We May Be Waiting a Little While Longer for a New 50mm Lens [CR2]

[ahsanford]

Rent the Tamron 45mm 1.8 VC and see how it works for you and whether you can live with the chromatic aberration issues (can be cleaned up in post) - which will depend on your shooting style/uses of the lens. It seems like a relatively compact lens for being a 1.8.

Appreciate it -- but I've considered it.

3rd party AF on a lens wider than f/2.8, especially one that isn't slated for tripod landscape work = absolutely no sale.

And as for size, as you'll see, there is double gauss and there is not double gauss. That Tamron is considerably longer than even the f/1.2L II. 'Smaller than the Arts/Otuses of the world' is not necessarily that small.

- A

 

[blobmonster]

Don't get me wrong, I can see the need for a new 50mm f1.4 replacement in the lineup, but I don't see it as all that necessary compared to the one big hole in Canon's arsenal.

I'm speaking of course, of a relatively small, lightweight, good quality, flare resistant approx 20mm prime lens. Canon simply doesn't have an answer to Nikon's new 20mm f1.8 G.

I already own the 24-70L mark I for years, but am transitioning to primes for pleasure. My preferred lengths are 20,35 and 85. The crops available from high MP cameras mean you can crop pictures from a 35mm to become a 50mm equivalent, 50-85, from an 85 to a 135 etc, without the need to carry a big zoom, and with the advantage that the fast aperture prime will have better depth of field control than a zoom while still having adequate resolution even after cropping.

The Canon 20mm usm f2.8 is a great lens when used well, but there's no getting round its flare.

I really hope Canon will introduce a 20mm (or 16-19mm) prime, preferably with IS. I would take this in preference to the 16-35 f4 IS since it would fit in my pocket, probably have a wider aperture, and make sure I frame the ultra wide photo properly rather than use zoom badly - which I am prone to until I get more experience with ultrawide composition. A 20mm has a notably different aspect to a 24mm or 14mm therefore it is a big gap for Canon. I can't yet justify the 14mm f2.8 or 17mm TSE as a beginner ultrawide photographer (the 17 SE is pretty big too), and the 17-40L used is almost the same price as the 20mm usm used. It therefore feels wrong to put money down on the old 20mm which has inferior image (in many situations) and build quality.

So here's hoping for a new Canon 20mm f2.8 usm is.

 

[Maximilian]

Don't get me wrong, I can see the need for a new 50mm f1.4 replacement in the lineup, but I don't see it as all that necessary compared to the one big hole in Canon's arsenal.

I'm speaking of course, of a relatively small, lightweight, good quality, flare resistant approx 20mm prime lens. Canon simply doesn't have an answer to Nikon's new 20mm f1.8 G.

[snip]

Hi blobmonster!

Canon has a EF 20mm f/2.8 USM for less than 500 $/€. It's old, its optical performance is so-so but there isn't a real hole - although every FL could be and should be improved by time.
But I don't expect a non-L lens in this UWA range wider than f/2.8, so all you'd get would be a successor of that mentioned lens. I haven't seen a UWA picture where f/1.8 was necessary yet, but I am not into astro.
I don't know if the Nikon is performing well here, but a short google say it's so-so wide open.

If we now compare the market of a general purpose (FF and APS-C, her more to portrait) lens like a EF 50/1.4 to a EF 20/2.8 or even /1.8, I'D say that the later is a real specialist with a small market.
So if it comes to improving those lenses I'd say: begin with the standard FL and later care for the specialists.
But as you can see, Canon yet does neither :

 

[BillB]

Don't get me wrong, I can see the need for a new 50mm f1.4 replacement in the lineup, but I don't see it as all that necessary compared to the one big hole in Canon's arsenal.

I'm speaking of course, of a relatively small, lightweight, good quality, flare resistant approx 20mm prime lens. Canon simply doesn't have an answer to Nikon's new 20mm f1.8 G.

I already own the 24-70L mark I for years, but am transitioning to primes for pleasure. My preferred lengths are 20,35 and 85. The crops available from high MP cameras mean you can crop pictures from a 35mm to become a 50mm equivalent, 50-85, from an 85 to a 135 etc, without the need to carry a big zoom, and with the advantage that the fast aperture prime will have better depth of field control than a zoom while still having adequate resolution even after cropping.

