Where are the new Canon 50mm and 85mm lenses?

[switters]

I know Canon generally has the edge over Nikon in terms of lenses, but I do find myself coveting the Nikon 35/50/85 f1.8Gs. They're compact, lightweight, sharp, and have great IQ.

Canon has the 35 IS, which gets great reviews, but where's the new 50mm or 85mm? I shoot with a 24-70 II and 70-200 IS a lot, and while I love the high IQ of the Sigma 35A and 50A, I prefer my primes to be lightweight alternatives to those huge zooms.

I know others feel differently, but I prefer the extra bit of speed (even though it's small) of the Nikon versions to IS, because I mostly shoot people, and they tend to move a lot—especially kids.

I haven't seen any rumors about these lenses for a while. Are they even in the pipeline? If not, I wonder why not?

 

[Khalai]

That makes two of us (of tens of thousands I suppose)

I've been eagerly waiting for a new 50mm in the same range as recent 24/28/35 primes. Add in a nice 85mm and there it goes the midrange prime lineup again. Canon is sorely missing a new 50mm. I don't care if it's only 50/1.8 as long as it has proper ring USM, maybe IS would not hurt and it's decently sharp on that 1.8. I'd love to see 1.4 there of course, but I'm not getting my hopes too high

 

[zlatko]

I have no doubt they will come. But when is anyone's guess. I'm eagerly awaiting them too. In the meantime, I'm still using the 50/1.4 and 85/1.8.

 

[switters]

I have no doubt they will come. But when is anyone's guess. I'm eagerly awaiting them too. In the meantime, I'm still using the 50/1.4 and 85/1.8.

I wish I was satisfied with those lenses. Hate to sound like a snob, but the 24-70 and 70-200 are so good that I definitely notice the difference in quality when I've tried the 50/1.4 and 85/1.8.

I have not yet tried the 35 IS, but I hear it's excellent (maybe not quite as good as the Sigma, but a lot smaller and lighter).

 

[ajfotofilmagem]

I gave up waiting for Canon, and changed my Canon 50mm F1.4 for a Sigma Art.
In the future, when we finally release a Canon 50mm Image Stabilizer, I can feel envious of compact size, but the image quality wide open should not exceed my Sigma Art.

I do not doubt that we will see a 85mm Art before Canon do your homework.

 

[switters]

I have the Sigma 35A and it's incredible. I've been eyeing the 50A, but man, I really want lighter, smaller primes.

Then again, maybe I should just buy a small mirrorless system as an alternative for when size/weight matter.

 

[wsheldon]

I have the Sigma 35A and it's incredible. I've been eyeing the 50A, but man, I really want lighter, smaller primes.

Then again, maybe I should just buy a small mirrorless system as an alternative for when size/weight matter.

I tried that route, buying a cheap micro 4/3 system used (Olympus PEN E-PL5) for ~$200, but finding high quality lenses that don't cost as much/more than EF equivalents has been a problem. The cheap kit lenses have pretty mediocre IQ, but going up-market quickly gets you to $500-$1000 each. Due to the smaller sensor, IQ starts dropping due to diffraction by f5.6 so it's ideal to start with the biggest aperture you can, but selection is poor and prices are high for what you get. I eventually found a good price on a lightly used Panasonic 20/f1.7 (~$250), but I'm stuck with so-so Olympus 14-42 and 45-150 to round out my kit and I can't find a really good wider angle I can afford.

That said, it is a joy to carry around a 3-lens kit covering 28mm-300mm (FF equivalent) in a tiny bag that only weighs a pound or two, and still get great 16 mpix images that hold up well to ~1600 ISO, but the ergonomics suck compared to my 6D and I just don't enjoy photography as much.

A larger mirrorless with built-in viewfinder would be better, but then you're too close to the 6D in size/weight/price, so I don't see the point unless you're after some other specialized feature (like 4K video, focus peaking, etc). So going mirrorless is no panacea in my experience, tempting as it as (and practical).

Regarding the OP, I would really like to see an improved 50/1.4 or 85/1.8 (or 1.4) as well. I like the 85/1.8, and have gotten some great images with it, but the obvious purple fringing below f2.8 does really limit it's usefulness for shallow DOF work. I have bought and sold 2 copies of the 50/1.4, finding them terrible below f4 (soft and low contrast), so lots of room for improvement there as well.

 

[drmikeinpdx]

I would give almost anything for a sharp, reliable 50mm lens like the 35 IS that I rented a few months ago.

I have used a Sigma classic 50mm 1.4 for the last few years and am really tired of the erratic autofocus. I rented a Sigma 50mm Art lens and had even worse problems with the autofocus.

A few weeks ago I bought a used 50mm 1.2 L. Guess what, I'm sending it to Canon tomorrow for an attempt at focus calibration. :-X

 

[switters]

I would give almost anything for a sharp, reliable 50mm lens like the 35 IS that I rented a few months ago.

