When the hell will I get my EF 50mm f/nooneknows IS USM?!

[Luds34]

I have no use for a 50mm lens with IS. Perhaps for video, and then I would want STM. Starting at about 135-200mm, IS becomes useful. I have too much subject movement to use slow shutter speeds.

Perhaps on a 1 inch sensor, 50mm with IS might fall into the range where it would benefit me.

+1

I'm in that camp as well. Even still, portrait type shots, I don't like to go below 1/60th. So using that as my floor, at 135mm, IS gets me a stop. It starts to become a nice to have and even more so once I hit 200mm.

The other thing is I like high keeper rates. So even though Canon may advertise 4 stops I don't usually feel it is ever that good, at least to consistently hit the shot. Reviewers always like to show that shot they got at 1/5th a second but it's not like they get that consistently. So even when I have IS I try to keep it within 2 stops, sometimes push to 3 type of usage. I'd rather push the ISO (especially with todays sensors), use speedlites, or tripod the camera (say night cityscape or something) before pushing the IS system too far.

 

[lightthief]

Sorry, I went dream crushing. I also think it will likely not have IS. But, I think we need to remember when the 24/28 mm f/2.8 IS and 35 mm f/2 IS were released, the price point was very high. About $800-900 here in the US. Someone in Canon thought they would sell at that price point. They didn't. And soon, not 3-4 years later, but 3 months to a year later the prices started to drop dramatically. Now they are $500-$600.

Simply point, but had this level of lens sold well at $800-900, I think we would already have seen a 50/85/100 mm refresh. So, I suspect we will someday see a refresh of these lenses. But I also suspect introducing other lenses became a higher priority to Canon after the price drop.

ahsanford's arguments were a hard hit to my wishes/dreams... but, you... you have killed them
Come on Canon, proof them wrong!

I want a 50 IS for low light and sometimes for video.

 

[Antono Refa]

Simply point, but had this level of lens sold well at $800-900, I think we would already have seen a 50/85/100 mm refresh. So, I suspect we will someday see a refresh of these lenses. But I also suspect introducing other lenses became a higher priority to Canon after the price drop.

I agree, but think it's a bit too simplistic.

Canon's lenses face competition with Tamron's SP 45mm & 85mm f/1.8 Di VC USD, so in order to prevent loss of sales, Canon would have to eventually come out with 50mm & 85mm IS lenses.

It is simplistic, agreed. But I think your logic could go another direction. At least the businesses I've been involved in do not target areas that are most competitive. If anything, they avoid them. The margins get too low. Instead, they target markets that give them the greatest return on their investment or greatest profit margin on a per unit basis.

I do think Canon will eventually update the 50 f/1.4, but I really would not hold my breath. Btw, as a previous owner, I loved that lens, amazing from f/2.8-f/8 but upgraded to the Sigma 50 Art for better performance wider open.

IMHO, Canon might choose that path from time to time, but not as a method.

As a method, that would translate to Canon folding whenever someone makes a grab at a spot in it's line of lenses (and nowadays, that happens in both the low end and the high end), which would lead to too much lost sales, and make Canon look like a loser.

I think Canon has gone your way in some cases, e.g. releasing an EF 11-24mm f/4L USM rather than going head to head with an EF 14-24mm f/2.8. I doubt that would be the case with mainstream lenses.

My money is on Canon will eventually bring out an uber 50mm f/1.4, as well as a 50mm with IS.

 

[docsmith]

My money is on Canon will eventually bring out an uber 50mm f/1.4, as well as a 50mm with IS.

Mine too. They will eventually. But this is why I mentioned the 50/85/100 mm prime refresh maybe moving down in their priorities. But, now that they have updated most of the common/popular zoom lenses, I am really curious to see what their next emphasis will be. EFS lenses? EF-m lenses? EF "L" primes? Regular primes? And I could still see a couple of common/popular zooms (UWA f/2.8, etc).

ahsanford's arguments were a hard hit to my wishes/dreams... but, you... you have killed them
Come on Canon, proof them wrong!

I want a 50 IS for low light and sometimes for video.

Sorry.

 

[lightthief]

Sorry.

okay

 

[ahsanford]

Simply point, but had this level of lens sold well at $800-900, I think we would already have seen a 50/85/100 mm refresh. So, I suspect we will someday see a refresh of these lenses. But I also suspect introducing other lenses became a higher priority to Canon after the price drop.

I agree, but think it's a bit too simplistic.

Canon's lenses face competition with Tamron's SP 45mm & 85mm f/1.8 Di VC USD, so in order to prevent loss of sales, Canon would have to eventually come out with 50mm & 85mm IS lenses.

This back and forth is very familiar:

• For the 20/28/50/85/100 USM non-L lenses, there are those who believe an optical design refresh + modernization (internal focusing, better build, etc.) is all that is needed -- make a "II" version, make it better, and that's all you need.
  
