 L mk 1 for landscapes, so am hoping that one of these lenses is the rumored Canon 24-70mm F2.8 L IS.

http://www.canonrumors.com/canon-ef-24-70mm-f-2-8l-is-development-continues-cr2/

 

[Talys]

I'm looking for a standard zoom with better corner sharpness than my aging 24-105mm F4 L mk 1 for landscapes, so am hoping that one of these lenses is the rumored Canon 24-70mm F2.8 L IS.

http://www.canonrumors.com/canon-ef-24-70mm-f-2-8l-is-development-continues-cr2/

You may want to consider the 24-70 f/4 IS. The size/weight is really good, it has a great MFD, and the image quality is superior in every way to the 24-105 Mk1, at every focal length that they both have and aperture setting. And it's priced well!

 

[sanj]

I'm looking for a standard zoom with better corner sharpness than my aging 24-105mm F4 L mk 1 for landscapes, so am hoping that one of these lenses is the rumored Canon 24-70mm F2.8 L IS.

http://www.canonrumors.com/canon-ef-24-70mm-f-2-8l-is-development-continues-cr2/

You may want to consider the 24-70 f/4 IS. The size/weight is really good, it has a great MFD, and the image quality is superior in every way to the 24-105 Mk1, at every focal length that they both have and aperture setting. And it's priced well!

Yes and generally you will not need 2.8 for landscapes. Good advice!

I am editing this post to say: If you are serious about landscapes and it seems you are if you notice corner sharpness, then use tripod and shoot at small aperture... It will help corner sharpness..

 

[bitm2007]

I'm looking for a standard zoom with better corner sharpness than my aging 24-105mm F4 L mk 1 for landscapes, so am hoping that one of these lenses is the rumored Canon 24-70mm F2.8 L IS.

http://www.canonrumors.com/canon-ef-24-70mm-f-2-8l-is-development-continues-cr2/

You may want to consider the 24-70 f/4 IS. The size/weight is really good, it has a great MFD, and the image quality is superior in every way to the 24-105 Mk1, at every focal length that they both have and aperture setting. And it's priced well!

Yes and generally you will not need 2.8 for landscapes. Good advice!

I am editing this post to say: If you are serious about landscapes and it seems you are if you notice corner sharpness, the use tripod and shoot at small aperture... It will help corner sharpness..

Thanks guy's. I took a serious look at the 24-70mm f4 back when it was released and was put off big time by comments like the one below from Brian at The Digital Picture (which is backed up by other reviews) regarding the weakness of this lens in it's middle focal lengths, which is where I would use it most as I already have the excellent 16-35m f4 IS L.

That this lens performs its worst at a mid-focal length vs. an extremity focal length is unusual. Since most people shoot their highest percentage of images at the focal length range extremes of a lens, the 24-70 L IS weakness is perhaps well placed. Roger at LensRentals.com has confirmed the 50mm weakness in his vast stock of this lens.

 

[captainkanji]

Zeiss already has some classic primes on my wishlist. Just need a few more Christmas clubs. 3 years until my next Japan trip.

 

[ethermine]

I'd be fine if canon never put out another f/1.2 or faster lens ever again. To me, the novelty of the f/1.2 wears off immediately after I observe the lens struggling to do what I need it to do. What's more, anything 1.2 or faster isn't absolutely necessary these days in the professional digital world, as those fast lenses are mostly throwbacks to an age that catered to cameras with the options of the average (100-3200, etc) and grainy ISO/ASA film speeds. A necessity then under some conditions, today not so much. If one of the major prevalent vague subjective arguments these days is the bokeh looks so much dreamier at f/1.2 than f/1.4, then I'll pass.

Give me a lens that'll do what I want it to do with little fail, and produce beautiful imagery, then my criteria have all been met. Canon wants to release a 50 f/1.4 IS with similar build, focus and sharpness qualities of the 35 f/1.4L II and the new 85 f/1.4L IS? Great! I'll take it, and I won't miss anything the f/1.2s had to offer. Sure, the f/1.2s and faster lenses are neat in some ways and all, but they just don't have a legitimate place for me any longer. I'm sure plenty of folks will argue their needs are served by them just fine.

 

[pwp]

I'd be fine if canon never put out another f/1.2 or faster lens ever again. To me, the novelty of the f/1.2 wears off immediately after I observe the lens struggling to do what I need it to do. What's more, anything 1.2 or faster isn't absolutely necessary these days in the professional digital world, as those fast lenses are mostly throwbacks to an age that catered to cameras with the options of the average (100-3200, etc) and grainy ISO/ASA film speeds. A necessity then under some conditions, today not so much. If one of the major prevalent vague subjective arguments these days is the bokeh looks so much dreamier at f/1.2 than f/1.4, then I'll pass.