I have used a Sigma classic 50mm 1.4 for the last few years and am really tired of the erratic autofocus. I rented a Sigma 50mm Art lens and had even worse problems with the autofocus.

A few weeks ago I bought a used 50mm 1.2 L. Guess what, I'm sending it to Canon tomorrow for an attempt at focus calibration. :-X

Yeah, I hear you. It took me 3 copies of the Sigma 35A to get one that is *mostly* reliable. I put up with the occasional misses because it's just that good. But I'm nervous about going through the same thing with the Sigma 50A. And I want something smaller!

Sounds like you liked the 35 IS? I've been considering trying it out. If it's even 80% as good as the 35A, I might consider swapping because of the considerable size/weight difference.

Like I said, this is why the D750 + 35/50/85 f1.8G is so appealing. But I love my 5D3, and don't want to give up my 24-70 and 70-200. They're incredible.

 

[eninja]

I would give almost anything for a sharp, reliable 50mm lens like the 35 IS that I rented a few months ago.

I have used a Sigma classic 50mm 1.4 for the last few years and am really tired of the erratic autofocus. I rented a Sigma 50mm Art lens and had even worse problems with the autofocus.

A few weeks ago I bought a used 50mm 1.2 L. Guess what, I'm sending it to Canon tomorrow for an attempt at focus calibration. :-X

Hello, what do you mean by focus calibration? Do you mean AFMA of 50mm 1.2L with your camera body?
I also got a used 50L with warranty for about a month now. Still I can not decide, if its a lens problem or user problem. I seem to shoot at F1.2 to F2.0 at the wrong scenery (portrait with lots of cluttered nearby things around) and it doesn't have the wow effect I am expecting. I use it on both 6D and 70D.
I bought Reikan Focal to AFMA. I couldn't nail AFMA value without this.
I don't know how to do further test, to test my lens. and thinking it might be user setting error.
When all the things are behind the subject, the subject look sharp at F1.2. Otherwise not so good.

If I got time and send it to canon? what should I tell them? Its better to be specific.

 

[ggweci]

I would give almost anything for a sharp, reliable 50mm lens like the 35 IS

Same here. I'd be ok with f1.8 or f2, but would really like a 1.4 version w/ IS. That would be a killer walk around lens for me. And, I think it could be similar in size to the 35mm IS, when looking at past lens sizing (I.e. 35 f2 vs 50 1.4), but I'm no physics expert ;D

A new 85mm would be nice too, especially with the addition of IS, but my 85 1.8 has been good to me, so that's not as pressing as a new 50.

 

[dlee13]

I would give almost anything for a sharp, reliable 50mm lens like the 35 IS that I rented a few months ago.

I have used a Sigma classic 50mm 1.4 for the last few years and am really tired of the erratic autofocus. I rented a Sigma 50mm Art lens and had even worse problems with the autofocus.

A few weeks ago I bought a used 50mm 1.2 L. Guess what, I'm sending it to Canon tomorrow for an attempt at focus calibration. :-X

Sounds like you liked the 35 IS? I've been considering trying it out. If it's even 80% as good as the 35A, I might consider swapping because of the considerable size/weight difference.

The 35 IS isn't 80% as good as the Sigma, it's 98% as good as the Sigma (Sigma can do f1.4 if you need that and it has less vignette wide open!).

Prior to getting my 35 IS I would have love a new Canon 50mm f1.4, but now I prefer the 35mm focal length so I would be much more interested in an 85 IS!

 

[GMCPhotographics]

The Canon 50mm primes are the most disappointing set of lenses in Canon's portfolio. I've owned and used professionally every one of them except the 50mm f1.0 L and all of them have been disappointing when compared to the results from other Canon prime lenses. The build of a 50mm f1.2 L is impressive and it's a great lens, but it's just not as sharp as it's price tag would indicate (even stopped down). Shortly after it was released it's new value plummetted and stayed quite low for a long time. Then one day Canon raised it's prices and bumped it's price point because it was erm...f1.2 and therefore worth more. The saddest thing is that it's really tricky lens to use and one which most people go for if they are dabbling with a pro prime lens itch. The 35L and 85IIL are far better performing lenses.

I'm sure that Canon have a new set of 50's in development, but when is anyone's guess.

As to 85mm lenses....Canon already have those covered and they are both awesome.

 

[bereninga]

I def would like a Canon 50mm 1.4 IS. Not sure why Canon hasn't released one yet! Maybe they're ok w/ the Sigma 50mm out there laden w/ AF issues. I got a feel for the Sigma 50mm Art in a store, and it's way heavier than I thought it would be. It's so ridiculously heavy that I would not consider bringing it on a trip. It's not by any means a travel lens, which I'm hoping Canon's future 50mm 1.4 IS would be. ;D

 

[Viggo]

Had two 35 Art with utterly useless AF. bought the 50 Art, completely useless, got a new one under warranty, it worked for 6 months, now same AF issue as the three other Art lenses. Got the report from my service shop today; "cleaned HSM unit". I'm like , yeah! That'll work...