The Canon 20mm usm f2.8 is a great lens when used well, but there's no getting round its flare.

I really hope Canon will introduce a 20mm (or 16-19mm) prime, preferably with IS. I would take this in preference to the 16-35 f4 IS since it would fit in my pocket, probably have a wider aperture, and make sure I frame the ultra wide photo properly rather than use zoom badly - which I am prone to until I get more experience with ultrawide composition. A 20mm has a notably different aspect to a 24mm or 14mm therefore it is a big gap for Canon. I can't yet justify the 14mm f2.8 or 17mm TSE as a beginner ultrawide photographer (the 17 SE is pretty big too), and the 17-40L used is almost the same price as the 20mm usm used. It therefore feels wrong to put money down on the old 20mm which has inferior image (in many situations) and build quality.

So here's hoping for a new Canon 20mm f2.8 usm is.

Good luck on the 20mm prime. One advantage to the 16-35 is that you can actually buy one now. I got mine when it came out and it doesn't spend much time in my pocket. Mostly it is on my camera. You are right about the challenge of composing when you are working with a wide angle. One of the things I really like about the zoom is being able to play with different focal lengths without swapping lenses. Having a 16-35 is like having a whole bagful of wide angle lenses without the hassle of swapping them on and off the camera. A 20 and a 35 would cost more than the 16-35, so having the 16-35 is like having a 16, 24 and 28 for free.

 

[Random Orbits]

Don't get me wrong, I can see the need for a new 50mm f1.4 replacement in the lineup, but I don't see it as all that necessary compared to the one big hole in Canon's arsenal.

I'm speaking of course, of a relatively small, lightweight, good quality, flare resistant approx 20mm prime lens. Canon simply doesn't have an answer to Nikon's new 20mm f1.8 G.

I already own the 24-70L mark I for years, but am transitioning to primes for pleasure. My preferred lengths are 20,35 and 85. The crops available from high MP cameras mean you can crop pictures from a 35mm to become a 50mm equivalent, 50-85, from an 85 to a 135 etc, without the need to carry a big zoom, and with the advantage that the fast aperture prime will have better depth of field control than a zoom while still having adequate resolution even after cropping.

The Canon 20mm usm f2.8 is a great lens when used well, but there's no getting round its flare.

I really hope Canon will introduce a 20mm (or 16-19mm) prime, preferably with IS. I would take this in preference to the 16-35 f4 IS since it would fit in my pocket, probably have a wider aperture, and make sure I frame the ultra wide photo properly rather than use zoom badly - which I am prone to until I get more experience with ultrawide composition. A 20mm has a notably different aspect to a 24mm or 14mm therefore it is a big gap for Canon. I can't yet justify the 14mm f2.8 or 17mm TSE as a beginner ultrawide photographer (the 17 SE is pretty big too), and the 17-40L used is almost the same price as the 20mm usm used. It therefore feels wrong to put money down on the old 20mm which has inferior image (in many situations) and build quality.

So here's hoping for a new Canon 20mm f2.8 usm is.

I was hoping that Canon would do a refresh for the 20 f/2.8 and 50 f/1.4 after the 24 f/2.8 IS, 28 f/2.8 IS and 35 f/2 IS lenses came out, but it hasn't yet. The 35 f/2 IS is well regarded and is popular, but I wonder how popular the 24 and 28 f/2.8 IS lenses are. They are nice and compact, but I only pick them when I'm going out with a single lens or paired with the 50 f/1.8 for an ultra-compact kit.

My guess is that the 20 f/2.8 is not a big seller for Canon, and after the 16-35 f/2.8 III and 16-35 f/4 IS were released, the place for the 20 f/2.8 is further diminished. It looks like Canon went the IS route rather than Nikon's f/1.8 route, so the natural successor would be a 20 f/2.8 IS. It also seems like the 20 and 28mm focal lengths are more popular with Nikon shooters than Canon shooters because Nikon does support multiple options at those focal lengths, whereas Canon has better/multiple options at 24, 35 and 50mm.

If you really want a 20mm prime, there is always the Sigma 20A, but that is not a small lens.