  
• ...and then there are the rest of us, who think it's an far easier market road for Canon to take to do the above and slap IS on it. Because IS jumps out in the product title and differentiates the lens from its predecessor much more clearly than "new optical formal, internal focusing, better hood attachment, etc."

I'm in the second group.

- A

 

[ahsanford]

My money is on Canon will eventually bring out an uber 50mm f/1.4, as well as a 50mm with IS.

Mine too. They will eventually. But this is why I mentioned the 50/85/100 mm prime refresh maybe moving down in their priorities. But, now that they have updated most of the common/popular zoom lenses, I am really curious to see what their next emphasis will be. EFS lenses? EF-m lenses? EF "L" primes? Regular primes? And I could still see a couple of common/popular zooms (UWA f/2.8, etc).

Short answer: all money would be on 16-35 f/2.8L III as the biggest hole in the professional 'should be updated fairly often' lineup, and then after that I expect a slow but steady stream of super duper L standard/short tele primes with the BR gunk in it: 24, 50, 85, 135, etc.

- A

 

[docsmith]

My money is on Canon will eventually bring out an uber 50mm f/1.4, as well as a 50mm with IS.

Mine too. They will eventually. But this is why I mentioned the 50/85/100 mm prime refresh maybe moving down in their priorities. But, now that they have updated most of the common/popular zoom lenses, I am really curious to see what their next emphasis will be. EFS lenses? EF-m lenses? EF "L" primes? Regular primes? And I could still see a couple of common/popular zooms (UWA f/2.8, etc).

Short answer: all money would be on 16-35 f/2.8L III as the biggest hole in the professional 'should be updated fairly often' lineup, and then after that I expect a slow but steady stream of super duper L standard/short tele primes with the BR gunk in it: 24, 50, 85, 135, etc.

- A

Exactly my thoughts. Fast UWA zoom would be next. Then the "L" primes. My thought there is that the 85 f/1.2 L is a very popular lens with one issue I hear constantly, AF speed. I can see them updating it with BR (imagine minimal fringing at f/1.2?) and making its AF much faster (portrait and indoor sports lens). I think that would sell and sell at high margins.

Back to the 50 f/1.4 topic...I am definitely in the group that thinks they will provide a new optical formula in any update. Especially if they include IS, as that alone would alter the optical design (unless I am very much mistaken).

 

[ahsanford]

Back to the 50 f/1.4 topic...I am definitely in the group that thinks they will provide a new optical formula in any update. Especially if they include IS, as that alone would alter the optical design (unless I am very much mistaken).

I 100% expect a new optical design. The old one is over 20 years old and (one would presume) the patent protections have expired. Forgetting the obvious optical improvements we'd expect, it behooves Canon to tweak the design so that they can patent it and try to keep Yongnuo's of the world at bay.

- A

 

[StudentOfLight]

I fear, Canon were shocked by the Art ond Tamrons 45 1.8, so they dumped their 2.0 IS and went back to the drawing board.

Not so much:

1) Canon doesn't quake in its boots about Tamron lenses that will cost the same price as Canon's future non-L offering. Not one bit. Good on Tamron for spotting a market gap (a 45-55mm IS prime), but in the future state where the EF 50mm f/nooneknows IS USM is available side by side with the Tamron for about the same price (depending on the max aperture Canon ends up offering), I expect Tamron sales to plummet. Consider for comparision: who the hell would buy the 35mm f/1.8 IS Tamron for the same price as a first party Canon EF 35mm f/2 IS USM?

2) The EF 50mm f/nooneknows IS USM is not competing with the Sigma Art -- in optical quality, weight, customer, etc.. That's for a future 50L to do.

- A

Me.

I actually traded in my 35/1.4 L for the Tamron 35/1.8 + UV filter.

 

[Khufu]

Over in mirrorless APS-C land:

Sony do a fantastic pair of affordable 35mm and 50mm OSS lenses... the M2 would be a beast of a wee casual/"arty"-videography (+ audio) cam with similar lenses... Sony only put mic jacks on their stupid-expensive releases. Sometimes it feels like these companies collaborate to not-quite-offer what the people* want!
*read: 'me' (what the ME wants!)

 

[Haydn1971]

I'm seeing two 50mm lenses coming...

1, a f1.8 IS version similar in build to the 35mm f2 IS, this will come with a macro converter add on kit
2, a f1.4 non IS, but L level super sharp lens of perfection

The f1.8 STM remains as the plastic fantastic, the f1.2 L remains as an artistic speciality lens.

Bring it on ! Now !

Plus a EF-M native too please ;-)

 

[Antono Refa]

Simply point, but had this level of lens sold well at $800-900, I think we would already have seen a 50/85/100 mm refresh. So, I suspect we will someday see a refresh of these lenses. But I also suspect introducing other lenses became a higher priority to Canon after the price drop.

Tamron's 85mm f/1.8 VC price was announced at $749. If the price sticks, Canon should be able to charge an extra $100.