Give me a lens that'll do what I want it to do with little fail, and produce beautiful imagery, then my criteria have all been met. Canon wants to release a 50 f/1.4 IS with similar build, focus and sharpness qualities of the 35 f/1.4L II and the new 85 f/1.4L IS? Great! I'll take it, and I won't miss anything the f/1.2s had to offer. Sure, the f/1.2s and faster lenses are neat in some ways and all, but they just don't have a legitimate place for me any longer. I'm sure plenty of folks will argue their needs are served by them just fine.

Nicely put Ethermine, I've had both f/1.2 L offerings, the 50 and 85 and rarely used them wide open after the first few disappointing weeks of use. Neither lens is still in my kit. The loss rate was just too high with the very shallow depth of field, not to mention excessive image softness at f/1.2. Photographers who shoot more considered, static subjects may have more luck wide open. I'd probably click a f/1.8 lens down to f/2 or greater to improve my hit rate. I'm perfectly happy to ramp up the iso to previously dangerous levels and confidently deliver high quality files to clients. Those clients are going to be assessing content and composition way ahead of esoteric bokeh evaluation.

Interestingly my need for bright glass glass has taken a new turn since I got a Panasonic G9. With a MFT sensor, the option to ramp up the iso isn't there in the same way it is with my FF bodies. Now bright glass has a value similar to how we valued bright primes in the film days and the early digital days. A useful lens for the G9 is the Panasonic Lumix 43.5 f/1.7. This enables me to keep the iso in the clean range in tough conditions.

So I'm with you, Canon is welcome to skip f/1.2 forever.

-pw

 

[fullstop]

with a faster, more effective electronic lens mount protocol and AF improvement such as face-tracking and eye-tracking even f/1.2 or f/1.0 lenses should be much better usable in the future and deliver well focused images - at least in live view mode (DSLRs) and on mirrorless cameras.

i am ot convinced there will be no new canon f/1.2 lenses - there are obviously enough people willing to pay through the nose for the difference between f/1.8 vs f/1.4 vs f/1.2 lenses. their walllets should and will be emptied by Canon. plus canon themselves are always after "bragging rights".

personally i go for FF sensor (rather than APS-C or mFT), because i get sufficiently thin DOF and subject isolation for my taste already with compact, light and relatively cheap f/1.8 or f/2.0 lenses. i'd be most interested in new, deceent, non-L successors to EF 85/1.8 and 100/2.0 with less CA (bokeh fringing), 9 iris blades, STM AF drive and with latest IS. ideally in slim EF-X mount for a Canon mirrorless FF system.

 

[hollybush]

Thanks guy's. I took a serious look at the 24-70mm f4 back when it was released and was put off big time by comments like the one below from Brian at The Digital Picture (which is backed up by other reviews) regarding the weakness of this lens in it's middle focal lengths, which is where I would use it most as I already have the excellent 16-35m f4 IS L.

At the normal landscape distances at which I use it, there is no decreased performance at 50mm on my copy. Some others I know of who also bought it despite the reviews have reported the same. It so perfectly suits my needs as a lightweight landscape lens for hiking that I can't help thinking that was exactly what Canon made it for. It may well have decreased performance at close distances, but I've never bothered checking. The supplied macro mode might be a clue as to what you're supposed to do.

Carnathan and many others use a fixed size, fairly small, target. Testing a lens like this at or near its minimum focus distance of 38cm (I think it's even less at 50mm) tells you nothing about its performance at ∞. You're much better off just reading Canon's MTF charts. This is before we start wondering whether he made an error or had a bad copy.

 

[Talys]

Thanks guy's. I took a serious look at the 24-70mm f4 back when it was released and was put off big time by comments like the one below from Brian at The Digital Picture (which is backed up by other reviews) regarding the weakness of this lens in it's middle focal lengths, which is where I would use it most as I already have the excellent 16-35m f4 IS L.

At the normal landscape distances at which I use it, there is no decreased performance at 50mm on my copy. Some others I know of who also bought it despite the reviews have reported the same. It so perfectly suits my needs as a lightweight landscape lens for hiking that I can't help thinking that was exactly what Canon made it for. It may well have decreased performance at close distances, but I've never bothered checking. The supplied macro mode might be a clue as to what you're supposed to do.

Carnathan and many others use a fixed size, fairly small, target. Testing a lens like this at or near its minimum focus distance of 38cm (I think it's even less at 50mm) tells you nothing about its performance at ∞. You're much better off just reading Canon's MTF charts. This is before we start wondering whether he made an error or had a bad copy.

Same.

Even with product photography, the 24-70/4 is very sharp at 50mm. It is (far) superior to 50/1.4, because of chromatic aberration, especially towards the edges and corners. The 24-70/4 also controls both vignetting and distortion, which are important to me.

As a general walk-around lens, I've always been very happy with shots from it.

I'm not saying that perhaps it's not technically sharp when using a test pattern or some such; just that in real-life use, it's a fantastic lens that ticks all the boxes for me. I also own the 24-105 Mk1 -- and I'll be the first to admit that the extra reach can be nice in a pinch, but I really like the 24-70 images better.