 

[mjg79]

I see what I wrote about Canon not thinking there is enough of a market stirred up some controversy! I don't think there is *no* market for a new high quality 50 but that, from their actions, it is reasonable to infer that Canon has decided there isn't enough of a market (with enough of a profit margin) for them to make it a priority.

Of course Canon needs to maintain a high quality lens line-up and make sure gaps are filled whether or not that particular lens is a big seller. I am sure new 50mm lenses will come over the years. For now though there is the 50/1.2 L - yes I know in the lab it doesn't produce the sharpest results but in real world use it time and again is used by professionals to produce gorgeous photos and is in every regard better than the old 50/1.0 L.

But the fact they got a TS 50 out before another fast prime suggests strongly they think the TS will make more money. It's a unique product that they can charge a higher margin on. The 50/1.4 market is very crowded.

Someone else wrote above about Nikon's 20 1.8 lens and I agree, I would love to see Canon get a bit more aggressive with the lenses. Clearly over the past several years they have focused on two groups - the mass of consumers who want a decent 18-XX lens and also professionals who want the absolute best in a 70-200/2.8, 400 DO or 300/2.8. Even lenses like the 35L II and 100-400L II show build quality that no other manufacturer currently matches. They have their eyes on the professionals who really care about such things.

So what about that middle ground where I suspect most of us are to be found, the enthusiasts. We are certainly the loudest online but I think probably a bit smaller percentage of total buyers. But I didn't want to imply I support Canon taking so long for a modern 50/1.4 - I would be happy if there was a new lens every other week! But we have to be realistic.

Canon has been quite conservative and recent years haven't been easy for camera makers as mobile phones have destroyed the entire compact market. For the first time in years I have found myself sometimes feeling a bit jealous of some of the new Nikon glass - the 20/1.8, the 28/1.4 and the 105/1.4 in particular and it's quite an unusual position to be in as a Canon customer. And I think it's rather telling that the first 14/1.8, 20/1.4 and 24-35/2.0 were all made by Sigma and not Canon. Canon were once very aggressive in that type of exotic boundary pushing if one thinks of the 200/1.8, 85/1.2 and 50/1.0 and I would love to see them bring back some of that fire.

Canon has a history of getting there eventually though. For years we (rightly) complained about Canon's wide angle zooms as the only really decent landscape lens wide than 24mm was the TS 17. Well now we are spoilt for choice with the 16-35 IS for landscapes, the 2.8 III for photojournalism/events, the 11-24 for extremes. I'm confident when the next 50mm lens arrives it will be worth the wait.

 

[ahsanford]

Don't get me wrong, I can see the need for a new 50mm f1.4 replacement in the lineup, but I don't see it as all that necessary compared to the one big hole in Canon's arsenal.

I'm speaking of course, of a relatively small, lightweight, good quality, flare resistant approx 20mm prime lens. Canon simply doesn't have an answer to Nikon's new 20mm f1.8 G.

Both Nikon and Canon have niche lenses that the other does not:

Nikon: 20 1.8, 28 1.4, 105 1.4, etc.
Canon: far too many to list

IMHO, Canon's 'hole' in the lineup around 20mm isn't necessarily the focal length itself so much as a coma-free wide prime -- a new 24 f/1.4L III with reduced coma would do just fine and serve a reportage/environmental portraiture need at the same time.

- A

 

[JonAustin]

I think the 50/1.4 still sells.

Which is why this won't happen...

Canon replace the damn 50/1.4.

Once people stop buying it, or they can make more profit on a newer model, they'll consider replacing it.

As already mentioned, of course the 50/1.4 still sells, because Canon doesn't offer anything better at present (in its FL and price range). But I believe that plenty of buyers would have been willing to pony up more $$ for a version with true ring USM, updated electronics / lens coatings and IS.

A company that waited until its current model stopped selling before considering replacing it probably wouldn't be in business for very long. That's what market forecasts and strategic planning are for. Simply milking that cash cow until it dries up is not a recipe for long-term success. (And yes, I get that we're talking about one little product in just one of Canon Corporation's lines of business.)

