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

[ahsanford]

All this new body speculation is taking the photography universe off-topic.

Where the hell is my new 50 prime? C'MON.

- A

 

[NancyP]

I am not hopeful. Sigma stole a march on them for image quality. Tamron stole a march on them for IS (granted, 45mm). People are still very happy with the rendering of the f/1.2 Canon 50 for portraiture, though more often the 85 f/1.2 is used. I would love a sharp-wide-open f/1.8 or f/2.0 50 with IS and not weighing a ton.

 

[IglooEater]

You already got it: it's made by Tamron and it's off by 5 mm

 

[jma5terj]

I'd like one too but I'm making do with the 50 STM for now. I love my 35 f/2 IS.

 

[wsheldon]

I'd like one too but I'm making do with the 50 STM for now. I love my 35 f/2 IS.

Same here on the 50 STM. I hate the construction (although it's better than its predecessor), but it does deliver tremendous IQ for the money. Far better experience than the 1.4, which I never got on with.

 

[mrzero]

I agree that the 50mm STM probably put a slowdown on this release as well. As much as I'd like to see the rumored new IS 50, I'm even more interested in the new IS 85mm that was rumored to accompany it. The 35mm IS doesn't seem to have dampened enthusiasm for the new 35mm L II. I'd love to put together a poor man's prime trinity here, and 24-28-35 isn't it.

 

[Click]

Ahsanford, I voted "Next year" to give you some hope.

 

[ahsanford]

I agree that the 50mm STM probably put a slowdown on this release as well. As much as I'd like to see the rumored new IS 50, I'm even more interested in the new IS 85mm that was rumored to accompany it. The 35mm IS doesn't seem to have dampened enthusiasm for the new 35mm L II. I'd love to put together a poor man's prime trinity here, and 24-28-35 isn't it.

Agree.

I'd love a compact, light, sharp, modern, internal focusing, reliable rock-solid first party AF with USM set of primes.

I'd personally go 28 - 50 - 85, but 35s are a great, too.

As far as why the 50 and 85 are taking so long, I always forget that the old early 90s USM primes were a mid-level product at the time and the 24/28/35 were a lower end product at the time (no USM, squeaky AF motor, all that). So every time I get grouchy that Canon 'stopped' their IS refresh effort, they didn't. Technically, they completed it.

So now we need a new IS refresh effort for those old USM lenses, the 28 f/1.8, the 50 f/1.4, the 85 f/1.8, etc.

- A

 

[RGF]

Don't own a 50 prime. So no idea.

 

[ajfotofilmagem]

Canon expects all users of the plastic fantastic will update to the STM 50mm.
Only then we will be able to upgrade to a 50mm F1.4 IS.

In the future, when we upgraded to F1.4 IS, there will come a F1.2L ii, to spend the third time ...

 

[FTb-n]

Ahsanford, I voted "Next year" to give you some hope.

I voted This Year to give me some hope.

 

[Sporgon]

I think we will see a 50 f/1.4 USM that will be optically similar to the Tamron 45 f/1.8 and the Zeiss Milvus 50 f/1.4

No IS.

 

[ajfotofilmagem]

It is likely that we will see a Canon 50mm F1.7 Image Stabilizer. :-X

 

[ahsanford]

Canon expects all users of the plastic fantastic will update to the STM 50mm.
Only then we will be able to upgrade to a 50mm F1.4 IS.

I don't disagree that's what happening, but everyone who is unhappy with the 50 f/1.4 USM is clearly willing to spend $349 for a 50 prime, so selling those people a $110 lens is leaving considerable money on the table, and Canon can't be happy about that.

There's a chasm in price and quality between the 50 f/1.8 STM and the 50L, 50 Art, etc., and Canon needs to fill that gap with an '8 out of 10 at everything' lens around $500-600. It would sell like hotcakes.

- A

 

[ajfotofilmagem]

Canon expects all users of the plastic fantastic will update to the STM 50mm.
Only then we will be able to upgrade to a 50mm F1.4 IS.

I don't disagree that's what happening, but everyone who is unhappy with the 50 f/1.4 USM is clearly willing to spend $349 for a 50 prime, so selling those people a $110 lens is leaving considerable money on the table, and Canon can't be happy about that.

There's a chasm in price and quality between the 50 f/1.8 STM and the 50L, 50 Art, etc., and Canon needs to fill that gap with an '8 out of 10 at everything' lens around $500-600. It would sell like hotcakes.

The Tamron 45mm F1.8 VC shook the market.
It can not take more than 18 months for Canon up your ass chair. 8)

 

[9VIII]

Ahsanford, you'll get your new 50mm Prime at the same time as I get my new 400f5.6 Prime.

 

[ahsanford]

I think we will see a 50 f/1.4 USM that will be optically similar to the Tamron 45 f/1.8 and the Zeiss Milvus 50 f/1.4

No IS.

Not buying it, respectfully.

Please name me the last time Canon put out a [non-L] + [EF] + [USM] + [prime] lens that didn't have IS. It's been a long time. Just skimming Northlight's EF lens chronology page, I believe it was 16 years ago with the non-L 100mm f/2.8 USM macro.

Now look at my chart again. If you were going to refresh those middle-level lenses and try to get roughly $600 for a new version, do you really Canon would just refresh the optical design and call it good? You do that with L lenses, but not something as consumer/enthusiast-oriented as a non-L prime. I think you need to clearly differentiate the old/new designs for the enthusiasts to get them to part ways with their cash, and a feature-based sell with IS immediately comes to mind.

But hey, I very well could be wrong.

- A

 

[ahsanford]

Ahsanford, you'll get your new 50mm Prime at the same time as I get my new 400f5.6 Prime.

Don't you dare tangle your unfulfilled lens dreams with mine.

- A

 

[Sporgon]

I think we will see a 50 f/1.4 USM that will be optically similar to the Tamron 45 f/1.8 and the Zeiss Milvus 50 f/1.4

No IS.

Not buying it, respectfully.

Please name me the last time Canon put out a [non-L] + [EF] + [USM] + [prime] lens that didn't have IS.

What has non L got to do with it ? Do you mean L primes are less likely to have IS than a non L lens ?

More likely the aperture has more to do with it. You name me an f/1.4 lens that has IS.

 

[ahsanford]

What has non L got to do with it ? Do you mean L primes are less likely to have IS than a non L lens ?

More likely the aperture has more to do with it. You name me an f/1.4 lens that has IS.

That's fair. I still think Canon will keep its L standard primes without IS for size/weight reasons whereas slower non-L lenses will get it.

The knuckleball, of course, is 'slower' in the context of a 50mm lens. You can uniquely make a small/light f/1.4 lens at the 50mm focal length, so it's a rare case of mid-level lens at a (nearly) top end speed.

So at a family level, it makes sense all of them get IS. But, on the other hand, for something already with f/1.4, yes, adding IS introduces a boatload of questions: will they charge too much for it, will it steal the L's thunder, will it get really big/heavy, etc.

And THAT is why I call it the f/nooneknows IS USM. I'd rather they abandon the aperture (just a shade, say f/1.8 or f/2) than make it a pickle jar.

- A