 

[jedy]

Well, the main appeal of the current, popular f1.4 is the price. It is a good lens for many cash strapped photographers to experience their first prime lens. Do Canon simply replace it with an updated version for little or no extra cost, like the f1.8 STM or do they produce a 1.4 IS at twice the price (like the 24, 28 and 35) and aim to compete with Sigma and Tamron? I think it would be a shame if it wasn't 1.4, IS or not.

 

[Antono Refa]

Well, the main appeal of the current, popular f1.4 is the price. It is a good lens for many cash strapped photographers to experience their first prime lens. Do Canon simply replace it with an updated version for little or no extra cost, like the f1.8 STM or do they produce a 1.4 IS at twice the price (like the 24, 28 and 35) and aim to compete with Sigma and Tamron? I think it would be a shame if it wasn't 1.4, IS or not.

If the IS version starts at >$700, I think Canon can keep the non-IS version on the market until the IS version's price drops so low, the IS-less model stops selling.

As for the Sigma 50mm f/1.4 Art, its in a different spot, along with the Nikon 58mm f/1.4 and Zeiss 55mm f/1.4 Otus. I think Canon will release another lens in this spot, which cost closer to $1,500.

 

[Luds34]

Me.

I actually traded in my 35/1.4 L for the Tamron 35/1.8 + UV filter.

How do you like it? Can you compare/contrast it with the 35L you got rid of? Do you miss the f/1.4? Is the Tamron usable wide open?

-Thanks

 

[ahsanford]

Me.

I actually traded in my 35/1.4 L for the Tamron 35/1.8 + UV filter.

How do you like it? Can you compare/contrast it with the 35L you got rid of? Do you miss the f/1.4? Is the Tamron usable wide open?

-Thanks

This is OT, but head here for the mother lode of 35mm head to head review work from CR's reviewing partner Dustin Abbott:

http://dustinabbott.net/2016/01/35mm-shootout/

- A

 

[StudentOfLight]

Me.

I actually traded in my 35/1.4 L for the Tamron 35/1.8 + UV filter.

How do you like it? Can you compare/contrast it with the 35L you got rid of? Do you miss the f/1.4? Is the Tamron usable wide open?

-Thanks

This is OT, but head here for the mother lode of 35mm head to head review work from CR's reviewing partner Dustin Abbott:

http://dustinabbott.net/2016/01/35mm-shootout/

- A

Sorry for not getting back to you guys. With all the 1D-X II and 5D"x" rumors I completely lost track of this one.

I didn't like the 35L/1.4 wide open, and ended up using it more at f/2 or f/2.8most of the time. While sharpness was okay in the center of frame at f/1.4 it was not fantastic. The corners were quite soft at maximum aperture and I didn't like the background blur characteristics, especially when for example shooting with strong highlights filtering through trees. (The edges of the blur circles were harsh.) Chromatic aberration was quite severe as well.

The strength of my 35L was that its autofocus was extremely fast and accurate, however I found that this was not as useful for me at this focal length. When shooting events I generally wanted more depth of field than 35/1.4 offered and more of these low light shots would be shots where I'd have people or groups pose so AF speed was less critical and AF accuracy would be sufficient.

Anyway, so onto the Tamron. Yes, it is usable wide open.

You can pixel-peep the crops on TDP for sharpness:
http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=121&Camera=453&Sample=0&FLI=0&API=2&LensComp=1003&CameraComp=453&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=0&APIComp=0
It also holds up pretty well on the 5DsR and I have no reservations using it on 18-20MP APS-C bodies.

Vignette is low compared to say the 35/2 IS or the f/1.4 lenses at their maximum aperture. For my low light shooting this is an important consideration. If you are shooting at ISO-1600 or ISO-3200 and you need to brighten corners by more than 2 stops then they become extremely noisy. So I highly regard low vignette.

I consider the AF accuracy to be reliable but slow. At least 30-50% slower than the 35L USM.

Then onto the Tamron triple act: Vibration Compensation, close-focus capability and weather sealing. These three combine to make the Tamron a great option for my travel kit. That and the fact that it performs well on both FF and APS-C makes it very versatile.
I've included a comparison with my 60D+35VC and 5D-III+40STM. Remember that my 5D-III loses weather-sealing status when using the 40STM whereas the 60D retains its weather sealing status when the 35VC is attached.

While I love the Tamron for my purposes, it is not a perfect lens. I've already touched on the slow AF speed, but (like the 35L) it also suffers from a purple fringing problem with extreme contrast transitions. Lastly there is one more issue, which I believe is field-curvature related, that I happened to pick up when shooting stars. The tangential and radial planes of sharp focus appear to curve in opposite directions. So If you defocus the stars slightly then astigmatism is increased and you'll render peripheral stars as seagulls or comets depending on which direction you bias focus.

This was my decision for my needs, but I expect others priorities to be different and come to different conclusions on what is workable for them.

p.s. Ideally I'd like to get the 35L II to use for paid work and night sky, but I wont sell the Tamron which I'd still keep for use in a lighter travel kit and for casual shooting.