If I had known that we still wouldn't have an AHSanford Special as 2017 draws to a close, I might have already picked up a used or refurb 50/1.2L, or bought another 50/2.5 CM when I still could (the AF on my current copy is dying). I may just bite the little bullet and pick up a 50/1.8 STM while I wait Canon out ... can anyone tell me how its AF speed compares to the 50/2.5's (in non-Macro range)?

 

[ahsanford]

As already mentioned, of course the 50/1.4 still sells, because Canon doesn't offer anything better at present (in its FL and price range). But I believe that plenty of buyers would have been willing to pony up more $$ for a version with true ring USM, updated electronics / lens coatings and IS.

A company that waited until its current model stopped selling before considering replacing it probably wouldn't be in business for very long. That's what market forecasts and strategic planning are for. Simply milking that cash cow until it dries up is not a recipe for long-term success. (And yes, I get that we're talking about one little product in just one of Canon Corporation's lines of business.)

If I had known that we still wouldn't have an AHSanford Special as 2017 draws to a close, I might have already picked up a used or refurb 50/1.2L, or bought another 50/2.5 CM when I still could (the AF on my current copy is dying). I may just bite the little bullet and pick up a 50/1.8 STM while I wait Canon out ... can anyone tell me how its AF speed compares to the 50/2.5's (in non-Macro range)?

+1 on all points. The missing bit on the finances is that that 50 f/1.4 USM capital / tooling / process development / quality infrastructure are long, long bought and paid for, so the rate of return on that investment continues to be gold.

Canon surely has a business plan floating around that a modernization of that product will resemble any refresh -- it will cost an arm and a leg to spin everything up, so if they can't command (say) $599 for a ring USM non-L prime for more than the opening year, they may not profit as much as leaving the current ancient thing in production.

- A

 

[BillB]

I think the 50/1.4 still sells.

Which is why this won't happen...

Canon replace the damn 50/1.4.

Once people stop buying it, or they can make more profit on a newer model, they'll consider replacing it.

As already mentioned, of course the 50/1.4 still sells, because Canon doesn't offer anything better at present (in its FL and price range). But I believe that plenty of buyers would have been willing to pony up more $$ for a version with true ring USM, updated electronics / lens coatings and IS.

A company that waited until its current model stopped selling before considering replacing it probably wouldn't be in business for very long. That's what market forecasts and strategic planning are for. Simply milking that cash cow until it dries up is not a recipe for long-term success. (And yes, I get that we're talking about one little product in just one of Canon Corporation's lines of business.)

If I had known that we still wouldn't have an AHSanford Special as 2017 draws to a close, I might have already picked up a used or refurb 50/1.2L, or bought another 50/2.5 CM when I still could (the AF on my current copy is dying). I may just bite the little bullet and pick up a 50/1.8 STM while I wait Canon out ... can anyone tell me how its AF speed compares to the 50/2.5's (in non-Macro range)?

One problem is that the current 50mm f1.4 is selling around the $330 price point and any replacement is likely to cost considerably more. If they stop making the current 50mm f1.4, Canon has to figure out what impact this shift in price point would have on the overall revenue stream. Some people would buy the more expensive new lens, some people would drop down to the 50mm F 1.8 STM, and some people wouldn't buy anything, making do with whatever they have. It's not like Canon is going to be offering a better lens for the same amount of money.

 

[JonAustin]

@ ahsanford and BillB:

Fair points all, but the same arguments could have been made before each launch of a successor to an existing lens. And the increasing margins from sales of products for which the R&D, tooling, etc. have long since been absorbed begin -- at some point -- to be offset by decaying demand, sales lost to competitive, 3rd party products and -- in the case of lenses -- performance that increasingly lags behind more current glass in the product line, not to mention the every-improving resolution of the sensors behind the glass.

Without citing specific examples (laziness), we've been surprised by a few new releases in recent years, where the launch prices have been pleasingly lower than anticipated / feared. (OK, the 16-35/4 and 100-400 II are a couple that come to mind, only because I bought them.)

 

[BillB]

@ ahsanford and BillB:

Fair points all, but the same arguments could have been made before each launch of a successor to an existing lens. And the increasing margins from sales of products for which the R&D, tooling, etc. have long since been absorbed begin -- at some point -- to be offset by decaying demand, sales lost to competitive, 3rd party products and -- in the case of lenses -- performance that increasingly lags behind more current glass in the product line, not to mention the every-improving resolution of the sensors behind the glass.