 

[mackguyver]

As long as Canon keeps selling the 50 f/1.4 and 85 f/1.8 like they have been, I think we'll be in for a long wait. Those lens productions must be almost pure profit at this point and while they aren't the world's best lenses, they are good enough for a great many people. The 24, 28, and 35 lenses were rather poor in comparison and not good sellers from what I understand, so the economics to replace them made sense. Sigma certainly hears the voices of discontent, however...

 

[ashmadux]

The Canon 50mm primes are the most disappointing set of lenses in Canon's portfolio. I've owned and used professionally every one of them except the 50mm f1.0 L and all of them have been disappointing when compared to the results from other Canon prime lenses. The build of a 50mm f1.2 L is impressive and it's a great lens, but it's just not as sharp as it's price tag would indicate (even stopped down). Shortly after it was released it's new value plummeted and stayed quite low for a long time. Then one day Canon raised it's prices and bumped it's price point because it was erm...f1.2 and therefore worth more. The saddest thing is that it's really tricky lens to use and one which most people go for if they are dabbling with a pro prime lens itch. The 35L and 85IIL are far better performing lenses.

I'm sure that Canon have a new set of 50's in development, but when is anyone's guess.

As to 85mm lenses....Canon already have those covered and they are both awesome.

Interesting take.

I feel like the 50 1.4 has a MUCH better rendering profile than most other non L canon primes. The 85 especially suffers from fringing wide open, and has a veeeeery flat profile. Its a great lens and af is blazing, but i sold it because it was too long for crop and all that purple fringing drove me nuts.

A 50 1.4 with IS would simply kill. I think we would all buy one. But i would want it to keep the beautiful rendering of the current version, not so much the still good 35IS.

 

[Hjalmarg1]

Put me in the waiting list

 

[RustyTheGeek]

As long as Canon keeps selling the 50 f/1.4 and 85 f/1.8 like they have been, I think we'll be in for a long wait. Those lens productions must be almost pure profit at this point and while they aren't the world's best lenses, they are good enough for a great many people. The 24, 28, and 35 lenses were rather poor in comparison and not good sellers from what I understand, so the economics to replace them made sense. Sigma certainly hears the voices of discontent, however...

This is pretty much what I think as well. The 50/1.4 and 85/1.8 are great as they are so the improvement will be harder to sell at a higher price point. Canon knows that the ROI for a prime lens factors heavily into pro shooters' decisions and many already own the existing 50 and 85. Canon must find or somehow create a demand for the replacement versions and that was a lot easier with lackluster 24, 28 and 35 version 1 lenses. And while they're at it, Canon doesn't want to create an EF lens that is so good that the L versions become less of an upgrade at their even higher price point!

I assume zooms probably sell much better at a higher price point so they get all the love first.

 

[sdsr]

I have the Sigma 35A and it's incredible. I've been eyeing the 50A, but man, I really want lighter, smaller primes.

Then again, maybe I should just buy a small mirrorless system as an alternative for when size/weight matter.

A problem with small, mirrorless systems is that if you want AF and high image quality you can pay quite a lot for the - often considerable - size/weight advantage. The FF Sony a7 series provides the best image quality, but their two primes, which seem weightless and tiny compared to the Sigma 50A, cost (barring sales etc.) $800 (35mm 2.8) and $1000 (55 1.8); superb lenses, especially the 55mm, but for that price you might expect something faster. M43 offers a wide range of small, good-to-excellent light primes, but as wsheldon points out the native options aren't cheap (all but three cost >$500) and, aside from a couple of cheap but not-really-fast-enough-for-m43 Sigmas, the third party alternatives are more expensive still (and typically don't provide AF). Plus, the best EVF on any m43 body resides in the OM-D E-M1, which is almost as big as a small dslr and costs not that much less than an a7II and more than an a7. So....

On the other hand, if you don't need AF, you can find amazing bargains and often superb performance with old MF lenses (you could buy ten or more excellent 50-55mm 1.8-1.4 lenses for the price of one Sigma A); and mf is far easier with mirrorless cameras (thanks to in-viewfinder focus peaking and magnification) and ergonomically much more pleasant with lenses designed for mf. But thanks to the crop factor this route isn't much use on m43....

As for the original question, yes, such upgrades would be nice, though I tend to think the flaws of the current EF 50mm 1.4 and 85mm 1.8 are exaggerated. There's obviously some variance in quality control re the 50mm (AF was pretty bad on my first copy), but my main complaint with that lens is that it's unpleasant and tricky to use for mf (because the focus ring is sloppy). As for the 85mm, yes, purple fringing can be annoying, but in many situations I don't see it at all even at 1.8 (it's worse on the 85mm L). Is the much-praised Nikon G significantly better in that regard (if at all)? But if Canon made a new 85mm 1.8 with IS and no (or much less) purple fringing I would probably buy one.