Without citing specific examples (laziness), we've been surprised by a few new releases in recent years, where the launch prices have been pleasingly lower than anticipated / feared. (OK, the 16-35/4 and 100-400 II are a couple that come to mind, only because I bought them.)

I don't know the specifics, but I wonder how much the exchange rates drive price fluctuations. As far as lens releases are concerned, it seems to me that Canon's emphasis for quite a while has been on zooms, including inexpensive high quality EF-S and EF-M zooms. There have also been some L's. In addition to the ones you mentioned there is the 11-24, the 16-35 f2.8III, the 35 f1.4 II and the 85 f1.4, along with the three tilt shifts and the 24-105 II.

 

[Antono Refa]

Canon surely has a business plan floating around that a modernization of that product will resemble any refresh -- it will cost an arm and a leg to spin everything up, so if they can't command (say) $599 for a ring USM non-L prime for more than the opening year, they may not profit as much as leaving the current ancient thing in production.

You've just described the upgrade I want - refresh the 50mm f/1.4 same as the 24-28-35mm and at the same price point.

As Canon didn't carry that upgrade forward, I can only guess sales weren't as strong as it hoped for.

 

[ahsanford]

You've just described the upgrade I want - refresh the 50mm f/1.4 same as the 24-28-35mm and at the same price point.

As Canon didn't carry that upgrade forward, I can only guess sales weren't as strong as it hoped for.

As we've covered a few times, the 24 2.8 / 28 2.8 / 35 2.0 were a different older series of lenses than the USM primes 20 2.8 / 28 1.8 / 50 1.4 / 85 1.8 / 100 2.0.

So Canon didn't stop a line of updates, they completed the refreshing one family and we hope the other family gets a similarly nice update.

- A

 

[Antono Refa]

You've just described the upgrade I want - refresh the 50mm f/1.4 same as the 24-28-35mm and at the same price point.

As Canon didn't carry that upgrade forward, I can only guess sales weren't as strong as it hoped for.

As we've covered a few times, the 24 2.8 / 28 2.8 / 35 2.0 were a different older series of lenses than the USM primes 20 2.8 / 28 1.8 / 50 1.4 / 85 1.8 / 100 2.0.

So Canon didn't stop a line of updates, they completed the refreshing one family and we hope the other family gets a similarly nice update.

Those are all 20+ old film era lenses, a few years don't make a big difference.

And the 85mm f/1.4L IS USM just shot any 85mm f/1.8 IS USM upgrade in the leg. Too close to f/1.4, it would hurt the f/1.4L's sales, too close to f/2.8 and it would lose to the 70-200mm L IS zooms.

 

[BillB]

You've just described the upgrade I want - refresh the 50mm f/1.4 same as the 24-28-35mm and at the same price point.

As Canon didn't carry that upgrade forward, I can only guess sales weren't as strong as it hoped for.

The 24-28-35 lenses were originally rolled out at much higher prices, which were quickly reduced to current levels, after widespread and noisy opposition to the prices. Even at the lower levels, I don't think Cannon has sold all that many of them. Of course, the 16-35 f4 IS came out fairly soon after the wide angle primes were introduced and that couldn't have helped sales. I know I wouldn't have got my 28 IS if the 16-35 f4 had been around. All in all, I doubt that Cannon's experience with the three wide angles demonstrates that there is much money to be made refreshing mid level primes. I also doubt that the wide angles that were replaced were selling anywhere near as well as the 50 f1.4 or the 85 f1.8, so there more be may be more demand for the longer focal lengths.

 

[Antono Refa]

You've just described the upgrade I want - refresh the 50mm f/1.4 same as the 24-28-35mm and at the same price point.

As Canon didn't carry that upgrade forward, I can only guess sales weren't as strong as it hoped for.

The 24-28-35 lenses were originally rolled out at much higher prices, which were quickly reduced to current levels, after widespread and noisy opposition to the prices. Even at the lower levels, I don't think Cannon has sold all that many of them.

Yeah, I've heard that and tend to believe it.

Of course, the 16-35 f4 IS came out fairly soon after the wide angle primes were introduced and that couldn't have helped sales. I know I wouldn't have got my 28 IS if the 16-35 f4 had been around.

I went through a similar process.

Thought of buying the 24mm f/2.8 IS USM, then thought the 16-35mm f/4L IS USM would be better, then took a good look at what I actually shoot and how, and went for a 16-35mm f/2.8L mkII (will upgrade to mkIII) for tripod & 35mm f/2 IS USM for handheld.

All in all, I doubt that Cannon's experience with the three wide angles demonstrates that there is much money to be made refreshing mid level primes.

Which is why I think Canon will release the 50mm f/1.4 as an L, which would be too expensive to me, rather than a mid level prime.

 

[BillB]

I find myself wondering how much a refreshed 50mm could provide that is not being provided by existing lenses, particularly by the 35 f2 IS, but also considering the current 50mm f1.4 and the 85mm f1.8. Are there ways to use these lenses to explore capabilities that a refreshed 50 might offer over those that the existing 50?

In a trivial sense the 35mm can simulate a 50 through simple cropping. Coverage comparable to a 50 can also be achieved with the 35 by zooming with your feet, at least to some degree. The 85mm offers another approach by moving back from the subject rather than toward it. The limitations of the current 50 are most obvious at f2.8 and wider due to the flaky AF, but there isn't much reason to think that a refreshed 50 will offer much more than the current 50 stopped down to f4 and beyond.

The 35 has ring USM and IS, and the 85 also has ring USM, but lacks IS. It seems questionable whether a refreshed 50 would offer much more than these lenses at f2 and f2.8 other than field of view.

Again, I am not arguing that a refreshed 50 would not be useful, but I am wondering whether current lenses may offer ways to explore the opportunities that a refreshed 50 would provide in comparison to the current 50.

 

[blobmonster]

@BillB I agree. The 50mm stm looks fine for low price, while the 50L is fine for good quality. I don't see much of a gap.

Honestly I couldn't care less about coma or what have you regarding the 24L. I've never liked that focal length. I just want a 20mm that works in the sun without huge flare, since getting the sun in the shot is quite a typical use of an ultrawide.

I think the DSLR market is very mature already. We will start to see the holes in Canon's lineup vs Nikon filled is my prediction. At this stage in the game, where almost everyone ought to be satisfied with quality that is already available, they ought to be covering all bases for maximum revenue, then hunker down and reduce costs.

As much as I'd like to believe in a growth market for Canon in stills, the reality is smartphones and professional video are developing whereas dslr stills are already practically perfect.

I think Canon ought to bring out the 20mm since its a focal length that people love to use in a prime. I suspect they might also bring a new 50 with IS etc. Regarding profitability I think I would be looking at the 'long tail' type of sales, as in, primes don't have to sell in huge numbers to still sell a lot over the years, and help justify the business staying in the stills market, by bringing users into the Canon system and keeping them there. I don't really see any holes in the Canon lineup besides an ultra-wide prime. Will it sell hugely? Perhaps not, but it's not reasonable to keep producing the old one when they could just update it and sell for a higher price, given that lens design teams have already covered the other bases, wide L and smaller, slower L IS zooms etc, they can probably be spared a few months to work on the slow burners (sales wise) that are 30 years old, as we saw happen a few years ago. It's not reasonable for them (new primes) to all come out at once so I don't think that the delay since the new 24, 28 and 35 means Canon won't now bring out a 20 and 50 if it believes new and existing users expect them.

 

[pch]

I was casually looking around to see if there was any news about a new 50 with IS since the 85 came out, and found this thread. It's been interesting to read because, as someone noted, the participants seem to mostly be enthusiasts and not professionals, and the analyses regarding why Canon would or wouldn't want to bother updating a 50 are from that perspective - and you can't argue with (most of) the arguments here, which basically sum up to "I can do everything I could possibly need to do with what's currently available so I don't see why Canon would bother".

So I thought I'd chime in with the perspective of someone who uses this focal length professionally. The main thing my partner and I do is weddings, family and baby/child portraits, and things like that (we do also do corporate type stuff, where our equipment needs are a bit different). I do video - and we both shoot with 5d4s (we can share equipment and there's a more-or-less consistent look between the photos and the video for a wedding, for example, though our approach and style is different).

Now, you may be thinking, 50mm is not really a great portrait focal length on a FF body, and isn't wide enough for events. Well, my partner carries two cameras on a harness, the second with a 24 1.4 L - and I use the 35 f/2 IS for wider shots; anything wider than that I typically do with the 24 TS-E II on a tripod. 50mm is certainly a compromise, but a very good one - the problem with shooting with an 85 is that in a wedding, that actually gets you too close most of the time. During the ceremony and speeches etc. she uses a 70-200 2.8 IS - an 85 doesn't get you close enough in that case. The rest of the time, the best moments often happen in very tight quarters with the bride and groom and 85 just doesn't work. So the 50 1.2 saves the day - you get the shallow depth of field that clients love (and you don't actually have to shoot at 1.2 on a FF body to get it) and you can zoom with your feet even in tight quarters to get the framing you want. Likewise for family and kid portraits, it's great because it can be very difficult to track fidgety kids with an 85 or longer length, and with younger kids you need to be close to them to get their attention and to get them to engage with the camera (though she does use the 70-200 for these too occasionally depending on the situation).

So, it's actually the perfect focal length for that stuff. But, I also actually prefer it for a lot of other kinds of photography too, and plan to get the 50 TS-E for my other stuff including architecture and landscapes. I have the 24 II and the original 90 TS-E lenses; I find myself stitching together 90mm TS-E shots to get essentially a 50mm perspective - the increased resolution from stitching is not really worth it for what I do (I will probably sell the 90 because it's an awkward length for me, and eventually get the new 50 and 135 TS-Es). For me, the 50mm perspective is how I see things most of the time and is just ideal for my style of photography.

So that said, for video I primarily use the 35 f/2 IS - and I don't like it (though it's actually perfect for corporate type stuff I do as well where shallow DOF style is less important). I mean the lens is great, honestly, I just don't like how it looks for video You can get shallow depth of field with close-ups on a FF body, but for the most part the way it renders on video is just not my favorite - though it is not actually soft, for my purposes it appears "not crisp" in 1080p video compared to shooting with a shallower DOF (sharpness at this resolution being more about perception than technical specs). I vastly prefer using 50mm. I use the 1.4 for video because it's much lighter than the 1.2, and because we have two copies of it that weren't getting used since she got the 1.2 - and because I'm waiting for an IS version.

Here's what's key here - IS is a godsend for Canon video (even with a tripod, truthfully) since we don't get in-body stabilization (the stabilization in the 6D II is not good for professional results, at least for my style - it's digital processing, which I can do better in post if that's what I wanted, which I do do although as little as possible because it usually looks weird). If you haven't tried it, try a short clip with any recent-model IS lens you have - even a telephoto. It's amazing. I use a shoulder rig because the 35 is not the only lens I use but with modern IS, hand-held is legitimately just as good as a shoulder rig - and that's why I want a 50 with IS. I want to ditch the shoulder rig and instead have two bodies on a harness, one with a 50 IS and one with the 35 IS (with the 85 IS in a belt pouch for certain shots that I currently use the 85 1.8 for).

A 50 IS would be a game-changer for video. I shoot at or near wide-open most of the time (using ND filters outside) to get a "cinematic" shallow-depth-of-field look because that's what I like, and what clients like.

I would gladly pay $1600 for a 50 1.4 with IS, just like the 85. I would also gladly pay *significantly* more for an updated 50 1.2 with IS, no hesitation. I am far from the only one, too, although I will concede that most people doing this kind of low-level professional video are more than happy with their zoom lenses with IS (or their Sony or Panasonic cameras with in-body IS). I aim for something aesthetically far better than that - people like me buy these lenses to shoot wide-open with, and I care more about that (and IS) than the "versatility" of a zoom, or even of absolute technical sharpness (same thinking as e.g. Leica users - and e.g. I also shoot medium-format film wide-open with large-aperture lenses). Canon is *so* close to letting me realize that in really an amazingly easy way compared to what would have been required just a few years ago, and a 50 with IS would take me almost all the way there.